Aim COVID-19 outbreak spread all over the world and created a public health catastrophe. Here, we have aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on remdesivir use for COVID-19. Methods We searched Pubmed, Pubmed Central, Scopus, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and preprint sites and identified ten studies for qualitative and four studies for quantitative analysis using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed and random effect models in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I2) test. Results Comparing remdesivir group with placebo or standard of care (SOC) group, remdesivir reduces 14 days mortality (OR 0.61, CI 0.41- 0.91), need of mechanical ventilation (OR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.97), and overall severe adverse effects (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88). There is better clinical improvement on day 28 (OR 1.59, CI 1.06- 2.39); day 14 clinical recovery (OR 1.48, CI 1.19-1.84); day 14 discharge rate (OR 1.41, CI 1.15-1.73) among remdesivir groups. Earlier clinical improvement (MD -2.51, CI -4.16 to -0.85); and clinical recovery (MD -4.69, CI -5.11 to -4.28) seen among remdesivir group. While no difference on 28 days mortality rate; discharge rate; overall adverse effect. Longer course (10 days) of remdesivir showed higher discharge rate at day 14 (OR 2.11, CI 1.50-2.97), but there are significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects, and drug discontinuation than the shorter course. Conclusion Remdesivir showed a better 14 days mortality profile, clinical recovery, and discharge rate. Overall clinical improvement and clinical recovery were earlier among remdesivir group.

Aim: Till date, no proven treatment exists for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), though different types of treatment modalities are being practiced around the world. Small-scale convalescent plasma (CP) therapies from COVID-19 recovered donors have shown favorable results with fewer adverse consequences. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of CP as a therapy for COVID-19. Methods: The English language databases of PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect were searched upto 22 May 2020. Eligibility for inclusion, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction from the included studies was determined and a narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: A total of 12 studies were selected for review. The overall risks of bias was high. The results revealed that the initiation of CP therapy during the early stages of viremia was significant in a safety and efficacy viewpoint. The patients were also receiving concomitant drugs and other supportive therapies in 10 studies. Viral loads were documented to decrease and become negative in 8 studies within 3-26 days post-transfusion. The improvement in clinical symptoms following CP therapy was demonstrated in 9 studies. Most of the patients experienced very few adverse effects. There were a total of 622 mortalities out of 5079 patients in total studies. Conclusions: The rational practice of CP therapy based on a risk-benefit judgment can prove to be an efficacious therapeutic option until the approval of any therapeutic and/or prophylactic agent(s), though substantial randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to validate the effectiveness of such therapy.