key: cord-0715192-sfwxhnz0
authors: Zhang, Chenyang; Jin, Huaqing; Wen, Yi Feng; Yin, Guosheng
title: Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
date: 2021-09-28
journal: Front Public Health
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.729559
sha: e95c82c17ea46316a1f108de9e02fc73945fb22b
doc_id: 715192
cord_uid: sfwxhnz0

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

The pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) has become a global threat to public health. By August 27, 2021, over 214 million confirmed cases including 4.47 million deaths have been reported (1) . Faced with such a global crisis, identifying effective treatments for COVID-19 is of urgent need and paramount importance for clinical researchers. Development of novel drugs typically takes years of concerted efforts and thus most of the research in COVID-19 treatment has been focused on drug repositioning, i.e., investigating the effectiveness of drugs approved for other diseases on COVID-19 patients. By August 18, 2021, over 11,000 clinical trials related to COVID-19 have been registered worldwide (2) , while only dexamethasone (3, 4) and remdesivir (5, 6) were proven to be clinically effective.

With global efforts on pursuing effective treatments during the pandemic, a large number of short-term randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of small size were conducted and published at a high rate, and some trials were carried out in a rather rush manner which might cause deterioration of trial quality. Timely summaries and analyses of existing clinical trial results can help researchers to better understand various treatments, early terminate investigation on ineffective treatments and provide necessary guidelines for further research and discovery of new treatments. However, the conventional pairwise meta-analysis is limited in simultaneous comparisons among multiple trials and it often fails to capture indirect evidence for treatments that have not been tested in head-to-head comparisons. A network meta-analysis (NMA) which combines both direct and indirect information would be more appropriate to accommodate such a complex situation. Several NMA publications provided useful information on the comparative effectiveness of repurposed drugs for patients with COVID-19 (7, 8) .

During the drug repurposing process, clinicians identify candidate drugs by estimating drug-disease or drug-drug similarities. Drugs with shared chemical structures and mechanisms of action are expected to deliver similar therapeutic applications (9) . Not only should research focus on individual treatment for COVID-19, but it is also of great interest to evaluate a class of treatments with shared clinical properties and biochemical structures. For example, glucocorticoids including methylprednisolone, dexamethasone and hydrocortisone were reported to be associated with reduced 28-day mortality for critical COVID-19 patients (10) .

This NMA aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of available treatments for patients with COVID- 19 . Not only does our NMA evaluate treatments at the drug level, but it also provides an overall estimated effect at the class level which may contain several drugs of similar types via a Bayesian hierarchical model using fixed-effects. Such class levels of treatment evaluation have not been explored in the literature.

This systematic review and NMA were conducted and reported in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for NMAs (11) . A prespecified protocol can be found in Supplementary Materials.

We performed an exhaustive online search for eligible studies in the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (12). The WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database is a global multilingual literature database which gathers the latest COVID-19 related studies as a composite of other databases (e.g., Medline, Global Health, PubMed Central, PsycInfo, Scopus, ProQuest Central, Embase, Web of Science and others). Supplementary Table S1 presents the detailed searching strategy. We updated the literature search weekly to include newly published trials in peer-reviewed journals. The current version of our manuscript includes studies from January 1, 2020 to August 19, 2021. Original articles investigating treatment effects for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. We considered appropriate COVID-19 treatments while excluding (i) herbal medicine; (ii) preventive interventions (e.g., vaccination and mask wearing); (iii) non-drug supportive care; (iv) exercise, psychological and educational treatments. We included studies that compared one intervention with other interventions or the standard of care (SOC).

The outcomes of interest in the NMA included overall mortality, requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV), discharge from hospital on day 14 or the day closest to that, and viral clearance on day 7 or the day closest to that. We evaluated only binary outcomes since most COVID-19 trials had <1-month follow-ups (7) and for such short-term studies, continuous or survival outcomes might not provide a clinically meaningful summary for treatment effect (13) . In addition, clinical definitions of several continuous outcomes, e.g., time to clinical improvement or deterioration, were not consistent across trials. Different reporting patterns of point and interval estimates for continuous outcomes may also cause additional difficulties and biases in the NMA.

We only included RCTs in this NMA because nonrandomized trials and observational studies were considered of low certainty from the causal inference perspective (14) . We included trials published in peer-reviewed journals in English and Chinese regardless of ways of randomization (double-blind, single-blind or open-label) or demographic characteristics.

Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts using the inclusion criteria. Full texts of potentially eligible studies were further assessed for eligibility. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and, if necessary, a third investigator was consulted.

Data extraction was conducted by two investigators independently. For each eligible study, we collected trial characteristics, interventions, demographic characteristics and outcomes of interest. For binary outcomes of interest, numbers of events and overall numbers of patients were collected. Two reviewers resolved discrepancies via discussion and a third party adjudicated if any conflict arose. For multiple reports on the same trial, we adopted the latest peer-reviewed publication.

For each eligible trial, we used a revision (7) of version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0) (15) to assess risk of bias in RCTs. Detailed RoB judgments were listed in Supplementary Materials. Two reviewers separately completed the RoB assessment and, in presence of any disagreement, a third party made the final decision.

In the network, each node represents a treatment, regardless of the dose or duration of administration. For studies involving different doses or durations of the same drug, we aggregated data of the same drug into one arm. Each multi-arm trial was treated as a single study in the network analysis, instead of being split into multiple two-arm sub-trials. Interventions comprising more than one drug (i.e., combination therapy) were treated as separate treatment nodes. For each clinical outcome, we excluded the treatments appearing in only one trial with fewer than 100 patients to alleviate potential risk caused by inadequate information. We plotted the network for each outcome of interest using the igraph (16) package of R version 4.0.3 (RStudio, Boston, MA).

We considered a hierarchical model structure for investigated interventions where the relative effects compared with SOC were nested within drug classifications. Based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System with Defined Daily Doses (ATC/DDD) (17) published by WHO, we classified included drugs by the second level of their ATC/DDD codes. For investigational drugs without ATC/DDD codes, we determined their classifications according to the pharmacological mechanism and therapeutic use. The detailed Bayesian hierarchical model structure for the NMA is shown in Supplementary Materials.

We fitted the Bayesian NMA model and generated posterior samples of parameters using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm. The treatment effects of eligible drugs were evaluated in terms of the odds ratio (OR) estimated by the posterior mean and corresponding equal-tailed 95% credible interval (CrI). To obtain direct and indirect estimates for treatment effects and assess local inconsistency in the network, we considered the node-splitting method (18) . The MCMC sampling was performed using the jagsUI (19, 20) package, and further network analyses were performed using the gemtc (21) package of R.

The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach for NMA (14) was used to rate the certainty of evidence of NMA estimates. Two investigators rated the certainty of each treatment comparison independently and resolved discrepancies by discussions and, if necessary, consulted with a third party. Detailed ratings and rationales for GRADE were provided in Supplementary Materials.

Planned subgroup analyses were conducted for mild/moderate vs. severe/critical COVID-19 patients. In addition to Bayesian fixed-effects NMA, we also performed Bayesian random-effects NMA. Several RCTs which were designed to be multi-arm trials but reported results for different interventions vs. SOC as if they has been compared in separated two-arm studies. In the primary analysis, we treated these RCTs as multi-arm, and the SOC group with the largest number of participants was used if the periods of patient enrolment of specified interventions had overlaps, otherwise we considered a new SOC group which combined the SOC groups of all studies for the same RCT. In addition, we performed a sensitivity analysis by treating these multi-arm RCTs as separated two-arm trials.

According to the prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified and screened titles and abstracts of 11,626 studies. Among these, 402 studies were further reviewed for full text and 222 eligible studies were included in the systematic review. Out of the 222 studies, 31 studies were not considered in the meta-analysis. Among them, nine studies investigated different doses or durations of administration of the same intervention without comparisons with other interventions or SOC, 19 trials did not report outcomes of interest, and treatments in three trials were not connected in the network.

Among the 191 studies included in the quantitative synthesis, 179 unique RCTs were reported, which evaluated the efficacy of 94 different COVID-19 treatments from 41 classes. The RECOVERY trial (NCT04381936) was reported in six studies (3, (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) . According to an early version of the protocol of the RECOVERY trial (27), the main randomization consisted of two parts: (A) lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and dexamethasone vs. SOC; (B) convalescent plasma vs. SOC. Patients after the main randomization but with progressive COVID-19 would undergo a second randomization to either tocilizumab or SOC groups. Therefore, in the primary analysis we treated the studies of convalescent plasma (25) and tocilizumab (24) as separated two-arm trials and the four studies of lopinavir/ritonavir (22), hydroxychloroquine (26), azithromycin (23) and dexamethasone (3) vs. SOC as a five-arm trial. The SOC group with the largest number of patients (23) was used. Clinical results of the PRINCIPLE trial (ISRCTN86534580) were shown in three studies (28-30) comparing azithromycin, budesonide and doxycycline with SOC, respectively. Due to no overlap between the enrolment periods of the azithromycin and budesonide studies, we created a new SOC group by combining the two SOC groups and the PRINCIPLE trial was considered as a four-arm trial in the primary analysis. The REMAP-CAP trial (NCT02735707) was reported in three studies which investigated tocilizumab vs. sarilumab vs. SOC (31), hydrocortisone vs. SOC (32) and hydroxychloroquine vs. lopinavir/ritonavir vs. hydroxychloroquine plus lopinavir/ritonavir vs. SOC (33) with patients overlapped in the SOC arms. Thus, we treated it as a seven-arm trial and used the SOC group including the most patients (31) . The DISCOVERY trial (34) was a participant of the WHO SOLIDARITY trial (35) while it reported additional endpoints of interest. The observed outcomes of the SOLIDARITY trial (35) were used in the NMA if existed, otherwise we considered those in the DISCOVERY trial (34) . The phases II and III of the BLAZE-1 trial (NCT04427501) (36, 37) were reported in two separated articles and we simply merged results of the two stages as one RCT in the primary analysis. The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC Investigators examined the clinical effect of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19 and presented their results for critically ill and non-critical patients in two publications, respectively (38, 39). In the primary analysis, we combined results of these two articles and in the subgroup analysis on baseline illness severity, they were treated separately.

A total of 179 studies including 96,872 patients reported all-cause mortality. After filtering out treatments with small sample sizes, 132 studies remained in the analysis (3, 6, 22-26, 28-33, and the network included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), ammonium chloride, azithromycin, bamlanivimab, baricitinib plus remdesivir, budesonide, camostat mesilate, canakinumab, chloroquine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, dapagliflozin, dexamethasone, doxycycline, favipiravir, hydrocortisone, hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine plus favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine plus lopinavir/ritonavir, imatinib, INM005, interferon beta, intravenous immunoglobulin, ivermectin, lopinavir/ritonavir, mesenchymal stem cells, methylprednisolone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF), remdesivir, sarilumab, sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir, sulodexide, therapeutic anticoagulation, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, vitamin C, vitamin D3 and SOC. Among these 132 studies, the risk of bias was accessed to be low for 44 trials and the other 88 were of high risk of bias (Supplementary Table 5 The class of antigout preparations, immunosuppressants plus antivirals for systemic use, anthelmintics, immunosuppressants immune sera and immunoglobulins, might be of potential benefit due to their relatively large posterior probabilities (higher than 0.9) favoring treatment and the other classes showed no difference from SOC.

Under the random-effects model, the estimated treatment effects relative to SOC were similar to those under the fixed-effects model but with wider credible intervals, e.g., tocilizumab with an OR of 0.91 (95% CrI [0. 74,1.16] ). In the sensitivity analysis by treating part A in the main randomization of RECOVERY (3, 22, 23, 26) , PRINCIPLE (28-30), REMAP-CAP (31, 32), BLAZE-1 and two therapeuticdose anticoagulation trials for critical and noncritical patients (36, 37) as separated trials, all estimates were close to those in the primary analysis except for dexamethasone, which reported an OR of 0. 97 (Figure 3) . Immunostimulants (interferon beta and recombinant human GCSF) showed significant benefit on the reduction of mechanical ventilation (Figure 4) . 

A total of 45 studies including 6,631 patients reported viral clearance rates and after eliminating treatments with inadequate numbers of patients, 32 studies were considered in the NMA (36, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 65, 68, 71, 72, 76, 78, 80, 91, 106, 109, 119, 132, 136, 137, 141, 153, (157) (158) (159) (160) (161) (162) (163) (164) (165) (166) , of which 10 were assessed as low risk (Supplementary Table 8 (Figure 5 ). The classes of anthelmintics (ivermectin), anthelmintics plus antibacterials for systemic use (ivermectin plus doxycycline), antiprotozoals (hydroxychloroquine and nitazoxanide), blood substitutes and perfusion solutions (convalescent plasma) and endocrine therapy (proxalutamide) led to higher viral clearance rates compared with SOC with posterior probability favoring treatment larger than 0.9.

Under the random-effects model, convalescent plasma, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine and nitazoxanide did not show superiority over SOC, while ivermectin (OR 2.70, 95% CrI [1.24, 6.12]) and proxalutamide (OR 10.33, 95% CrI [2.72, 39 .20]) were still effective in virus elimination. Trials published in multiple articles did not report viral clearance and thus no sensitivity analysis was carried out. Subgroup analysis (Supplementary Figure S12) revealed improved viral elimination using convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide compared with SOC for mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. For patients with severe/critical COVID-19, convalescent plasma (OR 2.74, 95% CrI [1.45, 5.27]) reported a higher viral clearance rate around day 7 after treatment compared with SOC (Supplementary Figure S13) .

In this systematic review and NMA, we provided a detailed summary of trial characteristics of published RCTs for confirmed COVID-19 patients up to August 19, 2021 and reported effectiveness of treatments at both the drug and class levels in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Compared with SOC, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab were shown to reduce the risk of mortality; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human GCSF and tocilizumab resulted in fewer events of mechanical ventilation; patients who received convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide had a higher viral elimination rate; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir demonstrated their effectiveness with significantly higher 14-day hospital discharge rates.

At the class level of treatments, antineoplastic agents including bamlanivimab, imatinib and INM005 could reduce mortality; immunostimulants containing interferon beta and recombinant human GCSF showed clinical benefit over SOC in reducing mechanical ventilation; immunosuppressants consisting of canakinumab, sarilumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib led to higher hospital discharge rates around 14 days, and the use of anthelmintics (ivermectin), anthelmintics plus antibacterials for systemic use (ivermectin plus doxycycline), endocrine therapy (proxalutamide) increased the rate of viral clearance on day 7. For other classes and outcomes, we observed no significant difference from SOC.

With an urgent need to identify effective treatments for COVID-19, researchers desired to aggregate information from individual trials investigating various interventions and, toward this goal, several NMAs for pharmacological interventions of COVID-19 have been published. Siemieniuk et al. (7) conducted a living systematic review and NMA for RCTs up to March 1, 2021 to evaluate the efficacy of potential COVID-19 treatments. They found corticosteroids (budesonide, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone and methylprednisolone) and Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib and ruxolitinib) could reduce death, mechanical ventilation, and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation; interleukin-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab) reduced mechanical ventilation and lengths of hospital stay. Kim et al. (167) reported improved outcomes for patients receiving anti-inflammatory agents (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, anakinra, and intravenous immunoglobulin), convalescent plasma, and remdesivir in their NMA including both RCTs and observational studies up to August 24, 2020. The majority of our findings are consistent with previous research except for the significant treatment effects of dexamethasone and corticosteroids due to the discrepancies among different SOC arms when we treated RECOVERY (3, 22, 23, 26) as one multi-arm trial. More treatments with clinical effectiveness against COVID-19 have been identified by including recently published studies in our NMA.

On the other hand, pairwise meta-analyses for a single drug vs. SOC have also revealed clinical benefits of potential COVID-19 treatments with accumulated evidence from completed studies. For example, tocilizumab led to reduction in mortality (168, 169) , ventilation (170) and biomarkers of the COVID-19 infection (171); patients receiving ivermectin had a lower risk of death as well as an increase in the viral clearance rate (172, 173) ; the administration of colchicine resulted in a lower risk of mortality and improvements of clinical outcomes (174) ; remdesivir showed its superiority over SOC with faster recovery, shorter time to clinical improvement and reduction in mortality (175, 176) .

Not only was this NMA timely conducted, but it also included a wide range of RCTs, which contained a large number of common drugs as well as interferons, blood products, mineral and vitamin supplementations. Treatment effects were evaluated in a network at both the individual drug level and class level. Using a hierarchical Bayesian model based on the WHO ATC/DDD classification rule, we grouped the treatments from a scientific and pharmacological perspective and provided a further guideline for discovery of new treatments on COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. One is the low certainty of evidence for many NMA estimates. At the early stage of COVID-19 pandemic, with limited clinical resources and urgent need to obtain trial results, many RCTs were conducted with simplified procedures, e.g., no placebo prepared, leading to downgrading of evidence due to study limitations (177) . Over time, the situation has gradually improved and many double-blind RCTs have been conducted and published recently. Moreover, networks of treatments were sparse because most of the included studies evaluated interventions vs. SOC and there were few direct comparisons among interventions. As we considered COVID-19 RCTs regardless of demographic characteristics, intransitivity existed in many indirect comparisons. For example, hydroxychloroquine trials usually investigated patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, while patients treated by convalescent plasma were mainly of severe/critical illness. Detailed subgroup analysis might help to resolve such problems (see Supplementary Materials) .

Another limitation of this study arises from the evaluation of NMA estimates at the class level. Many investigated classes contained only one treatment, leading to large variation and thus insignificant results. To confirm the superiority of a class of drugs, one should present evidence of stronger strengths. More treatments could have been included in the NMA if the exclusion criteria of treatment nodes were relaxed, while it would inevitably introduce additional bias due to treatments tested with small sample sizes.

In the primary analysis, we only included peer-reviewed studies to maintain the credibility of evidence. However, among such a large number of completed COVID-19 trials, studies reporting positive results or with large sample size were more likely to be published, leading to possible publication bias (178) . To alleviate the potential publication bias, we conducted an exploratory analysis including both peer-reviewed papers and preprints from unpublished studies, for which results were shown in the Supplementary Figures S14-S17 . While caution should be taken on the evidence implied by only preprints since clinical results without peer-reviews should not be trusted equally as those published.

In addition, we mainly focused on the efficacy of interventions in this NMA and did not evaluate the corresponding safety profiles. Evidence from other NMAs (7, 179) showed that most of investigated treatments in this NMA did not lead to increased adverse events, and remdesivir and lopinavir/ritonavir were associated with fewer occurrences of adverse events and serious adverse events, respectively.

Different approaches to dealing with the RECOVERY, REMAP-CAP, PRINCIPLE, BLAZE-1 and therapeutic anticoagulation trials led to discrepancies between results of the primary and sensitivity analyses, especially for dexamethasone. The RECOVERY trial was designed as a multi-arm trial (27) while the numbers of patients randomized to SOC and event rates of outcomes of interest were different across different reports (3, 22, 23, 26) . Although we observed no clinical benefit on the reduction of mortality and increase of the hospital discharge rate for dexamethasone vs. SOC, the sensitivity analysis drew an opposite conclusion and credibility of this finding warrants extra caution.

This systematic review and NMA showed that imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab could reduce the mortality. Patients receiving baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human GCSF and tocilizumab had a lower risk of mechanical ventilation. Administration of tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir led to higher hospital discharge rates. Convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide could improve the viral elimination.

At the treatment class level, compared with SOC, patients receiving antineoplastic agents had a lower risk of death; immunostimulants tended to reduce the need of mechanical ventilation; the use of immunosuppressants led to an increased hospital discharge rate; anthelmintics, anthelmintics plus antibacterials for systemic use and endocrine therapy showed clinical improvements on viral clearance, while these three classes contained only one treatment, for which the evidence might not be sound.

The clinical benefits of several treatments on confirmed COVID-19 patients have been reported in this study. The endpoints of mortality and mechanical ventilation can be viewed as the deterioration of COVID-19 illness, and for clinicians and patients with severe COVID-19, these effective treatments (e.g., tocilizumab, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin, dexamethasone) can prevent or alleviate the progression of disease. Hospital discharge and viral clearance represent the recovery from COVID-19, and patients with mild or moderate illness might suffer less from the SARS-COV2 infection. Overall, tocilizumab performed the best against COVID-19 compared with SOC, which showed its superiority in terms of lower mortality and mechanical ventilation rates as well as a higher hosptical discharge rate.

On the other hand, we found the significance of classes of treatments on each investigated endpoint. The discovery of effective treatments on COVID-19 is still an essential issue, especially after the occurrence of more infective and fatal variants. The efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants on reduced risk of death, mechanical ventilation and increased hosptical discharge, respectively, was shown by our NMA with sound statistical evidence, which shed new light on further research and discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments. Further large clinical trials are still needed to confirm these results.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

CZ and GY contributed to the conception and design of the work. CZ, HJ, and YW collected information and analyzed data used in the systematic review and meta-analysis. CZ and HJ drafted the work. YW and GY substantively revised it. All authors read and approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for the authors' own contributions and to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the work.

This study was supported by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (17308420).

We thank the two referees and Editor for their many constructive and insightful comments that have led to significant improvements in the article. 

Coronavirus resource center JHU. COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) (2021). Available online at

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2021) Available online at

Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with covid-19

Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline

Remdesivir for the treatment of covid-19 -final report

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network metaanalysis

Effect of remdesivir on patients with COVID-19: A network meta-analysis of randomized control trials

Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations

Association between administration of systemic corticosteroids and mortality among critically Ill patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations

Survival analysis of treatment efficacy in comparative COVID-19 studies

A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis

RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

The igraph software package for complex network research

World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment (2020)

Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis

) an adverse clinical course in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

Doxycycline for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at high risk of adverse outcomes in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

Effect of hydrocortisone on mortality and organ support in patients with severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 corticosteroid domain randomized clinical trial

Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial

Antiviral drugs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 -the DisCoVeRy trial. medRxiv

Repurposed antiviral drugs for covid-19 -interim WHO solidarity trial results

Effect of bamlanivimab as monotherapy or in combination with etesevimab on viral load in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in noncritically Ill patients with covid-19

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: the COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Effects of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors on early outcomes of hypertensive COVID-19 Patients: a randomized triple-blind clinical trial

Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19: a multicenter randomized controlled study

Hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (hahps): results of a randomized, active comparator trial

Evaluation of the effects of remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine on viral clearance in COVID-19: A randomized trial

Hydroxychloroquine in nonhospitalized adults with early covid-19: a randomized trial

A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of interferon β-1a in treatment of severe COVID-19

Efficacy of favipiravir in COVID-19 treatment: a multi-center randomized study

Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial

Evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of adding ivermectin to treatment in severe COVID-19 patients

Methylprednisolone or dexamethasone, which one is superior corticosteroid in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial

Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial

The use of intravenous immunoglobulin gamma for the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial

Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate covid-19 in adults in India: open label phase II multicentre randomised controlled trial (PLACID Trial)

Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial

Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial

Efficacy of convalescent plasma for treatment of COVID-19 in Uganda

Hydroxychloroquine in mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a placebocontrolled double blind trial

Effects of ivermectin in patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Methylprednisolone as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19; Metcovid): A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase IIb, Placebo-controlled Trial

BCN PEP-CoV-2 RESEARCH GROUP. hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of adults with mild covid-19: a randomized-controlled trial

Assessing the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as outpatient treatment of COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 convalescent plasma vs. standard plasma in coronavirus disease 2019 infected hospitalized patients in New York: A double-blind randomized trial

Hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 IVIG (C-IVIG) treatment in severe and critical COVID-19 patients: A phase I/II randomized control trial

Efficacy of the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate in patients hospitalized with Covid-19-a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for treatment of early SARS-CoV-2 infection among high-risk outpatient adults: A randomized clinical trial

Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial

RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab)2 fragments of equine antibodies in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebocontrolled, adaptive phase 2/3 clinical trial

Randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for virologic cure of non-severe Covid-19

Abstract #1002919: endocrine therapy for COVID19: A randomized pilot study using calcitriol

Safety and effectiveness of high-dose vitamin C in patients with COVID-19: a randomized open-label clinical trial

Clinical outcomes and plasma concentrations of baloxavir marboxil and favipiravir in COVID-19 patients: an exploratory randomized, controlled trial

Convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients: an open-label, randomised clinical trial

Azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19-a randomised double-blinded placebocontrolled trial

No clinical benefit of high dose corticosteroid administration in patients with COVID-19: A preliminary report of a randomized clinical trial

Clinical outcomes of using remdesivir in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19: A prospective randomised study

Favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine combination therapy in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 (FACCT Trial): an openlabel, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

Safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia

Favipiravir in the treatment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 RNA recurrent positive after discharge: A multicenter, open-label, randomized trial

Effect of Ammonium Chloride in addition to standard of care in outpatients and hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a randomized clinical trial

Efficacy and safety of favipiravir, an oral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor, in mild-to-moderate COVID-19: A randomized, comparative, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the immunomodulatory effect of convalescent plasma on COVID-19-related cytokine storm

Interferon β-1b in treatment of severe COVID-19: A randomized clinical trial

Evaluating the effects of Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIg) on the management of severe COVID-19 cases: A randomized controlled trial

A randomized double-blind controlled trial of convalescent plasma in adults with severe COVID-19

A phase II safety and efficacy study on prognosis of moderate pneumonia in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with regular intravenous immunoglobulin therapy

Efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir or ravidasvir in patients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial

Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study

Effect of calcifediol treatment and best available therapy vs. best available therapy on intensive care unit admission and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A pilot randomized clinical study

Effect of canakinumab vs placebo on survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of hydrocortisone on 21-day mortality or respiratory support among critically ill patients with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of convalescent plasma therapy on time to clinical improvement in patients with severe and life-threatening COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of discontinuing vs continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin ii receptor blockers on days alive and out of the hospital in patients admitted with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of ivermectin on time to resolution of symptoms among adults with mild COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of a single high dose of vitamin D3 on hospital length of stay in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of oral azithromycin vs placebo on COVID-19 symptoms in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of hydroxychloroquine on clinical status at 14 days in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of remdesivir vs standard care on clinical status at 11 days in patients with moderate COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of dexamethasone on days alive and ventilator-free in patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19: The CoDEX randomized clinical trial

Effect of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and lymphopenia: a randomized clinical trial

Effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a follow-up of the CORIMUNO-TOCI-1 randomized clinical trial

Effect of tocilizumab vs standard care on clinical worsening in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of colchicine vs standard care on cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019: the GRECCO-19 randomized clinical trial

Effect of high-dose zinc and ascorbic acid supplementation vs usual care on symptom length and reduction among ambulatory patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: the COVID A to Z randomized clinical trial

Effect of early treatment with hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir and ritonavir on risk of hospitalization among patients with COVID-19: The TOGETHER randomized clinical trial

Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir compared with standard of care in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe coronavirus infection (COVID-19): a randomized controlled trial

Evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19: A Double-blind randomized placebo controlled trial in Eastern India

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care vs. standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial

Therapeutic vs. prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

Dapagliflozin in patients with cardiometabolic risk factors hospitalised with COVID-19 (DARE-19): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, doubleblind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

Discontinuation vs. continuation of renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors in COVID-19 (ACEI-COVID): a prospective, parallel group, randomised, controlled, open-label trial

Continuation vs. discontinuation of reninangiotensin system inhibitors in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a prospective, randomised, open-label trial

Azithromycin vs. standard care in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (ATOMIC2): an open-label, randomised trial

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Tocilizumab plus standard care vs. standard care in patients in India with moderate to severe COVID-19-associated cytokine release syndrome (COVINTOC): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

Colchicine for community-treated patients with COVID-19 (COLCORONA): a phase 3, randomised, double-blinded, adaptive, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

Efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol in adult patients with mild/moderate COVID-19: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

Open-label randomized control trial of hydroxychloroquine in patients with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 infection

A neutralizing monoclonal antibody for hospitalized patients with Covid-19

Tofacitinib in patients hospitalized with covid-19 pneumonia

Early high-titer plasma therapy to prevent severe Covid-19 in older adults

Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia

Tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia

Efficacy of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with Covid-19

Effects of potent neutralizing antibodies from convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection

A trial of lopinavirritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19

Baricitinib plus remdesivir for hospitalized adults with covid-19

A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia

Treating COVID-19 With Hydroxychloroquine (TEACH): A Multicenter, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial in Hospitalized Patients

Safety of remdesivir vs standard care in patients with moderate covid-19

71 Use of intravenous immunoglobulin therapy reduces progression to mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe hypoxia

Phase 2 randomized study on chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin in hospitalized patients with severe manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hydroxychloroquine and a retrospective study in adult patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Ivermectin shows clinical benefits in mild to moderate COVID19: a randomized controlled double-blind, dose-response study in Lagos

Early Use of corticosteroid may prolong SARS-CoV-2 shedding in non-intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized control trial

Role of interferon therapy in severe COVID-19: the COVIFERON randomized controlled trial

Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease

Safety and efficacy of favipiravir vs. hydroxychloroquine in management of COVID-19: A randomised controlled trial

Impact of daily high dose oral vitamin D therapy on the inflammatory markers in patients with COVID 19 disease

Short term survival of critically ill COVID-19 Egyptian patients on assisted ventilation treated by either Dexamethasone or

Therapeutic efficacy of macrolides in management of patients with mild COVID-19

An open-label randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in severe COVID-19 patients

Effect of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells on lung damage in severe COVID-19 patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial

Treatment of severe COVID-19 with human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells

Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A double-blind, phase 1/2a, randomized controlled trial

Umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells as critical COVID-19 adjuvant therapy: A randomized controlled trial

Therapeutic vs. prophylactic anticoagulation for severe COVID-19: A randomized phase II clinical trial (HESACOVID)

Sulodexide in the treatment of patients with early stages of COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial

Methylprednisolone in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia: An open-label randomized trial (GLUCOCOVID)

A pilot study of hydroxychloroquine in treatment of patients with moderate COVID-19. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban

Effect of bromhexine on clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients: A randomized clinical trial

Tocilizumab combined with favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19: A multicenter trial in a small sample size

Effect of bromhexine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

An open-label randomized controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

AVIFAVIR for treatment of patients with moderate COVID-19: interim results of a phase II/III multicenter randomized clinical trial

Proxalutamide significantly accelerates viral clearance and reduces time to clinical remission in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19: results from a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Clearing the fog: is hydroxychloroquine effective in reducing coronavirus disease-2019 progression? A randomized controlled trial

Nitazoxanide superiority to placebo to treat moderate COVID-19 -A Pilot prove of concept randomized double-blind clinical trial

The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial

Clinical, biochemical and molecular evaluations of ivermectin mucoadhesive nanosuspension nasal spray in reducing upper respiratory symptoms of mild COVID-19

A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness

Ivermectin in combination with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 symptoms: a randomized trial

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) Patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Addition of tocilizumab to the standard of care reduces mortality in severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Use of tocilizumab in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence

Tocilizumab administration is associated with the reduction in biomarkers of coronavirus disease 2019 infection

Ivermectin and outcomes from Covid-19 pneumonia: A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized clinical trial studies

Therapeutic potential of ivermectin as add on treatment in COVID 19: A systematic review and metaanalysis: Ivermectin in COVID-19: A meta-analysis

Colchicine treatment can improve outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis

The Effectiveness and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized Covid-19 patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis including network meta-analysis

GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias)

GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for Covid-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

 : The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.Publisher's Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Jin, Wen and Yin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.