Cited by 113SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Open access
Bartoszko, Jessica J, Siemieniuk, Reed AC, Kum, Elena, Qasim, Anila, Zeraatkar, Dena, Martinez, Juan Pablo Diaz, Azab, Maria, Ibrahim, Sara +27 more·2021·BMJ

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Updates: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. Objective: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Data sources: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. Study selection: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation—risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. Conclusion: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. Systematic review registration: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. Funding: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.n949

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation.
  2. Hill A, Abdulamir A, Ahmed S, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection, 19 January 2021, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square 43 The COVID-NMA initiative. A living mapping and living systematic review of Covid-19 trials. Accessed 20 January 2021. https://covid- nma.com/treatments_tested/ 44

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bartoszko, J. J., Siemieniuk, R. A., Kum, E., Qasim, A., Zeraatkar, D., Martinez, J. P. D., Azab, M., Ibrahim, S., Izcovich, A., Soto, G. B., Roldan, Y., Agarwal, A., Agoritsas, T., Chu, D. K., Couban, R., Devji, T., Foroutan, F., Ghadimi, M., Honarmand, K., Khamis, A., Lamontagne, F., Loeb, M., McLeod, S. L., Motaghi, S., Murthy, S., Mustafa, R. A., Rochwerg, B., Switzer, C., Thabane, L., Vandvik, P. O., Vernooij, R. W., Wang, Y., Yao, L., Guyatt, G. H., & Brignardello-Petersen, R.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Hospital Alemán (AR)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
  • Western University (CA)
  • Hull York Medical School (GB)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-04-26
Volume
373
Pages
n949
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3158131439
Cited by
113
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • cIRcle (University of British Columbia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Lanzhou University Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MacSphere (McMaster University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Canadian Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Foundation
  • American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Foundation
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (174897_1, 174897)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
COVID-19 prevention, COVID-19 pandemic, preventive medication, hydroxychloroquine, adverse drug reactions, hospitalization, mortality, drug discontinuation, quality of evidence, risk of bias assessment, GRADE, antiviral agents, antimalarial drugs
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Anti-Infective Agents, Carrageenan, Humans, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Global Health, Treatment Outcome, Chemoprevention, Uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review