This meta-analysis assessed the association between vitamin D supplementation and the outcomes of critically ill adult patients. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase databases until March 21, 2020. We only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation with placebo in critically ill adult patients. The primary outcome was their 28-day mortality. Overall, 9 RCTs with 1867 patients were included. In the pooled analysis of the 9 RCTs, no significant difference was observed in 28-day mortality between the vitamin D supplementation and placebo groups (20.4% vs 21.7%, OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.46–1.15; I² = 51%). This result did not change as per the method of vitamin D supplementation (enteral route only: 19.9% vs 18.2%, OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.88–1.57; I² = 10%; intramuscular or intravenous injection route: 25.6% vs 40.8%, OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.21–1.06; I² = 19%) or daily dose (high dose: 20.9% vs 19.8%, OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51–1.36; I² = 53%; low dose: 15.6% vs 21.3%, OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.32–1.68; I² = 0%). No significant difference was observed between the vitamin D supplementation and placebo groups regarding the length of ICU stay (standard mean difference [SMD], − 0.30; 95% CI, − 0.61 to 0.01; I² = 60%), length of hospital stay (SMD, − 0.17; 95% CI, − 041 to 0.08; I² = 65%), and duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD, − 0.41; 95% CI, − 081 to 0.00; I² = 72%). In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggested that the administration of vitamin D did not provide additional advantages over placebo for critically ill patients. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our findings.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated whether the clinical efficacy of a 5-day antibiotic course is comparable to that of a longer (≥7 d) course for treating adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. were searched before January 18, 2020. RCTs comparing the efficacy of a 5-day antibiotic course with a longer course (≥7 d) for CABP treatment were included. Primary outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). In this meta-analysis, 7 RCTs were included, and the 5-day antibiotic courses group, and a longer course group comprised 1499 and 1522 patients, respectively. The difference in the overall clinical response rates between the 5-day and longer courses (88.3% vs 88.8%, odds ratio [OR], 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.28, I² = 19%) was nonsignificant. Additionally, the microbiological eradication rates did not differ significantly between the groups, at 94.8% and 95.8% in the 5-day and longer courses groups, respectively (OR, 0.84, 95% CI, 0.38-1.87, I² = 0%). Finally, all-cause mortality did not differ between the 2 groups (OR, 0.91, 95% CI, 0.31-2.66, I² = 0%). Five-day treatment and longer antibiotic courses for CABP yield similar clinical and microbiological responses and exhibit similar safety profiles.

Objectives: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations in adult patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and EBSCO databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before September 13, 2020. Only RCTs comparing the treatment efficacy of novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations with other antibiotics for HAP/VAP in adult patients were included in this integrated analysis. Results: Three RCTs were included, and no significant difference in clinical cure rate of the test of cure (TOC) was observed between the novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination and comparators (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.81-1.27; I² = 35%). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 16.2% and 17.6% for patients receiving the novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination and those receiving comparators, respectively, and no significant difference was noted (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69-1.16; I² = 11%). Compared with the comparators, the novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination was associated with a similar microbiological response (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.73-1.54; I² = 64%) and a similar risk of AEs (treatment-emergent AEs [TEAEs]: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30; I² = 0%; serious AEs: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.79-1.63; I² = 68%; treatment discontinuation for TEAE: OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.62-1.31; I² = 11%). Conclusions: The clinical and microbiological responses of novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations in the treatment of HAP/VAP were similar to those of other available antibiotics. These combinations also shared a similar safety profile to that of comparators.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to investigate the efficacy of interferon (IFN)-β–containing regimens in treating patients with COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to July 17, 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of IFN-β–containing regimens (study group) to other antiviral treatment options or placebo (control group) in treating patients with COVID-19 were included. : Eight RCTs were included. No significant difference in the 28–day all –cause mortality rate was observed between the study and control groups (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.44–1.24; I² = 51%). The study groups had a lower rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than the control groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36–0.95; I² = 0%). Furthermore, INF-β was not associated with an increased risk of any adverse event (AE) or serious AE when compared with the control group. IFN-β does not appear to provide an increased survival benefit in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but may help reduce the risk of ICU admission. Moreover, IFN-β is a safe agent for use in the treatment of COVID-19.

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the usefulness of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane...

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir for patients with mild-to-critical COVID-19. PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs published before October 30, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir -based antiviral regimens (study group) with other alternative treatments or placebos (control group) in patients with COVID-19 were included. Overall, the clinical improvement rate was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group at the assessment conducted after 14 days (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.12-2.98). The rate of virological eradication was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group at the assessment conducted after 28 days (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.15-3.78). No significant difference was observed in the rates of invasive mechanical ventilation requirement or ICU admission, mortality, or risk of an adverse event between the study and control groups. Except the clinical improvement rate within 14 days and the virological eradication rate within 28 days, favipiravir-based treatment did not provide significantly additional benefit for patients with COVID-19. Therefore, more evidence is necessary.