A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Association of COVID-19 with thyroid dysfunction and autoimmune thyroid disease: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential roles of thyroid-inflammatory derangements in driving or being associated with the prognosis of COVID-19 remain controversial. We aimed to clarify the association between COVID-19 infection and thyroid dysfunction, and highlight the impacts of subsequent autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) on the prognosis of COVID-19.

Methods

The retrospective, multicenter, cohort study enrolled 2,339 participants with COVID-19 from three hospitals located in the north, middle, and south regions of Shaan Xi Province, China, between December 2022 and July 2023. 464 non-COVID-19 patients within the same period were supplemented, divided into groups with and without AITD. At hospital admission (baseline), 3- and 6-month follow-ups, we presented a dynamic description and correlation analysis of thyroid-inflammatory-autoimmune derangements in patients with AITD.

Results

A total of 2,082 COVID-19 patients diagnosed with AITD and 257 cases without AITD were included in the study, and 464 non-COVID-19 patients were supplemented, dividing into 14 AITD and 450 non-AITD cases. We found that COVID-19 infection was closely associated with thyroid dysfunction (χ 2  = 1518.129, p = 0.000). AITD patients with COVID-19 showed a higher prevalence of symptoms and comorbidities and longer hospital stays at baseline than non-AITD patients with COVID-19 (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000). The baseline free triiodothyronine (FT3), free thyroxine, and radioactive iodine uptake at 24 h in AITD cases significantly decreased (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000), while thyroid stimulating hormone, thyroglobulin, reverse triiodothyronine (rT3), and thyroid antibodies varying elevated from the baseline to the follow-up (baseline: p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000; 3-month follow-up: p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.030, and p = 0.000). C-reactive protein, calcitonin, interleukin-6, -8, -10, and tumor necrosis factor-α rose significantly at baseline (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000) in AITD. Interferon-α and interferon-γ at baseline showed a significant decrease (p = 0.000 and p = 0.000), and remained at low levels after 6 months (p = 0.000 and p = 0.000). FT3 and rT3 were positively and negatively correlated with hospitalization, respectively (r = -0.208 and 0.231; p = 0.000 and p = 0.000). ROC curves showed that FT3 and rT3 had better robustness in predicting severe COVID-19 prognosis (AUC = 0.801 and 0.705). Ordered logistic regression revealed that ORs were 0.370, 0.048, and 0.021 for AITD [(subacute thyroiditis, Grave's disease, and Hashimoto's thyroiditis compared to non-thyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS)] with COVID-19 risk, indicating that NTIS was the predominant risk factor for the severity of COVID-19.

Conclusions

A robust association has been identified, wherein COVID-19 infection is closely associated with thyroid dysfunction, and the subsequent AITD may aggravate the poor prognosis of COVID-19.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the Immunocompromised Patient

Improving short- and long-term outcomes in immunosuppressed patients, including patients with cancer, solid-organ transplant recipients, and patients with short- and long-term steroid treatment, has led to a paradigm shift in intensive care unit admission policies. Approximately 20% of patients currently admitted to the ICU carry a diagnosis of immune deficiency. In this population, acute respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome are the most frequent causes of ICU admission. Intensivists should therefore be aware of etiologies, diagnostics, and management strategies unique to this population.

Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine therapies for the treatment of mild/moderate acute COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence has emerged for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) to treat COVID-19 which requires systematic summaries of the net benefits of interventions against standard care and one another. The study aims to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) regarding TCIM therapies for treating mild/moderate acute COVID-19, potentially informing the WHO guideline development and clinical decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Embase, MEDLINE, Virtual Health Library on Traditional Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform with additional searches of Chinese and Korean literature sources for randomised controlled trials comparing TCIM with placebo, standard care, no treatment or with an alternate type of TCIM to treat COVID-19. We will limit the search dates from 2020 to 28 March 2024. Reviewers will, in duplicate, screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the risk of bias. We will conduct frequentist network meta-analyses for network comparisons and each outcome. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach and classify interventions from most to least effective or harmful.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This NMA is based on the existing trials and data which is not subject to ethical approval. We will publish the NMA in a peer-reviewed journal. This may provide methodological reference and clinical evidence for TCIM on future epidemic-prone diseases.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024517321.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of simnotrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19: A nationwide, multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study in China

BACKGROUND

Simnotrelvir has demonstrated potent anti-viral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In a Phase II/III study, Simnotrelvir plus ritonavir (S/R, co-packaged) shortened the time to the resolution of symptoms in adult COVID-19 patients. However, real-world data on effectiveness of simnotrelvir/ritonavir against SARS-CoV-2 during XBB omicron variant surges are still limited.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a nationwide, multicenter, prospective, observational real-world study at 42 sites in China. Adult patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at disease onset were eligible for participation. Patients were grouped in S/R group (treated with S/R) and control group (not receiving oral antivirals for COVID-19). The primary endpoint was the COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality within 28 days. Secondary endpoints included the time from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to negative conversion, and the time to resolution of COVID-19 symptoms. Besides, serious adverse events (SAE), adverse drug reactions (ADR) and combined medication were reported. Propensity Score-Matched (PSM) analysis (1:1) was performed for adjustment for baseline variables. Hazard ratios (HR) and adjusted risk ratios (aRR) were estimated using the Cox and Modified poisson regression, respectively.

RESULTS

Between June 6, 2023 and December 27, 2023, 3522 patients were enrolled. S/R was associated with a reduced incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization (6/1896 [0.3%] vs. 43/1408 [3.1%]; HR: 0.110, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.043 to 0.283, p<0.001 vs control), consistently with the results after PSM (4/1381 [0.3%] in S/R vs. 40/1381 patients [2.9%]; aRR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.29; P<0.001). No deaths occurred in both S/R and control groups. Matched Patients over 65 and patients with risk factors who received S/R achieved significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization (aRR: 0.032; 95% CI: 0.004, 0.268; aRR: 0.034; 95% CI: 0.005, 0.252, respectively; all P<0.001). Furthermore, S/R shortened the median time to viral clearance by 1 day (6.0 vs 7.0 days; 95% CI: -2.0 to -1.0; P<0.001) and reduced the median time to symptom resolution by 2 days (8.0 days vs 10.0 days; 95% CI: -2.0 to -1.0; P<0.001). Besides, the proportion of patients in the S/R group using combined medication was significantly lower than that in the control group (30.2% vs 49.4%). Subgroup analysis showed potential protective effect of S/R in the elderly and patients with more than 1 risk factor.

CONCLUSION

In real world, S/R significantly reduced the incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization, demonstrated favorable safety profiles, and less use of combined medication.

Effect of Chinese Medicine in Patients with COVID-19: A Multi-center Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese medicine (CM) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China.

METHODS

A multi-center retrospective cohort study was carried out, with cumulative CM treatment period of ⩾3 days during hospitalization as exposure. Data came from consecutive inpatients from December 19, 2019 to May 16, 2020 in 4 medical centers in Wuhan, China. After data extraction, verification and cleaning, confounding factors were adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2,272 COVID-19 patients were included. There were 1,684 patients in the CM group and 588 patients in the control group. Compared with the control group, the hazard ratio (HR) for the deterioration rate in the CM group was 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41 to 0.64, P<0.001]. The results were consistent across patients of varying severity at admission, and the robustness of the results were confirmed by 3 sensitivity analyses. In addition, the HR for all-cause mortality in the CM group was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.19 to 0.44, P<0.001). Regarding of safety, the proportion of patients with abnormal liver function or renal function in the CM group was smaller.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study indicates that the combination of a full-course CM therapy on the basic conventional treatment, may safely reduce the deterioration rate and all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients. This result can provide the new evidence to support the current treatment of COVID-19. Additional prospective clinical trial is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of specific CM interventions. (Registration No. ChiCTR2200062917).

Investigating the Safety Profile of Fast-Track COVID-19 Drugs Using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database: A Comparative Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for multiple coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drugs as a medical countermeasure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these drugs' fast-track nature, concerns persist regarding their efficacy and potential adverse effects. Thus, the continuous surveillance and understanding of these drugs' safety profiles are crucial in such scenarios.

OBJECTIVE

Using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, we aimed to compare the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of four fast-track COVID-19 drugs to explore the potential of real-world data for providing prompt feedback in clinical settings.

METHODS

To evaluate the post-marketing safety of fast-track COVID-19 drugs, we descriptively evaluated the ADRs of four COVID-19 drugs (bebtelovimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and remdesivir) using FAERS data reported from January 2020 to June 2022. We examined FAERS case records of COVID-19 drugs reported as the "primary suspect drug" as a case group and the records of other drugs as the control. "Serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs)" were defined based on FDA guidelines. Using reporting odds ratios, disproportionality analysis was conducted to determine significant signals for ADRs related to each of the four drugs compared with those of others, both at the preferred term (PT) and system organ class (SOC) levels. To explore the occurrence of reporting each serious outcome reported to the four drugs, we fitted logistic regression models, adjusting for age and sex.

RESULTS

During the study period, 5 248 221 cases were submitted to FAERS, including 17 275 cases of the four COVID-19 drugs: bebtelovimab (532 cases), molnupiravir (1106 cases), nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (9217 cases), and remdesivir (6420 cases). A total of 64, 46, 116, and 207 PTs with significant disproportionality were identified for each drug, respectively. "Infusion-related reaction" (18.4%), "diarrhea" (7.4%), "dysgeusia" (11.4%), and "increased alanine aminotransferase" (14.5%) were the most frequently reported SADRs for bebtelovimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and remdesivir, respectively. Among the 27 SOCs, statistically significant signals were observed in 10, 3, 0, and 8 SOCs for bebtelovimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and remdesivir, respectively. Remdesivir showed a higher occurrence for the reporting of death or life-threatening ADRs compared with the control (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.23-2.59; adjusted OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.64-2.02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified potential ADRs associated with COVID-19 drugs and provided insights into their real-world safety. This study demonstrated that real-world data and real-time safety reviews could be effective methods for the timely detection of ADR signals of drugs that have received fast-track approval, as exemplified by COVID-19 drugs. These findings underscore the importance of the continued surveillance, efficient data processing, and establishment of automated pipelines for real-time safety reviews.

"Spanish flu," encephalitis lethargica, and COVID-19: Progress made, lessons learned, and directions for future research

One hundred years ago, an influenza pandemic swept across the globe that coincided with the development of a neurological condition, named "encephalitis lethargica" for the occurrence of its main symptom, the sudden onset of sleepiness that either developed into coma or gradually receded. Between 1917 and 1920, mortality of the flu was >20 million and of encephalitis lethargica approximately 1 million. For lessons to be learned from this pandemic, it makes sense to compare it with the COVID-19 pandemic, which occurred 100 years later. Biomedical progress had enabled testing, vaccinations, and drug therapies accompanied by public health measures such as social distancing, contact tracing, wearing face masks, and frequent hand washing. From todays' perspective, these public health measures are time honored but not sufficiently proven effective, especially when applied in the context of a vaccination strategy. Also, the protective effects of lockdowns of schools, universities, and other institutions and the restrictions on travel and personal visits to hospitals or old-age homes are not precisely known. Preparedness is still a demand for a future pandemic. Clinical trials should determine the comparative effectiveness of such public health measures, especially for their use as a combination strategy with vaccination and individual testing of asymptomatic individuals. It is important for neurologists to realize that during a pandemic the treatment possibilities for acute stroke and other neurological emergencies are reduced, which has previously led to an increase of mortality and suffering. To increase preparedness for a future pandemic, neurologists play an important role, as the case load of acute and chronic neurological patients will be higher as well as the needs for rehabilitation. Finally, new chronic forms of postviral disease will likely be added, as was the case for postencephalitic parkinsonism a century ago and now has occurred as long COVID.

An in-depth analysis of COVID-19 treatment: Present situation and prospects

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) the most contagious infection caused by the unique type of coronavirus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), produced a global pandemic that wreaked havoc on the health-care system, resulting in high morbidity and mortality. Several methods were implemented to tackle the virus, including the repurposing of existing medications and the development of vaccinations. The purpose of this article is to provide a complete summary of the current state and future possibilities for COVID-19 therapies. We describe the many treatment classes, such as antivirals, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies, that have been repurposed or developed to treat COVID-19. We also looked at the clinical evidence for these treatments, including findings from observational studies and randomized-controlled clinical trials, and highlighted the problems and limitations of the available evidence. Furthermore, we reviewed existing clinical trials and prospective COVID-19 therapeutic options, such as novel medication candidates and combination therapies. Finally, we discussed the long-term consequences of COVID-19 and the importance of ongoing research into the development of viable treatments. This review will help physicians, researchers, and policymakers to understand the prevention and mitigation of COVID-19.

Assessment of the development of social skills among undergraduate medical students through participation in a socio-educational project during the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic: a Brazilian pilot study

Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 had an impact on medical graduation, causing weaknesses arising from social isolation and remote emergency teaching, with an emphasis on deficits in the development of non-technical skills (soft skills). In this context, the interaction between a group of medical students and adolescents who develop activities at the Center for Learning and Mobilization for Citizenship in Campinas/SP, Brazil, was evaluated about the development of soft skills during the COVID-19 pandemic. The observational study was carried out using an electronic questionnaire based on a Likert scale on the feelings of undergraduate medical students regarding participation in project activities in the context of the development of social skills. The study demonstrated an important positive impact of student participation in a socio-educational project for the development of soft skills, emphasizing the ability to deal with adverse situations, decision-making, and the ability to deal with the fear of not corresponding. However, the existence of limitations and difficulties in the development of non-technical skills by students was revealed, further reinforced by the challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this aspect, the study demonstrated participation in a voluntary social project as an important strategy to improve the teaching of these skills.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir Use in COVID-19 Patients with Neutropenia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic poses severe risks for immunocompromised patients, especially those with neutropenia due to chemotherapy. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir use in COVID-19 patients with neutropenia.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) and extracted data from 98,763 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between April 2021 and September 2022. The patients were divided into groups based on their remdesivir use and the presence of neutropenia. The adverse effects of remdesivir and their outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We compared common adverse effects of remdesivir in neutropenic patients before and after a 5-day regimen. A slight decrease in heart rate was observed but lacked clinical significance. There were no significant differences observed in hemoglobin, liver function tests, and blood glucose levels. After propensity score matching of COVID-19 patients with neutropenia according to gender, age, dexamethasone use, oxygen use, MASCC score, and WHO ordinal scale, no significant differences were found in length of stay, intubation rate, or ICU admission rate between the matched patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found remdesivir to be safe for COVID-19 patients with neutropenia, with no common adverse reactions observed. However, its effectiveness for these patients remains uncertain.

The first five years of SARS-CoV-2: inpatient treatment updates and future directions

INTRODUCTION

In December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in adults with pneumonia in Wuhan, China.

AREAS COVERED

It is now believed that several billion humans have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and more than ten million have died from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

EXPERT OPINION

The first five years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been marked by unfathomable suffering as well as remarkable scientific progress. This manuscript examines what has been learned about the treatment of inpatients with COVID-19 and explores how the therapeutic approach may evolve in the years ahead.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir among vaccinated and unvaccinated non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

METHODS

Observational studies of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir compared to no antiviral drug treatment for COVID-19 in non-hospitalized adults with data on vaccination status were included. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Research Database and medRxiv for reports published between 1 January 2022 and 8 November 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization or mortality up to 35 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I. Risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR) and risk differences (RD) were separately estimated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We included 30 cohort studies on adults treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 462 279) and molnupiravir (n = 48 008). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduced the composite outcome (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.55-0.70; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty) with no evidence of effect modification by vaccination status (RR Psubgroup = 0.47). In five studies, RD estimates against the composite outcome for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were 1.21% (95%CI 0.57% to 1.84%) in vaccinated and 1.72% (95%CI 0.59% to 2.85%) in unvaccinated subgroups.Molnupiravir may slightly reduce the composite outcome (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.67-0.85; I2 = 32%; low certainty). Evidence of effect modification by vaccination status was inconsistent among studies reporting different effect measures (RR Psubgroup = 0.78; HR Psubgroup = 0.08). In two studies, RD against the composite outcome for molnupiravir were -0.01% (95%CI -1.13% to 1.10%) in vaccinated and 1.73% (95%CI -2.08% to 5.53%) in unvaccinated subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among cohort studies of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is effective against the composite outcome of severe COVID-19 independent of vaccination status. Further research and a reassessment of molnupiravir use among vaccinated adults are warranted.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023429232.

Current status and clinical outcomes of pharmacotherapies according to SARS-CoV-2 mutations in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a retrospective single center study

BACKGROUND

During the pandemic period, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mutated, leading to changes in the disease's severity and the therapeutic effect of drugs accordingly. This study aimed to present the actual use of therapeutics and clinical outcomes based on the prevalence of each variant using real-world data.

METHODS

We analyzed the electronic medical records of adult patients admitted to Busan Medical Center after confirming coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from February 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022. Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who were at a high risk of disease progression were selected as study subjects, and the time period was classified according to the variants as ancestral strain, Delta variant, or Omicron variant. We compared drug use status and clinical outcomes by time period.

RESULTS

Among all 3,091 patients, corticosteroids were the most commonly used therapy (56.0%), being used most frequently in the Delta variant (93.0%), followed by the Omicron variant (42.9%) and ancestral strain (21.2%). Regdanvimab accounted for the majority of therapeutic use in the Delta variant (82.9%) and ancestral strain (76.8%), whereas remdesivir was most frequently used during the Omicron variant period (68.9%). The composite outcomes of death or disease aggravation were ranked in the order of the Delta variant, Omicron variant, and ancestral strain (14.5, 11.9, and 6.0%, respectively, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Regdanvimab was primarily used during the ancestral strain period, regdanvimab plus corticosteroids during the Delta variant period, and remdesivir during the Omicron variant period. The rate of death or disease aggravation was highest in the Delta variant, followed by the Omicron variant and the ancestral strain.

Cost-effectiveness of Azvudine for High-risk Outpatients with Mild-to-moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Azvudine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 in high-risk outpatients using real-world data and relevant references.

METHODS

In the decision-tree model, 2 cohorts were organized in a single center to compare the cost-effectiveness between the Azvudine plus symptomatic treatment group and the symptomatic treatment group. We calculated the cost and mortality rate for both groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to illustrate the cost-effectiveness. To assess the uncertainty of the model parameters, we conducted 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

FINDINGS

In total, there were 804 outpatients included in the model. Among these, 317 patients received Azvudine plus symptomatic treatment, whereas the remaining 487 participants were treated with symptomatic treatment alone. The costs in the Azvudine and control groups were 1055.48 yuan and 2466.97 yuan and the survival rates were 100.00% and 98.70%, respectively. After calculation, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was determined to be -108,817.48 yuan per person. In the section of 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Azvudine was still proven to be cost-effective.

IMPLICATIONS

Our results support the usage of Azvudine for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 from economic perspective.

Trajectories and predictive significance of inflammatory parameters for clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab

PURPOSE

The IL-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab reduces mortality and morbidity in severe cases of COVID-19 through its effects on hyperinflammation and was approved as adjuvant therapy. Since tocilizumab changes the levels of inflammatory markers, we aimed to describe these changes in patients treated with tocilizumab, analyse their value in predicting death and bacterial superinfection and determine their influence on mortality rates.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 76 patients who were treated with tocilizumab for severe COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 was conducted. Inflammatory markers (IL-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin) were documented before and up to seven days after tocilizumab administration.

RESULTS

The overall mortality was 25% and 53.8% in patients who required invasive respiratory support. Deceased patients had higher baseline IL-6 (p = 0.026) and peak IL-6 levels after tocilizumab vs those who survived (p < 0.0001). A peak IL-6 value > 1000 pg/dl after tocilizumab administration was a good predictor of mortality (AUC = 0.812). Of the deceased patients 41.1% had a renewed CRP increase after an initial decrease following tocilizumab administration, compared to 7.1% of the surviving patients (p = 0.0011). Documented bacterial superinfections were observed in 35.5% (27/76) of patients, of whom 48.1% (13/27) died.

CONCLUSION

CRP-decline and IL-6 increase after tocilizumab treatment occurs regularly. An increase of IL-6 levels exceeding tenfold of baseline IL-6 levels, an absolute peak of 1000 pg/ml or a renewed increase of CRP are associated with higher mortality. Suppressed CRP synthesis can impede the diagnosis of bacterial superinfections, thus increasing the risk for complications.

Evaluating the Risk-Benefit Profile of Corticosteroid Therapy for COVID-19 Patients: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global pandemic in March 2020. It quickly spread across all continents, causing significant social, environmental, health, and economic impacts. During the pandemic, there has been consideration of repurposing and repositioning of medications, such as corticosteroids, for the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and summarise corticosteroid regimens used for hospitalised COVID-19 patients, focusing on dosage, route of administration, and clinical outcome from clinical trials.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases and the grey literature were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between January 2020 and January 2023. This scoping review was conducted in line with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

KEY FINDINGS

A total of 24 RCTs were eligible for inclusion. There was variation in the steroid regimens used for treatment across COVID-19 trials. Despite the heterogeneity of included RCTs, the overall results have shown the benefits of improving lung function and a lower all-cause mortality rate in hospitalised COVID-19 patients treated with systematic corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroids have proven to be an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients in critical condition. However, comparative effectiveness studies should be conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of optimal corticosteroid treatment at the population level. Moreover, the global burden of long COVID is significant, affecting millions with persistent symptoms and long-term health complications. Thus, it is also necessary to evaluate the optimal steroid regimen for long COVID treatment.

The JAK-STAT pathway: from structural biology to cytokine engineering

The Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway serves as a paradigm for signal transduction from the extracellular environment to the nucleus. It plays a pivotal role in physiological functions, such as hematopoiesis, immune balance, tissue homeostasis, and surveillance against tumors. Dysregulation of this pathway may lead to various disease conditions such as immune deficiencies, autoimmune diseases, hematologic disorders, and cancer. Due to its critical role in maintaining human health and involvement in disease, extensive studies have been conducted on this pathway, ranging from basic research to medical applications. Advances in the structural biology of this pathway have enabled us to gain insights into how the signaling cascade operates at the molecular level, laying the groundwork for therapeutic development targeting this pathway. Various strategies have been developed to restore its normal function, with promising therapeutic potential. Enhanced comprehension of these molecular mechanisms, combined with advances in protein engineering methodologies, has allowed us to engineer cytokines with tailored properties for targeted therapeutic applications, thereby enhancing their efficiency and safety. In this review, we outline the structural basis that governs key nodes in this pathway, offering a comprehensive overview of the signal transduction process. Furthermore, we explore recent advances in cytokine engineering for therapeutic development in this pathway.

Immunomodulators in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a propensity-score adjusted analysis of the ELSO registry

BACKGROUND

Mortality for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19 increased over the course of the pandemic. We investigated the association between immunomodulators and mortality for patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation registry from 1 January, 2020, through 31 December, 2021, to compare the outcomes of patients who received no immunomodulators, only corticosteroids, only other immunomodulators (selective interleukin blockers, janus-kinase inhibitors, convalescent plasma, and intravenous immunoglobulin), and a combination of corticosteroids and other immunomodulators administered either before or during ECMO. We used Cox regression models to estimate survival time until 90 days. We estimated the propensity score of receiving different immunomodulators using multinomial regression, and incorporated these scores into the regression models.

RESULTS

We included 7181 patients in the final analysis; 6169 patients received immunomodulators either before or during ECMO. The 90-day survival was 58.1% (95%-CI 55.1-61.2%) for patients receiving no immunomodulators, 50.7% (95%-CI 49.0-52.5%) for those receiving only corticosteroids, 62.2% (95%-CI 57.4-67.0%) for those receiving other immunomodulators, and 48.5% (95%-CI 46.7-50.4%) for those receiving corticosteroids and other immunomodulators. Compared to patients without immunomodulators, patients receiving either corticosteroids alone (HR: 1.13, 95%-CI 1.01-1.28) or with other immunomodulators (HR: 1.21, 95%-CI: 1.07-1.54) had significantly shorter survival time, while patients receiving only other immunomodulators had significantly longer survival time (HR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.66-0.96). The receipt of immunomodulators (across all three groups) was associated with an increase in secondary infections.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study, we found that immunomodulators, in particular corticosteroids, were associated with significantly higher mortality amongst patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19, after adjusting for potential confounding variables and propensity score. In addition, patients receiving corticosteroids with or without other immunomodulators had longer ECMO runs, which has potential implications for resource allocation. While residual confounding likely remains, further studies are required to evaluate the timing of immunomodulators and better understand the possible mechanisms behind this association, including secondary infections.

Developing Allosteric Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase

The use of Fpocket and virtual screening techniques enabled us to identify potential allosteric druggable pockets within the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp). Of the compounds screened, compound 1 was identified as a promising inhibitor, lowering a SARS-CoV-2 RdRp activity to 57 % in an enzymatic assay at 10 μM concentration. The structure of compound 1 was subsequently optimized in order to preserve or enhance inhibitory activity. This involved the substitution of problematic ester and aromatic nitro groups with more inert functionalities. The N,N'-diphenylurea scaffold with two NH groups was identified as essential for the compound's activity but also exhibited high toxicity in Calu-3 cells. To address this issue, a scaffold hopping approach was employed to replace the urea core with potentially less toxic urea isosteres. This approach yielded several structural analogues with notable activity, specifically 2,2'-bisimidazol (in compound 55 with residual activity RA=42 %) and (1H-imidazol-2-yl)urea (in compounds 59 and 60, with RA=50 and 28 %, respectively). Despite these advances, toxicity remained a major concern. These compounds represent a promising starting point for further structure-activity relationship studies of allosteric inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 RdRp, with the goal of reducing their cytotoxicity and improving aqueous solubility.

Ronapreve (REGN-CoV; casirivimab and imdevimab) reduces the viral burden and alters the pulmonary response to the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in K18-hACE2 mice using an experimental design reflective of a treatment use case

With some exceptions, global policymakers have recommended against the use of existing monoclonal antibodies in COVID-19 due to loss of neutralization of newer variants. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of Ronapreve on compartmental viral replication using paradigms for susceptible and insusceptible variants. Virological efficacy and impact on pathogenicity was assessed in K18-hACE2 mice inoculated with either the Delta or BA.1 Omicron variants. Ronapreve reduced sub-genomic viral RNA levels in lung and nasal turbinate, 4 and 6 days post-infection, for the Delta variant but not the Omicron variant. It also blocked brain infection, which is seen with high frequency in K18-hACE2 mice after Delta variant infection. At day 6, the inflammatory response to lung infection with the Delta variant was altered to a multifocal granulomatous inflammation in which the virus appeared to be confined. The current study provides evidence of an altered tissue response to SARS-CoV-2 after treatment with a monoclonal antibody combination that retains neutralization activity. These data demonstrate that experimental designs that reflect treatment use cases are achievable in animal models for monoclonal antibodies. Extreme caution should be taken when interpreting prophylactic experimental designs that may not be representative of treatment.IMPORTANCEFollowing the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, the WHO recommended against the use of Ronapreve in its COVID-19 treatment guidelines due to a lack of efficacy based on current pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic understanding. However, the continued use of Ronapreve, specifically in vulnerable patients, was advocated by some based on in vitro neutralization data. Here, the virological efficacy of Ronapreve was demonstrated in both the lung and brain compartments using Delta as a paradigm for a susceptible variant. Conversely, a lack of virological efficacy was demonstrated for the Omicron variant. Comparable concentrations of both monoclonal antibodies were observed in the plasma of Delta- and Omicron-infected mice. This study made use of a reliable murine model for SARS-CoV-2 infection, an experimental design reflective of treatment, and demonstrated the utility of this approach when assessing the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies.

The effect of convalescent plasma therapy on the rate of nucleic acid negative conversion in patients with persistent COVID-19 test positivity

Objective

This study investigates the association between convalescent plasma therapy and the negative conversion rate in patients with persistent COVID-19 test positivity.

Method

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with severe or mild to moderate COVID-19 whose viral nucleic acid tests remained positive for over 30 days. Patients were categorized into two groups: those who administered convalescent plasma therapy and those who were not. Data collected included information on therapy strategies used (convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, interferons, etc.), patients' demographic characteristics, comorbidities, therapeutic medications, and nucleic acid testing results. Patients in the convalescent plasma therapy group were matched 1:2 ratio with those in the non-convalescent plasma therapy group. Cumulative negative conversion rates on the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth days post-therapy initiation were analyzed as dependent variables. Independent variables included therapy strategies, demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and therapeutic medication usage. Univariate analysis was conducted, and factors with a p-value (P) less than 0.2 were included in a paired Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative negative conversion rate between the convalescent plasma therapy group and the non-convalescent plasma therapy group on the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth days. Specifically, on day the fifth, the negative conversion rate was 41.46% in the convalescent plasma therapy group compared to 34.15% in the non-convalescent plasma therapy group (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.82-3.61, P = 0.15). On the tenth day, it was 63.41% in the convalescent plasma therapy group and 63.41% in the non-convalescent plasma therapy group (HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.69∼2.26, P = 0.46). On the fifteenth day, the negative conversion rate was 85.37% in the convalescent plasma therapy group and 75.61% in the non-convalescent plasma therapy group (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.71-1.97, P = 0.51).

Conclusion

Our finding does not support the hypothesis that convalescent plasma therapy could accelerate the time to negative conversion in patients who consistently test positive for COVID-19.

Enhanced Treatment in Severe-Critical COVID-19 With Tocilizumab, Remdesivir, Dexamethasone: A Jordanian Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Several medications have been proposed to manage COVID-19, with controversial data regarding their clinical benefits. We aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of using remdesivir (RDV) with and without tocilizumab (TCZ) and standard therapy in treating severe COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a Jordanian tertiary hospital (September 26th, 2020 - August 28th, 2021) and included adult COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support. Patients were categorized into three groups based on treatment: TCZ+RDV and standard therapy; RDV and standard therapy; and standard therapy alone, which included dexamethasone, vitamins, anticoagulants, and ceftriaxone.

RESULTS

Of 1,556 screened, 1,244 patients (mean age 62.33, 60.8% men) were included. Distribution was 106 in TCZ+RDV, 520 in RDV, and 618 in standard therapy. No significant differences were observed in age, gender, or BMI. Mortality was lowest in TCZ+RDV (32.1%), followed by RDV (40.6%) and standard therapy (47.1%) (p=0.005). Among ICU patients, TCZ+RDV showed significantly lower mortality (51.1%) compared to RDV (75%) and standard therapy (85.8%) (p<0.001). The ICU stays and invasive mandatory ventilation (IMV) durations were significantly shorter with TCZ+RDV (4.30 and 2.69 days, respectively) compared to RDV (7.61 and 4.52 days) and standard therapy (7.98 and 5.32 days) (p<0.001 for ICU stays, p=0.025 for IMV durations).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining TCZ, RDV, and dexamethasone shows promise in reducing mortality and ICU/IMV duration for severe COVID-19.

Early use of oral antiviral drugs and the risk of post COVID-19 syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the association of early use of oral antiviral drugs (including nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir) with the risk of post COVID-19 condition (PCC) and compare the possible efficacy of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, MedRxiv, and Psycinfo were searched from inception until November 1, 2023. We included studies that assessed the effect of oral antiviral drugs on the incidence of PCC. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Risk ratios (RRs) for oral antiviral drugs were calculated with a confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Nine observational studies containing 866,066 patients were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir were evaluated in eight and two studies respectively, with both drugs evaluated in one study. Pair-wise meta-analysis showed that early oral antiviral drugs reduced PCC risk (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.88). Network meta-analysis showed that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir may perform better than molnupiravir (surface under the cumulative ranking curve: 95.5% vs. 31.6%) at reducing PCC risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Early use of oral antiviral drugs may potentially protect against developing PCC in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These findings support the standardized administration of oral antiviral drugs in patients during the acute phase of COVID-19 according to the guidelines.

Physicians found an interactive tool displaying structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons understandable and useful: a qualitative user testing study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and improve "Making Alternative Treatment Choices Intuitive and Trustworthy" (MATCH-IT)-a digital, interactive decision support tool displaying structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons-to help physicians interpret and apply evidence from network meta-analysis (NMA) for their clinical decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a qualitative user testing study, applying principles from user-centered design in an iterative development process. We recruited a convenience sample of practicing physicians in Norway, Belgium, and Canada, and asked them to interpret structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons-linked to clinical guideline recommendations-displayed in MATCH-IT. User testing included (a) introduction of a clinical scenario, (b) a think-aloud session with participant-tool interaction, and (c) a semistructured interview. We video recorded, transcribed, and analyzed user tests using directed content analysis. The results informed new updates in MATCH-IT.

RESULTS

Distributed across 5 development cycles we tested MATCH-IT with 26 physicians. Of these, 24 (94%) reported either no or sparse prior experience with interpretation of NMA. Physicians perceived MATCH-IT as easy to interpret and navigate, and appreciated its ability to provide an overview of the evidence. Visualization of effects in pictograms and inclusion of information on burden of treatment ("practical issues") were highlighted as potentially useful features in interacting with patients. We also identified problems, including undiscovered functionalities (drag and drop), suboptimal tutorial, and cumbersome navigation of the tool. In addition, physicians wanted definition/explanation of key terms (eg, outcomes and "certainty"), and there were concerns that overwhelming evidence from a large NMA would complicate applicability to clinical practice. This led to several updates with development of a new start page, tutorial, updated user interface for more efficient maneuvering, solutions to display definition of key terms and a "frequently asked questions" section. To facilitate interpretation of large networks, we improved categorization of results using color coding and added filtering functionality. These modifications allowed physicians to focus on interventions of interest and reduce information overload.

CONCLUSION

This study provides proof of concept that physicians can use MATCH-IT to understand NMA evidence. Key features of MATCH-IT in a clinical context include providing an overview of the evidence, visualization of effects, and the display of information on burden of treatments. However, unfamiliarity with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation concepts, time constraints, and accessibility at the point of care may be challenges for use. To what extent our results are transferable to real-world clinical contexts remains to be explored.

Increased levels of circulating cell-free DNA in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is released from injured cells and aggravates inflammation. Patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) often develop pneumonia and respiratory failure, and require oxygen therapy (OT), including mechanical ventilation (MV). It remains unclear whether cfDNA predicts the risk of receiving OT or MV in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we hypothesized that circulating cfDNA levels could reflect the severity of respiratory failure and determine a therapeutic approach for oxygenation in patients with COVID-19. We analyzed cfDNA levels in serum samples from 95 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at Showa University Hospital (Tokyo, Japan). cfDNA levels were assessed by measuring the copy numbers of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nuclear DNA (nDNA) using quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Both cf-nDNA and cf-mtDNA levels were negatively correlated with adjusted SpO2 for FiO2 (SpO2/FiO2 ratio). Elevated cf-nDNA and cf-mtDNA levels were associated with the requirement for OT or MV during patient admission. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that cf-nDNA and cf-mtDNA levels were independent risk factors for OT and MV. These results suggest that both serum cf-nDNA and cf-mtDNA could serve as useful early biomarkers to indicate the necessity of OT or MV in patients with COVID-19.

Impact of Diabetes on Persistent Radiological Abnormalities and Pulmonary Diffusion Dysfunction in COVID-19 Survivors: A 3-Year Prospective Cohort Study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the long-term impact of diabetes on lung impairment in COVID-19 survivors over a three-year period. This study evaluated the long-term impact of diabetes on persistent radiological pulmonary abnormalities and lung function impairment in COVID-19 survivors over three years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, cohort study, pulmonary sequelae were compared between COVID-19 survivors with and without diabetes. Serial chest CT scans, symptom questionnaires and pulmonary function tests were obtained 6 months, 12 months, 2 years and 3 years post-discharge. The independent predictors for lung dysfunction at the 3-year follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 278 COVID-19 survivors (63 [IQR 57-69] year-old, female: 103 [37.0%]) were included. At the 3-year follow-up, individuals in the diabetes group had higher incidences of respiratory symptoms, radiological pulmonary abnormalities and pulmonary diffusion dysfunction than those in the control group. Diabetes (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.04-4.59, p = 0.034), allergy (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.09-4.74, p = 0.029), female (OR: 2.70, 95% CI: 1.37-5.29, p = 0.004), severe COVID-19 (OR: 4.10, 95% CI: 1.54-10.93, p = 0.005), and fibrotic-like CT changes (OR: 5.64, 95% CI: 2.28-13.98, p < 0.001) were independent predictors of pulmonary diffusion dysfunction in COVID-19 survivors.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the long-term deleterious effect of diabetes status on radiological pulmonary abnormalities and pulmonary dysfunction in COVID-19 survivors. This study provides important evidence support for long-term monitoring of lung abnormalities in COVID-19 recovery survivors with diabetes.

Taming the storm: potential anti-inflammatory compounds targeting SARS-CoV-2 MPro

In severe COVID-19 cases, an exacerbated inflammatory response triggers a cytokine storm that can worsen the prognosis. Compounds with both antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities show promise as candidates for COVID-19 therapy, as they potentially act against the SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of the disease stage. One of the most attractive drug targets among coronaviruses is the main protease (MPro). This enzyme is crucial for cleaving polyproteins into non-structural proteins required for viral replication. The aim of this review was to identify SARS-CoV-2 MPro inhibitors with both antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. The interactions of the compounds within the SARS-CoV-2 MPro binding site were analyzed through molecular docking when data from crystallographic structures were unavailable. 18 compounds were selected and classified into five different superclasses. Five of them exhibit high potency against MPro: GC-376, baicalein, naringenin, heparin, and carmofur, with IC50 values below 0.2 μM. The MPro inhibitors selected have the potential to alleviate lung edema and decrease cytokine release. These molecules mainly target three critical inflammatory pathways: NF-κB, JAK/STAT, and MAPK, all previously associated with COVID-19 pathogenesis. The structures of the compounds occupy the S1/S2 substrate binding subsite of the MPro. They interact with residues from the catalytic dyad (His41 and Cys145) and/or with the oxyanion hole (Gly143, Ser144, and Cys145), which are pivotal for substrate recognition. The MPro SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors with potential anti-inflammatory activities present here could be optimized for maximum efficacy and safety and be explored as potential treatment of both mild and severe COVID-19.

Antimalarial Drugs at the Intersection of SARS-CoV-2 and Rheumatic Diseases: What Are the Potential Opportunities?

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed a serious threat to humanity and is considered a global health emergency. Antimalarial drugs (ADs) have been used in the treatment of immuno-inflammatory arthritis (IIA) and coronavirus infection (COVID-19). The aim of this review is to analyze the current knowledge about the immunomodulatory and antiviral mechanisms of action, characteristics of use, and side effects of antimalarial drugs. Material and Methods: A literature search was carried out using PubMed, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar databases. The inclusion criteria were the results of randomized and cohort studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and original full-text manuscripts in the English language containing statistically confirmed conclusions. The exclusion criteria were summary reports, newspaper articles, and personal messages. Qualitative methods were used for theoretical knowledge on antimalarial drug usage in AIRDs and SARS-CoV-2 such as a summarization of the literature and a comparison of the treatment methods. Results: The ADs were considered a "candidate" for the therapy of a new coronavirus infection due to mechanisms of antiviral activity, such as interactions with endocytic pathways, the prevention of glycosylation of the ACE2 receptors, blocking sialic acid receptors, and reducing the manifestations of cytokine storms. The majority of clinical trials suggest no role of antimalarial drugs in COVID-19 treatment or prevention. These circumstances do not allow for their use in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Conclusions: The mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine are related to potential cardiotoxic manifestations and demonstrate potential adverse effects when used for COVID-19. Furthermore, the need for high doses in the treatment of viral infections increases the likelihood of gastrointestinal side effects, the prolongation of QT, and retinopathy. Large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have refuted the fact that there is a positive effect on the course and results of COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

In the realm of acute respiratory infections, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), poses a global public health challenge. The application of corticosteroids (CSs) in COVID-19 remains a contentious topic among researchers. Accordingly, our team performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to meticulously evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. To explore efficacy of CSs in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, we meticulously screened RCTs across key databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as China's CNKI and Wanfang Data. We focused on assessing the 28 days mortality rates. We evaluated the data heterogeneity using the Chi-square test and I2 values, setting significance at 0.1 and 50%. Data from 21 RCTs involving 5721 participants were analyzed. The analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between CSs intervention and the 28 days mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.84-1.03; P = 0.15). However, subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in 28 days mortality among patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (RR at 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76-0.95; P = 0.004). Specifically, short-term CS administration (≤ 3 days) was associated with a substantial improvement in clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004), as was longer-term use (≥ 8 days) (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.04). Additionally, in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, the administration of dexamethasone increased the number of 28 days ventilator-free days (Mean Difference = 1.92; 95% CI: 0.44-3.40; P = 0.01). Methylprednisolone also demonstrated significant benefits in improving clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that although there is no significant difference in 28 days mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of CSs may be beneficial in improving clinical outcomes in moderate or severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of CSs. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that while CSs may not be suitable for all COVID-19 patients, they could be effective and safe in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is recommended to administer CSs for personalized treatments in COVID-19 cases to improve the clinical outcomes while minimizing adverse events.

Associations between COVID-19 therapies and outcomes in rural and urban America: A multisite, temporal analysis from the Alpha to Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants

PURPOSE

To investigate the enduring disparities in adverse COVID-19 events between urban and rural communities in the United States, focusing on the effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and therapeutic advances on patient outcomes.

METHODS

Using National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) data from 2021 to 2023, this retrospective cohort study examined COVID-19 hospitalization, inpatient death, and other adverse events. Populations were categorized into urban, urban-adjacent rural (UAR), and nonurban-adjacent rural (NAR). Adjustments included demographics, variant-dominant waves, comorbidities, region, and SARS-CoV-2 treatment and vaccination. Statistical methods included Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression.

FINDINGS

The study included 3,018,646 patients, with rural residents constituting 506,204. These rural dwellers were older, had more comorbidities, and were less vaccinated than their urban counterparts. Adjusted analyses revealed higher hospitalization odds in UAR and NAR (aOR 1.07 [1.05-1.08] and 1.06 [1.03-1.08]), greater inpatient death hazard (aHR 1.30 [1.26-1.35] UAR and 1.37 [1.30-1.45] NAR), and greater risk of other adverse events compared to urban dwellers. Delta increased, while Omicron decreased, inpatient adverse events relative to pre-Delta, with rural disparities persisting throughout. Treatment effectiveness and vaccination were similarly protective across all cohorts, but dexamethasone post-ventilation was effective only in urban areas. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir better protected rural residents against hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advancements in treatment and vaccinations, disparities in adverse COVID-19 outcomes persist between urban and rural communities. The effectiveness of some therapeutic agents appears to vary based on rurality, suggesting a nuanced relationship between treatment and geographic location while highlighting the need for targeted rural health care strategies.

Baricitinib and Pulse Steroids Combination Treatment in Hyperinflammatory COVID-19: A Rheumatological Approach in the Intensive Care Unit

Hyperinflammatory Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and rapidly-progressive interstitial lung diseases (RP-ILD) secondary to inflammatory myopathies (IIM) present important similarities. These data support the use of anti-rheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of combining baricitinib and pulse steroids with the Standard of Care (SoC) for the treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients. We retrospectively enrolled consecutive patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with COVID-19-pneumonia. Patients treated with SoC (dexamethasone plus remdesivir) were compared to patients treated with baricitinib plus 6-methylprednisolone pulses (Rheuma-group). We enrolled 246 patients: 104/246 in the SoC and 142/246 in the Rheuma-group. All patients presented laboratory findings suggestive of hyperinflammatory response. Sixty-four patients (26.1%) died during ICU hospitalization. The mortality rate in the Rheuma-group was significantly lower than in the SoC-group (15.5 vs. 40.4%, p < 0.001). Compared to the SoC-group, patients in the Rheuma-group presented significantly lower inflammatory biomarker levels after one week of treatment. Higher ferritin levels after one week of treatment were strongly associated with mortality (p < 0.001). In this large real-life COVID-19 cohort, baricitinib and pulse steroids led to a significant reduction in mortality, paralleled by a prompt reduction in inflammatory biomarkers. Our experience supports the similarities between hyperinflammatory COVID-19 and the IIM-associated RP-ILD.

A moderately higher time-in-range threshold improves the prognosis of type 2 diabetes patients complicated with COVID-19

Objective

After fully lifting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic control measures in mainland China in 12/2022, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased markedly, making it difficult to meet the general time-in-range (TIR) requirement. We investigated a more clinically practical TIR threshold and examined its association with the prognosis of COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes(T2D).

Research design and methods

63 T2D patients complicated with COVID-19 were evaluated. Patients were divided into favorable outcome group and adverse outcome group according to whether achieving composite endpoint (a >20-day length of stay, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation use, or death). TIR, the time-below-range (TBR) and the time-above-range (TAR) were calculated from intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. Logistic regression analysis and other statistical methods were used to analyze the correlation between glucose variability and prognosis to establish the appropriate reference range of TIR.

Results

TIR with thresholds of 80 to 190 mg/dL was significantly associated with favorable outcomes. An increase of 1% in TIR is connected with a reduction of 3.70% in the risk of adverse outcomes. The Youden index was highest when the TIR was 54.73%, and the sensitivity and specificity were 58.30% and 77.80%, respectively. After accounting for confounding variables, our analysis revealed that threshold target ranges (TARs) ranging from 200 mg/dL to 230 mg/dL significantly augmented the likelihood of adverse outcomes.

Conclusion

The TIR threshold of 80 to 190 mg/dL has a comparatively high predictive value of the prognosis of COVID-19. TIR >54.73% was associated with a decreased risk of adverse outcomes. These findings provide clinically critical insights into possible avenues to improve outcomes for COVID-19 patients with T2D.

Do rheumatic diseases, long-term glucocorticoids, and immunosuppressant treatment, and vaccination impact the COVID-19 severity? Insight from a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The impact of rheumatic diseases, long-term medication, and vaccination on COVID-19 severity remain insufficiently understood, hindering effective patient management. This study aims to investigate factors influencing COVID-19 severity in Chinese rheumatic patients and to provide real-world evidence for patient care.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study consisting of two cohorts, followed by a nested case-control analysis. The outpatient cohort included non-severe COVID-19 patients, while the inpatient cohort included consecutive severe COVID-19 inpatients. Additionally, rheumatic patients from both cohorts were included for the nested case-control study. Clinical information was obtained from electronic medical records and surveys.

RESULTS

A total of 749 outpatients and 167 inpatients were enrolled. In the outpatient cohort, rheumatic diseases were identified as a risk factor for the severity of dyspnea (No rheumatic disease: OR = 0.577, 95% CI = 0.396-0.841, p = .004), but not for mortality, length of hospitalization, or hospitalization costs in the inpatient cohort. Long-term glucocorticoids use was identified as an independent risk factor for severity of dyspnea in rheumatic patients (OR = 1.814, 95% CI = 1.235-2.663, p = .002), while vaccination and immunosuppressant treatment showed no association. Vaccination was identified as a protective factor against hospitalization due to COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases (OR = 0.031, 95% CI = 0.007-0.136, p < .001), whereas long-term glucocorticoids and immunosuppressant treatment showed no association.

CONCLUSIONS

Rheumatic diseases and long-term glucocorticoids use are significant risk factors for COVID-19 severity in the Chinese population, whereas emphasizing the protective effects of vaccines against COVID-19 severity is crucial. Additionally, the investigation provides preliminary support for the concept that long-term immunosuppressant therapy does not necessarily require additional prescription adjustments.

Clinical Outcome and 7-Day Virological Clearance in High-Risk Patients with Mild-Moderate COVID-19 Treated with Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, or Remdesivir

INTRODUCTION

We compared the effectiveness and virological clearance (VC) at day 7 (T7) post-treatment with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and remdesivir in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients at high risk (HR) for clinical progression.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study enrolling HR patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (Jan-Oct 2022) treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir or 3 days of remdesivir. We investigated clinical recovery at T7 (resolution of symptoms for ≥ 72 h or all-cause death), VC at T7 (PCR/antigenic negative nasopharyngeal swab), and median time to VC (days from symptom onset to the first negative swab). Factors associated with VC were investigated by logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the study, 92/376 (43.8%) patients received molnupiravir, 150/376 (24.7%) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 134/376 (31.5%) remdesivir. Forty-nine (13%) patients were unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated. Patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were younger and presented immunodeficiencies more frequently; remdesivir was used more commonly in patients hospitalized for other diseases. A high proportion of patients obtained clinical recovery without differences among the therapies (97.5% for molnupiravir, 98.3% for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 93.6% for remdesivir); 12 (3.7%) patients died. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher proportion of T7 VC and a shorter time to VC compared to molnupiravir/remdesivir, also after adjustment for age and immunodeficiency (AOR 0.445 RDV vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.240-0.826, p = 0.010; AOR 0.222 MNP vs. NMV-r, 95% CI 0.105-0.472, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-COV-2 antiviral treatments are an excellent therapeutic strategy in HR patients. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir showed a higher proportion of VC as early as 7 days after treatment, confirming its likely superiority in indirect comparisons.

The clinical application of traditional Chinese medicine NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study from 20 April 2021 to 8 July 2021, and evaluated the safety and outcomes (mortality, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, oxygen support, diarrhea, serum potassium) in COVID-19 patients. Propensity score matching at a 1:2 ratio was performed to reduce confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were analyzed. The experimental group (n = 67) received NRICM101 and standard care, while the control group (n = 134) received standard care alone. No significant differences were observed in mortality (10.4% vs. 14.2%), intubation (13.8% vs. 11%), time to intubation (10 vs. 11 days), mechanical ventilation days (0 vs. 9 days), or oxygen support duration (6 vs. 5 days). However, the experimental group had a shorter length of hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.12, p = 0.043) and fewer mechanical ventilation days (odds ratio = 0.068, p = 0.008) in initially severe cases, along with an increased diarrhea risk (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

NRICM101 did not reduce in-hospital mortality. However, it shortened the length of hospitalization and reduced mechanical ventilation days in initially severe cases. Further investigation is needed.

Effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with liver transplantation: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressed recipients of liver transplantation (LT) are more likely to develop coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may have an increased risk of developing worse outcomes.

AIM

To assess the effect of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) on preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in LT recipients.

DESIGN

Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) who underwent LT between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2022 were included and categorized into two groups according to their use of UDCA.

METHODS

The prevalence and severity of COVID-19 among transplantation patients between the UDCA and non-UDCA groups were estimated and compared.

RESULTS

Among the 897 LT patients who met the inclusion criteria, infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 was 78.4%, and the rate of severe illness was 5.1% from January 2022 to January 2023 in China. In the multivariate analysis, only UDCA treatment (P = 0.006) was found to be a protective factor against SARS-CoV-2 infection. After propensity score matching, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate in the UDCA group was lower than that in the non-UDCA group (74.1% vs. 84.6%, P = 0.002). This rate was further reduced to 62.1% (P = 0.002) when the oral administration dose was >15 mg/kg/day. There was no difference in the rates of severe COVID-19 illness, ICU admission, or ventilation rate or length of hospital stay with or without UDCA treatment (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of UDCA in LT patients significantly reduced the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate and showed a dose-dependent protective effect.

Molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of available data on molnupiravir come from an unvaccinated COVID-19 population. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to integrate evidence from recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as observational studies stratified by vaccination status to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in COVID-19 outpatients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2023. We conducted our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) as the effect measure.

RESULTS

We included 8 RCTs and 5 observational studies in our meta-analysis. Molnupiravir reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20-0.79, I2 = 0%) but did not decrease the hospitalization rate (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-1.00, I2 = 53%) in the overall population; in the immunized population, no benefits were observed. Molnupiravir lowered the rate of no recovery (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.76-0.81, I2 = 0%) and increased virological clearance at day 5 (RR 2.68; 95% CI: 1.94-4.22, I2 = 85%). There was no increase in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Molnupiravir does not decrease mortality and hospitalization rates in immunized patients with COVID-19. However, it does shorten the disease course and increases the recovery rate. The use of molnupiravir will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis in the context of the prevailing social circumstances, the resource setting, drug costs, and the healthcare burden.

Inflammation, Autoimmunity, and Infection in Fibromyalgia: A Narrative Review

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic disease characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain of unknown etiology. The condition is commonly associated with other symptoms, including fatigue, sleep disturbances, cognitive impairment, and depression. For this reason, FM is also referred to as FM syndrome. The nature of the pain is defined as nociplastic according to the latest international classification and is characterized by altered nervous sensitization both centrally and peripherally. Psychosocial conditions have traditionally been considered critical in the genesis of FM. However, recent studies in animal models and humans have provided new evidence in favor of an inflammatory and/or autoimmune pathogenesis. In support of this hypothesis are epidemiological data of an increased female prevalence, similar to that of autoimmune diseases, and the frequent association with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. In addition, the observation of an increased incidence of this condition during long COVID revived the hypothesis of an infectious pathogenesis. This narrative review will, therefore, discuss the evidence supporting the immune-mediated pathogenesis of FM in light of the most current data available in the literature.

Antiviral Use in Mild-to-Moderate SARS-CoV-2 Infections during the Omicron Wave in Geriatric Patients

(1) Background: Geriatric patients are at high risk of complications of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and are good candidates for antiviral drugs. (2) Methods: A retrospective study of electronic health records (EHRs) aiming to describe antiviral (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (nirmatrelvir/r) or remdesivir) use, drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in elderly patients (75 and over), hospitalized with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 between July 2022 and June 2023. (3) Results: Out of 491 patients (mean age: 86.9 years), 180 (36.7%) received nirmatrelvir/r, 78 (15.9%) received remdesivir, and 233 (47.4%) received no antiviral therapy. No association was found between the choice of antiviral and the demographic or medical data. No serious ADR was observed. Nirmatrelvir/r dosage adjustment was inadequate in 65% of patients with renal impairment. In total, 128 patients (71%) on nirmatrelvir/r had potential pharmacokinetic DDIs, with 43 resulting in a possibly related ADR. In the remdesivir group, pharmacodynamic DDIs were more frequent, with QTc prolongation risk in 56 patients (72%). Only 20 patients underwent follow-up ECG, revealing QTc prolongation in 4. (4) Conclusions: There is an underutilization of antivirals despite their justified indications. Nirmatrelvir/r dosage was rarely adjusted to renal function. Dose adjustments and closer monitoring are needed due to the high risk of drug interactions.

In-hospital survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with glucocorticoids: a multicenter real-world data study

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major challenge to healthcare systems globally. Millions of people have been infected, and millions of deaths have been reported worldwide. Glucocorticoids have attracted worldwide attention for their potential efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. Various glucocorticoids with different dosages and treatment durations have been studied in patients with different severities, with a suitable dosage and treatment duration not yet defined. This study aimed to investigate whether in-hospital survival differs between critically ill patients treated with low-dose glucocorticoids, high-dose glucocorticoids or no glucocorticoids. All critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit of the Charité Hospital-Universitätsmedizin Berlin between February 2020 and December 2021 with COVID-19 pneumonia receiving supplemental oxygen were eligible to participate in this multicenter real-world data study. Patients were retrospectively assigned to one of three groups: the high corticosteroid dose (HighC) group (receiving 6 mg parenteral dexamethasone or an equivalent corticosteroid dosage for ten days), the low corticosteroid dose (LowC) group (receiving less than 6 mg parenteral dexamethasone or an equivalent corticosteroid dosage for ten days), or the no corticosteroid (NoC) group. Overall survival and risk effects were compared among groups within the total observation period, as well as at 35 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to compare the risk of death between the treatment groups. Out of 1561 critically ill COVID-19 patients, 1014 were included in the baseline analysis. In the survival study, 1009 patients were assigned to the NoC (n = 346), HighC (n = 552), or LowC group (n = 111). The baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, except for age, BMI, APACHE II score, SOFA and SAPS II. While the 35-day survival did not show any differences, a landmark analysis of the patients surviving beyond 35 days revealed differences between groups. The restricted mean survival time was 112 days in the LowC group [95% CI: 97 - 128], 133 days in the HighC group [95% CI: 124 - 141] and 144 days in the NoC group [95% CI: 121 - 167]. The multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazard analysis indicated that, regardless of age, sex, health status or invasive oxygenation, a low-dose treatment increased the hazard of death of critically ill COVID-19 patients by a factor of 2.09 ([95% CI: 0.99, 4.4], p = 0.05) and a high-dose corticosteroid treatment increased the risk by a factor of 1.07 ([95% CI: 0.53, 2.15], p = 0.85) compared to no treatment with glucocorticoids. The analysis reveals that corticosteroid treatment does not influence the survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit within 35 days. Our evaluations further suggest that regardless of ventilation status, the decision-making process for administering corticosteroid therapy should account for the individual severity of the illness.

Colchicine for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I2=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I2=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I2=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I2=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022369850.

The glycosaminoglycan-binding chemokine fragment CXCL9(74-103) reduces inflammation and tissue damage in mouse models of coronavirus infection

Introduction

Pulmonary diseases represent a significant burden to patients and the healthcare system and are one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Particularly, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound global impact, affecting public health, economies, and daily life. While the peak of the crisis has subsided, the global number of reported COVID-19 cases remains significantly high, according to medical agencies around the world. Furthermore, despite the success of vaccines in reducing the number of deaths caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there remains a gap in the treatment of the disease, especially in addressing uncontrolled inflammation. The massive recruitment of leukocytes to lung tissue and alveoli is a hallmark factor in COVID-19, being essential for effectively responding to the pulmonary insult but also linked to inflammation and lung damage. In this context, mice models are a crucial tool, offering valuable insights into both the pathogenesis of the disease and potential therapeutic approaches.

Methods

Here, we investigated the anti-inflammatory effect of the glycosaminoglycan (GAG)-binding chemokine fragment CXCL9(74-103), a molecule that potentially decreases neutrophil transmigration by competing with chemokines for GAG-binding sites, in two models of pneumonia caused by coronavirus infection.

Results

In a murine model of betacoronavirus MHV-3 infection, the treatment with CXCL9(74-103) decreased the accumulation of total leukocytes, mainly neutrophils, to the alveolar space and improved several parameters of lung dysfunction 3 days after infection. Additionally, this treatment also reduced the lung damage. In the SARS-CoV-2 model in K18-hACE2-mice, CXCL9(74-103) significantly improved the clinical manifestations of the disease, reducing pulmonary damage and decreasing viral titers in the lungs.

Discussion

These findings indicate that CXCL9(74-103) resulted in highly favorable outcomes in controlling pneumonia caused by coronavirus, as it effectively diminishes the clinical consequences of the infections and reduces both local and systemic inflammation.

The effect of antifibrotic agents on acute respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study from TriNetX US collaborative networks

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on global health and economies, resulting in millions of infections and deaths. This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the effect of antifibrotic agents (nintedanib and pirfenidone) on 1-year mortality in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure.

METHODS

Data from 61 healthcare organizations in the TriNetX database were analyzed. Adult patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure were included. Patients with a pre-existing diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis before their COVID-19 diagnosis were excluded. The study population was divided into an antifibrotic group and a control group. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes, and hazard ratios (HR) for 1-year mortality were calculated.

RESULTS

The antifibrotic group exhibited a significantly lower 1-year mortality rate compared to the control group. The survival probability at the end of the study was 84.42% in the antifibrotic group and 69.87% in the control group. The Log-Rank test yielded a p-value of less than 0.001. The hazard ratio was 0.434 (95% CI: 0.264-0.712), indicating a significant reduction in 1-year mortality in the antifibrotic group. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significantly improved 1-year survival in patients receiving nintedanib treatment and during periods when the Wuhan strain was predominant.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to demonstrate a survival benefit of antifibrotic agents in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Further research and clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of these antifibrotic agents in the context of COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure.

Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of ivermectin (IVM) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial, yet the drug has been widely used in the world. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of IVM in patients with COVID-19. From inception to June 22, 2023, the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and scopus databases were searched for relevant observational studies on the risk of RA in migraineurs. We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv to collect all relevant publications from inception to June 22, 2023. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, mechanical ventilation (MV) requirement, PCR negative conversion, and adverse events (AEs). Revman 5.4 was used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) and quality of evidence. Thirty-three RCTs (n = 10,489) were included. No significant difference in all-cause mortality rates or PCR negative conversion between IVM and controls. There were significant differences in MV requirement (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.96) and AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95) between the two groups. Ivermectin could reduce the risk of MV requirement and AEs in patients with COVID-19, without increasing other risks. In the absence of a better alternative, clinicians could use it with caution.

Efficacy of different doses of corticosteroids in treating severe COVID-19 pneumonia

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy of different doses of corticosteroids in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

METHODS

Between May 01, 2023, and June 20, 2023, 48 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were treated at the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine of Jinan Fourth People's Hospital. The observation group (21 patients) received standard care and high-dose corticosteroids, (high-dose group). The control group (27 patients) received standard care and low-dose corticosteroids (low-dose group). We collected baseline data and recorded inflammatory marker levels after 3 days of treatment, body temperature recovery time, length of stay, and 28-day all-cause mortality. The results of outpatient follow-up were recorded after 1 month.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 28-day mortality and length of stay. The number of days it took for body temperature to return to normal in the high-dose group was less than in the low-dose group. The high-dose group had significantly more reduced inflammatory factors (C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6). A total of 20 discharged patients were given 8-16 mg of methylprednisolone, depending on chest computed tomography (CT) and clinical symptoms after 1 month; in all discharged patients using oral corticosteroids, CT features improved.

CONCLUSION

High-dose corticosteroids had a significantly positive effect on the reduction of inflammatory factors and shortening body temperature recovery time. In the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia, early administration of high-dose, short-course corticosteroids should be implemented.

Structural insights into IL-6 signaling inhibition by therapeutic antibodies

Antibody inhibitors of the interleukin-6 (IL-6) signaling pathway, such as tocilizumab and sarilumab, have been used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, chimeric antigen receptor T cell-induced cytokine storm, and severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Here, we solve the cryogenic electron microscopy structures of sarilumab and tocilizumab in complex with IL-6R to resolutions of 3.2 and 3.3 Å, respectively. These structures reveal that both tocilizumab and sarilumab bind to the D3 domain of IL-6R. The binding surfaces of the two antibodies largely overlap, but the detailed interactions are different. Functional studies of various mutants show results consistent with our structural analysis of the antibodies and IL-6R interactions. Structural comparisons with the IL-6/IL-6R/gp130 complex indicate that sarilumab and tocilizumab probably inhibit IL-6/IL-6R signaling by competing for the IL-6 binding site. In summary, this work reveals the antibody-blocking mechanism of the IL-6 signaling pathway and paves the way for future antibody discovery.

Effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in kidney transplant recipients with severe kidney dysfunction infected with COVID-19

Transplant patients face an elevated risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) morbidity and mortality and commonly encounter renal dysfunction. Nirmatrelvir is primarily excreted through the kidneys. The dosage of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) needs to be adjusted according to the degree of renal function impairment. Nevertheless, NR is not recommended for patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min) due to a dearth of associated research. In this study, we focus on kidney transplant patients and document and analyze the experiences of using NR in individuals with severe kidney dysfunction. This was a retrospective multicenter study that included transplant recipients hospitalized for COVID-19 in five major tertiary hospitals in China from December 2022 to June 2023. The outcomes consisted of the disease progression rate by day 28, individual disease progression events, safety outcomes, information on adverse events (AEs), and the blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants. Data were presented with descriptive statistics. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 22. In total, 40 patients were included in the analysis. Considering the potential interaction between drugs, all patients temporarily discontinued their immunosuppressants during the NR treatment. None of the 32 moderate patients experienced disease progression. However, among the eight patients with critical COVID-19, unfortunately, two of them died. During the medication period, four patients experienced a total of six AEs associated with NR. None of them experienced AEs with a maximum grade of ≥3. Blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants were monitored in 22 of 40 patients, and the blood drug concentrations of immunosuppressants did not show a significant increase, but some patients experienced lower blood drug concentrations. Our findings supported the use of NR therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 in transplant patients with severe renal insufficiency. A modified dose of NR was well-tolerated.