4.7 Article

JAK-inhibitors for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis

期刊

LEUKEMIA
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 2616-2620

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41375-021-01266-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center [201603]
  2. Program for Guangdong Introducing Innovative and Entrepreneurial Teams [2017ZT07S096]
  3. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

JAK inhibitors show potential benefits in reducing mechanical ventilation and ICU admission in COVID-19 patients, but may not significantly affect hospitalization time or ARDS rates. Both drugs have lower relative risks of death, with timing of treatment during COVID-19 course possibly playing a role in outcome.
We analyzed reports on safety and efficacy of JAK-inhibitors in patients with coronavirus infectious disease-2019 (COVID-19) published between January 1st and March 6th 2021 using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scales for quality assessment. We used disease severity as a proxy for time when JAK-inhibitor therapy was started. We identified 6 cohort studies and 5 clinical trials involving 2367 subjects treated with ruxolitinib (N = 3) or baricitinib 45 (N = 8). Use of JAK-inhibitors decreased use of invasive mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.63; [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.47, 0.84]; P = 0.002) and had borderline impact on rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 0.24 [0.06, 1.02]; P = 0.05) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; RR = 0.50 [0.19, 1.33]; P = 0.16). JAK-inhibitors did not decrease length of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.18 [-4.54, 4.18]; P = 0.94). Relative risks of death for both drugs were 0.42 [0.30, 0.59] (P < 0.001), for ruxolitinib, RR = 0.33 (0.13, 0.88; P = 0.03) and for baricitinib RR = 0.44 (0.31, 0.63; P < 0.001). Timing of JAK-inhibitor treatment during the course of COVID-19 treatment may be important in determining impact on outcome. However, these data are not consistently reported.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据