potential COVID-19 treatments - versus control - for COVID-19 mild to moderate pdf   xlsx method abbreviations

Outcome Relative effect 95%CI LoD Trt. better when I2 k (RCT/OBS) Bayesian probability Overall ROB Publication bias Degree of certainty Endpoint importance Published MA

efficacy endpoints 00

death D28 0.73 [0.44, 1.21]< 10%7 studies (7/-)88.7 %highnot evaluable lowcrucial-
death or transfer to ICU 1.07 [0.73, 1.57]< 10%1 study (1/-)36.6 %highnot evaluable lowcrucial-
deaths 0.83 [0.69, 1.00]< 10%30 studies (30/-)97.4 %highcritical lowcrucial-
deaths (time to event analysis only) 0.64 [0.21, 1.98]< 10%2 studies (2/-)78.1 %some concernnot evaluable moderatecrucial-
clinical deterioration 0.67 [0.50, 0.89]< 150%15 studies (15/-)99.7 %highlow lowimportant-
clinical improvement 1.29 [1.11, 1.49]> 129%14 studies (14/-)100.0 %highlow lowimportant-
clinical improvement (14-day) 1.19 [0.95, 1.51]> 138%8 studies (8/-)93.3 %some concernnot evaluable moderateimportant-
clinical improvement (21-day) 2.09 [0.04, 119.96]> 10%1 study (1/-)63.7 %some concernnot evaluable moderateimportant-
clinical improvement (28-day) 1.34 [1.10, 1.62]> 146%5 studies (5/-)99.8 %some concernserious moderateimportant-
clinical improvement (7-day) 1.19 [0.95, 1.49]> 165%9 studies (9/-)93.2 %highnot evaluable lowimportant-
clinical improvement (time to event analysis only) 1.27 [1.12, 1.43]> 116%8 studies (8/-)100.0 %highserious lowimportant-
death or ventilation 0.88 [0.62, 1.24]< 164%5 studies (5/-)77.1 %some concernnot evaluable moderateimportant-
hospital discharge 1.29 [1.02, 1.64]> 118%5 studies (5/-)98.4 %highserious lowimportant-
hospitalization 1.00 [0.14, 7.34]< 10%1 study (1/-)50.0 %some concernnot evaluable moderateimportant-
mechanical ventilation 0.79 [0.47, 1.33]< 113%10 studies (10/-)81.3 %highcritical lowimportant-
mechanical ventilation (time to event analysis only) 0.06 [0.01, 0.83]< 10%1 study (1/-)98.2 %some concernnot evaluable moderateimportant-
radiologic improvement (14-day) 1.82 [0.95, 3.51]> 139%4 studies (4/-)96.4 %some concernnot evaluable moderateimportant-
radiologic improvement (7-day) 0.40 [0.02, 6.97]> 177%3 studies (3/-)26.9 %highnot evaluable lowimportant-
viral clearance 1.32 [0.99, 1.76]> 164%13 studies (13/-)97.2 %highcritical lowimportant-
viral clearance (time to event analysis only) 1.12 [0.82, 1.54]> 162%5 studies (5/-)77.1 %highnot evaluable lowimportant-
viral clearance by day 14 1.95 [0.96, 3.94]> 140%8 studies (8/-)96.8 %highserious lowimportant-
viral clearance by day 7 1.17 [0.93, 1.48]> 162%12 studies (12/-)91.5 %highlow lowimportant-
ICU admission 0.84 [0.43, 1.66]< 10%4 studies (4/-)68.8 %highnot evaluable lownon important-
recovery 1.15 [0.99, 1.33]> 10%2 studies (2/-)96.4 %some concernnot evaluable moderatenon important-

safety endpoints 00

serious adverse events 0.73 [0.52, 1.02]< 10%13 studies (13/-)96.8 %highcritical lowimportant-
adverse events 1.89 [1.30, 2.76]< 169%16 studies (16/-)0.0 %highlow lownon important-
arrhythmia 2.24 [0.23, 21.69]< 10%1 study (1/-)24.5 %some concernnot evaluable moderatenon important-
long QT 9.79 [1.27, 75.50]< 10%1 study (1/-)1.5 %some concernnot evaluable moderatenon important-
Major bleeding 1.80 [0.88, 3.67]< 10%1 study (1/-)5.3 %some concernnot evaluable moderatenon important-
renal impairment 1.35 [0.47, 3.86]< 10%1 study (1/-)28.8 %some concernnot evaluable moderatenon important-

LoD: level of statistical demonstration: Statistically conclusive: statistically significant with a strict control of overall risk of type 1 error (statistically demonstrated), does not take into account the risk of bias; suggested: nominally statistically significant but without a strict control of overall risk of type 1 error; inconclusive: not nominally statistically significant; safety concerns;
Bayesian probability: Bayesian posterior probability of treatment effect (computed with a noninformative prior); ROB: risk of bias; k: number of studies; published MA: number of published meta-analysis on the same topic; degree of certainty adapted from GRADE. Trt. better when: indicates when the relative treatment effect shows that the studied treatment is better than control.