Evidence Hub

N-acetylcysteine efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

T. Paraskevas, Anastasios Kantanis, I. Karalis, C. Michailides, V. Karamouzos, I. Koniari, C. Pierrakos, D. Velissaris

Romanian journal of internal medicine = Revue roumaine de medecine interne, 2023

315 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background: N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a mucolytic agents with anti-inflammatory properties that has been suggested as an adjunctive therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate available evidence on the possible beneficial effects of NAC on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: In September 2022, we conducted a comprehensive search on Pubmed/Medline and Embase on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on NAC in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by two independent authors. RCTs and observational studies were analyzed separately. Results: We included 3 RCTs and 5 non-randomized studies on the efficacy of NAC in patients with COVID-19, enrolling 315 and 20826 patients respectively. Regarding in-hospital mortality, the summary effect of all RCTs was OR: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.43 to 1.67, I2=0%) and for non-randomized studies OR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.47 to 2.23, I2=91%). Need for ICU admission was only reported by 1 RCT (OR: 0.86, 95% CI:0.44-1.69, p=0.66), while all included RCTs reported need for invasive ventilation (OR:0.91, 95% CI:0.54 to 1.53, I2=0). Risk of bias was low for all included RCTs, but certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes due to serious imprecision and indirectness. Conclusion: The certainty of evidence in the included studies was very low, thus recommendations for clinical practice…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 315 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free