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

[Potentially useful drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 in Primary Care]

The consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have exceeded any forecast made. Today we know that the level of severity of the infection in its initial stages will correspond to the evolution and the presence of sequelae in the future. There are no specific treatments that have shown sufficient evidence to allow their recommendation, especially in the mild-moderate stages of the disease. The anti-Covid vaccination is showing clear benefits, both in the prevention of the disease and in its evolution, with the consequent improvement in the numbers of those affected by the pandemic. The use of different drugs used in other indications has been proposed as possible beneficial treatments for COVID-19 that, if used, will be prescribed individually taking into account the characteristics and situation of the patient, the evolutionary phase of the disease as well as well as the limitations of the lack of evidence in its administration.

Ofeleein i mi Vlaptin-Volume II: Immunity Following Infection or mRNA Vaccination, Drug Therapies and Non-Pharmacological Management at Post-Two Years SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

The persistence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered research into limiting transmission, morbidity and mortality, thus warranting a comprehensive approach to guide balanced healthcare policies with respect to people's physical and mental health. The mainstay priority during COVID-19 is to achieve widespread immunity, which could be established through natural contact or vaccination. Deep knowledge of the immune response combined with recent specific data indicates the potential inferiority of induced immunity against infection. Moreover, the prevention of transmission has been founded on general non-pharmacological measures of protection, albeit debate exists considering their efficacy and, among other issues, their socio-psychological burden. The second line of defense is engaged after infection and is supported by a plethora of studied agents, such as antibiotics, steroids and non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs, antiviral medications and other biological agents that have been proposed, though variability in terms of benefits and adverse events has not allowed distinct solutions, albeit certain treatments might have a role in prevention and/or treatment of the disease. This narrative review summarizes the existing literature on the advantages and weaknesses of current COVID-19 management measures, thus underlining the necessity of acting based on the classical principle of "ofeleein i mi vlaptin", that is, to help or not to harm.

The Effect of Circulating Zinc, Selenium, Copper and Vitamin K1 on COVID-19 Outcomes: A Mendelian Randomization Study

Background & Aims: Previous results from observational, interventional studies and in vitro experiments suggest that certain micronutrients possess anti-viral and immunomodulatory activities. In particular, it has been hypothesized that zinc, selenium, copper and vitamin K1 have strong potential for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to test whether genetically predicted Zn, Se, Cu or vitamin K1 levels have a causal effect on COVID-19 related outcomes, including risk of infection, hospitalization and critical illness. Methods: We employed a two-sample Mendelian Randomization (MR) analysis. Our genetic variants derived from European-ancestry GWAS reflected circulating levels of Zn, Cu, Se in red blood cells as well as Se and vitamin K1 in serum/plasma. For the COVID-19 outcome GWAS, we used infection, hospitalization or critical illness. Our inverse-variance weighted (IVW) MR analysis was complemented by sensitivity analyses including a more liberal selection of variants at a genome-wide sub-significant threshold, MR-Egger and weighted median/mode tests. Results: Circulating micronutrient levels show limited evidence of association with COVID-19 infection, with the odds ratio [OR] ranging from 0.97 (95% CI: 0.87-1.08, p-value = 0.55) for zinc to 1.07 (95% CI: 1.00-1.14, p-value = 0.06)-i.e., no beneficial effect for copper was observed per 1 SD increase in exposure. Similarly minimal evidence was obtained for the hospitalization and critical illness outcomes with OR from 0.98 (95% CI: 0.87-1.09, p-value = 0.66) for vitamin K1 to 1.07 (95% CI: 0.88-1.29, p-value = 0.49) for copper, and from 0.93 (95% CI: 0.72-1.19, p-value = 0.55) for vitamin K1 to 1.21 (95% CI: 0.79-1.86, p-value = 0.39) for zinc, respectively. Conclusions: This study does not provide evidence that supplementation with zinc, selenium, copper or vitamin K1 can prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, critical illness or hospitalization for COVID-19.

Ocular and Systemic Complications of COVID-19: Impact on Patients and Healthcare

There is increasing information available about the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on the systemic and ocular health of patients, as well as the effects of delayed health care. This mini-review summarizes the potential complications and treatments of COVID-19. Systemic findings include respiratory illness, risk of thromboembolic events, and neurologic findings. Some patients may develop persistent symptoms even after the infection resolves. Effective treatment options include glucocorticoids, antivirals, interleukin-6 antagonists, monoclonal antibodies, Janus kinase inhibitors and vaccines. Potential ocular findings of COVID-19 include conjunctivitis, cranial nerve palsies, and microvascular changes in the retina; most symptoms resolved over time. During the lockdown periods, teleophthalmology was utilized to triage non-urgent issues; patients who did present to emergency departments tended to have more severe disease with worse visual prognoses. While transient delays in outpatient ophthalmic care may be tolerated in some patients, others experienced significant vision loss with interruptions in treatments. Resumption of ophthalmic care as soon as possible may help mitigate the effects of delayed care due to the pandemic.

Coronavirus Infection-Associated Cell Death Signaling and Potential Therapeutic Targets

COVID-19 is the name of the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that occurred in 2019. The virus-host-specific interactions, molecular targets on host cell deaths, and the involved signaling are crucial issues, which become potential targets for treatment. Spike protein, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), cathepsin L-cysteine peptidase, transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), nonstructural protein 1 (Nsp1), open reading frame 7a (ORF7a), viral main protease (3C-like protease (3CLpro) or Mpro), RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) (Nsp12), non-structural protein 13 (Nsp13) helicase, and papain-like proteinase (PLpro) are molecules associated with SARS-CoV infection and propagation. SARS-CoV-2 can induce host cell death via five kinds of regulated cell death, i.e., apoptosis, necroptosis, pyroptosis, autophagy, and PANoptosis. The mechanisms of these cell deaths are well established and can be disrupted by synthetic small molecules or natural products. There are a variety of compounds proven to play roles in the cell death inhibition, such as pan-caspase inhibitor (z-VAD-fmk) for apoptosis, necrostatin-1 for necroptosis, MCC950, a potent and specific inhibitor of the NLRP3 inflammasome in pyroptosis, and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, which can mitigate the corresponding cell death pathways. However, NF-κB signaling is another critical anti-apoptotic or survival route mediated by SARS-CoV-2. Such signaling promotes viral survival, proliferation, and inflammation by inducing the expression of apoptosis inhibitors such as Bcl-2 and XIAP, as well as cytokines, e.g., TNF. As a result, tiny natural compounds functioning as proteasome inhibitors such as celastrol and curcumin can be used to modify NF-κB signaling, providing a responsible method for treating SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. The natural constituents that aid in inhibiting viral infection, progression, and amplification of coronaviruses are also emphasized, which are in the groups of alkaloids, flavonoids, terpenoids, diarylheptanoids, and anthraquinones. Natural constituents derived from medicinal herbs have anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties, as well as inhibitory effects, on the viral life cycle, including viral entry, replication, assembly, and release of COVID-19 virions. The phytochemicals contain a high potential for COVID-19 treatment. As a result, SARS-CoV-2-infected cell death processes and signaling might be of high efficacy for therapeutic targeting effects and yielding encouraging outcomes.

Antirheumatic Drugs against COVID-19 from the Perspective of Rheumatologists

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a global threat to humanity. Its pathogenesis and different phases of disease progression are being elucidated under the pandemic. Active viral replication activates various immune cells and produces large amounts of inflammatory cytokines, which leads to the cytokine storm, a major cause of patient death. Therefore, viral inhibition is expected to be the most effective early in the course of the disease, while immunosuppressive treatment may be useful in the later stages to prevent disease progression. Based on the pathophysiology of rheumatic diseases, various immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive drugs are used for the diseases. Due to their mechanism of action, the antirheumatic drugs, including hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, colchicine, calcineurin inhibitors (e.g., cyclosporine A and tacrolimus), glucocorticoids, cytokines inhibitors, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (e.g., infliximab), anti-interleukin (IL)-6 (e.g., tocilizumab, sarilumab, and siltuximab), anti-IL-1 (e.g., anakinra and canakinumab) and Janus kinase inhibitors (e.g., baricitinib and tofacitinib), cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 blockade agents (e.g., abatacept), and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors (e.g., apremilast), have been tried as a treatment for COVID-19. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of action and clinical impact of these agents in the management of COVID-19.

An update on drugs with therapeutic potential for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the greatest threats to human health in the 21st century with more than 257 million cases and over 5.17 million deaths reported worldwide (as of November 23, 2021. Various agents were initially proclaimed to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, the etiological agent of COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin are all examples of therapeutic agents, whose efficacy against COVID-19 was later disproved. Meanwhile, concentrated efforts of researchers and clinicians worldwide have led to the identification of novel therapeutic options to control the disease including PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332). Although COVID-19 cases are currently treated using a comprehensive approach of anticoagulants, oxygen, and antibiotics, the novel Pfizer agent PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332), an investigational COVID-19 oral antiviral candidate, significantly reduced hospitalization time and death rates, based on an interim analysis of the phase 2/3 EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients) randomized, double-blind study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19, who are at high risk of progressing to severe illness. The scheduled interim analysis demonstrated an 89 % reduction in risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause compared to placebo in patients treated within three days of symptom onset (primary endpoint). However, there still exists a great need for the development of additional treatments, as the recommended therapeutic options are insufficient in many cases. Thus far, mRNA and vector vaccines appear to be the most effective modalities to control the pandemic. In the current review, we provide an update on the progress that has been made since April 2020 in clinical trials concerning the effectiveness of therapies available to combat COVID-19. We focus on currently recommended therapeutic agents, including steroids, various monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, baricitinib, anticoagulants and PAXLOVID™ summarizing the latest original studies and meta-analyses. Moreover, we aim to discuss other currently and previously studied agents targeting COVID-19 that either show no or only limited therapeutic activity. The results of recent studies report that hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma demonstrate no efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lastly, we summarize the studies on various drugs with incoherent or insufficient data concerning their effectiveness, such as amantadine, ivermectin, or niclosamide.

Post-exposure Lopinavir-Ritonavir Prophylaxis versus Surveillance for Individuals Exposed to SARS-CoV-2: The COPEP Pragmatic Open-Label, Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, no direct antiviral treatment is effective as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) was repurposed as a potential PEP agent against COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic open-label, parallel, cluster-randomised superiority trial in four sites in Switzerland and Brazil between March 2020 to March 2021. Clusters were randomised to receive LPV/r PEP (400/100 mg) twice daily for 5 days or no PEP (surveillance). Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was defined as a close contact of >15 minutes in <2 metres distance or having shared a closed space for ≥2 hours with a person with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome is the occurrence of COVID-19 defined by a SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR and/or a seroconversion) and ≥1 compatible symptom within 21 days post-enrolment. ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04364022); Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal: SNCTP 000003732.

FINDINGS

Of 318 participants, 157 (49.4%) were women; median age was 39 (interquartile range, 28-50) years. A total of 209 (179 clusters) participants were randomised to LPV/r PEP and 109 (95 clusters) to surveillance. Baseline characteristics were similar, with the exception of baseline SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity, which was 3-fold more frequent in the LPV/r arm (34/209 [16.3%] vs 6/109 [5.5%], respectively). During 21-day follow-up, 48/318 (15.1%) participants developed COVID-19: 35/209 (16.7%) in the LPV/r group and 13/109 (11.9%) in the surveillance group (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.44; 95% CI, 0.76-2.73). In the primary endpoint analysis, which was adjuted for baseline imbalance, the hazard ratio for developing COVID-19 in the LPV/r group vs surveillance was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.29-1.26; p =0.18).

INTERPRETATION

The role of LPV/r as PEP for COVID-19 remains unanswered. Although LPV/r over 5 days did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 in exposed individuals, we observed a change in the directionality of the effect in favour of LPV/r after adjusting for baseline imbalance. LPV/r for this indication merits further testing against SARS-CoV-2 in clinical trials.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation (project no.: 33IC30_166819) and the Private Foundation of Geneva University Hospitals (Edmond Rothschild (Suisse) SA, Union Bancaire Privée and the Fondation pour la recherche et le traitement médical).

Self-medication practices to prevent or manage COVID-19: A systematic review

Background

Previous studies have assessed the prevalence and characteristics of self-medication in COVID-19. However, no systematic review has summarized their findings.

Objective

We conducted a systematic review to assess the prevalence of self-medication to prevent or manage COVID-19.

Methods

We used different keywords and searched studies published in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, two preprint repositories, Google, and Google Scholar. We included studies that reported original data and assessed self-medication to prevent or manage COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) modified for cross-sectional studies.

Results

We identified eight studies, all studies were cross-sectional, and only one detailed the question used to assess self-medication. The recall period was heterogeneous across studies. Of the eight studies, seven assessed self-medication without focusing on a specific symptom: four performed in the general population (self-medication prevalence ranged between <4% to 88.3%) and three in specific populations (range: 33.9% to 51.3%). In these seven studies, the most used medications varied widely, including antibiotics, chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, acetaminophen, vitamins or supplements, ivermectin, and ibuprofen. The last study only assessed self-medication for fever due to COVID-19. Most studies had a risk of bias in the “representativeness of the sample” and “assessment of outcome” items of the NOS.

Conclusions

Studies that assessed self-medication for COVID-19 found heterogeneous results regarding self-medication prevalence and medications used. More well-designed and adequately reported studies are warranted to assess this topic.

Translating Evidence to Optimize Patient Care Using GRADE

Optimal evidence-based clinical practice requires systematic summaries of the best available evidence, including ratings of the quality of that evidence, and is facilitated by the availability of trustworthy guidelines. In this review, we describe the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rating quality of evidence and moving from evidence to recommendations using examples from allergy-immunology. GRADE focuses on systematic summaries of the best evidence, systematic reviews and trustworthy guidelines, and emphasizes a structured approach to determining quality (certainty) of bodies of evidence, absolute magnitude of effects of desirable and undesirable consequences (benefits and harms), and use of evidence to develop clinical recommendations. Adopted by over 110 organizations worldwide, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, GRADE is foundational to the optimal interpretation of research evidence and its application in clinical practice. This review supports the clinician's ability to find and use the information in GRADE guidelines to help care for patients in the clinic.

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an anti-malarial and immunomodulatory drug considered a potential candidate for drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to their in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Despite the potential antiviral effects and anti-inflammatory profile, the results based on clinical studies are contradictory. Therefore, the quality of the decision-making process from meta-analyses summarizing the available evidence selecting studies with different designs and unblinded trials is limited. The aim of this study was to synthesize the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, the website ClinicalTrials.gov and the preprint server medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to May 17, 2021. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals at high-risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (pre-exposure), individuals who had close contact with a positive or probable case of COVID-19 (post-exposure), non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: HCQ; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, need for hospitalization, length of hospital stay, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), death, and adverse events; and (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was judged according to the Cochrane guidelines for RCTs. Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used either a fixed or random-effects model to pool the results of individual studies depending on the presence of heterogeneity. The GRADE system was used to evaluate the strength of evidence between use of HCQ and the outcomes of interest.

FINDINGS

Fourteen blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Four trials (1942 patients: HCQ = 1271; placebo = 671) used HCQ as a prophylactic medication pre-exposure to COVID-19, two (1650 patients: HCQ = 821; placebo = 829) as a prophylactic medication post-exposure to COVID-19, three (1018 patients: HCQ = 497; placebo = 521) as treatment for non-hospitalized patients, and five (1138 patients: HCQ = 572; placebo = 566) as treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We found no decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals receiving HCQ as pre-exposure (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.77) or post-exposure (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29) prophylaxis to prevent COVID-19. There was no significant decreased risk of hospitalization for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23) and no decreased risk of MV (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34) and death (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78) among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving HCQ. The certainty of the results on the lack of clinical benefit for HCQ was rated as moderate. Moreover, our results demonstrated an increased risk for any adverse events and gastrointestinal symptoms among those using HCQ.

INTERPRETATION

Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

FUNDING

There was no funding source.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.

DATA SOURCES

WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).

STUDY SELECTION

Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.

RESULTS

As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.

CONCLUSION

In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Extreme immunotherapy: emergency immunology to defeat pandemics

The ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief the gap between modern biology's ability to investigate and respond to a novel pathogen and modern medicine's ability to marshal effective front-line interventions to limit its immediate health impact. While we have witnessed the rapid development of innovative vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 using novel molecular platforms, these have yet to alter the pandemic's long-term trajectory in all but a handful of high-income countries. Health workers at the clinical front lines have little more in their clinical armamentarium than was available a century ago-chiefly oxygen and steroids-and yet advances in modern immunology and immunotherapeutics suggest an underuse of extant and effective, if unorthodox, therapies, which we now call "Extreme Immunotherapies for Pandemics (EIPs)."

Efficacy and safety of current medications for treating severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients: an updated network meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Many recent studies have investigated the role of drug interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, an important question has been raised about how to select the effective and secure medications for COVID-19 patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the various medications available for severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs).

METHODS

We did an updated network meta-analysis. We searched the databases from inception until July 31, 2021, with no language restrictions. We included RPCTs comparing 49 medications and placebo in the treatment of severe and non-severe patients (aged 18 years or older) with COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on the trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, the ratios of virological cure, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect estimates.

RESULTS

From 3,869 publications, we included 61 articles related to 73 RPCTs (57 in non-severe COVID-19 patients and 16 in severe COVID-19 patients), comprising 20,680 patients. The mean sample size was 160 (interquartile range 96-393) in this study. The median duration of follow-up drugs intervention was 28 days (interquartile range 21-30). For increase in virological cure, we only found that proxalutamide (OR 9.16, 95% CI 3.15-18.30), ivermectin (OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.22-32.86), and low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.12-24.99) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo, in which proxalutamide seemed to be better than low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.69, 95% CI 2.43-17.65). For decrease in all-cause mortality, we found that proxalutamide (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.09-0.19), imatinib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96), and baricitinib (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.82) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we only found that immunoglobulin gamma (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.89) was related to severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo. For change in treatment-emergent adverse events, we only found that sotrovimab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.34) was associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we did not find any medications that presented a statistical difference when compared with placebo among severe COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that marked variations exist in the efficacy and safety of medications between severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. It seems that monoclonal antibodies (e.g., low dosage bamlanivimab, baricitinib, imatinib, and sotrovimab) are a better choice for treating severe or non-severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical decisions to use preferentially medications should carefully consider the risk-benefit profile based on efficacy and safety of all active interventions in patients with COVID-19 at different levels of infection.

Ivermectin for Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a new systematic review of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, including new primary studies, outcomes other than mortality, and grading the quality of the available evidence following the Cochrane guidance for methodology.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases, repository databases, and clinical trial registries (up to June 2021). The measure of treatment effect was risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

The review includes 11 RCTs (2436 participants). The certainty of the available evidence was quite low or very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When the analysis was limited to patients with baseline mild or moderate disease (8 reports, 1283 patients), there were no differences in mortality between ivermectin and control groups (low level of certainty); in patients with baseline severe diseases (3 reports, 304 patients), the use of ivermectin significantly decreased mortality compared to the controls (RD -0.17; 95% CIs, -0.24/-0.10; p = 0.00001; low level of certainty). In terms of disease progression (to severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit, and/or mechanical ventilation), the results were much the same. At day 14, the rate of patients with a negative RT-PCR test was 21% higher (from 5 to 36% higher) for ivermectin recipients than it was for the controls (low quality of evidence). Three studies (736 subjects) indicated that prophylaxis with ivermectin increased the likelihood of preventing COVID-19 compared to controls (low quality of evidence). Serious adverse events were rarely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence for the benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis, and most of this evidence is of low quality. Further evidence is needed to fine-tune potential indications and optimal treatment protocols for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

Early COVID-19 therapy with azithromycin plus nitazoxanide, ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in outpatient settings significantly improved COVID-19 outcomes compared to known outcomes in untreated patients

In a prospective observational study (pre-AndroCoV Trial), the use of nitazoxanide, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine demonstrated unexpected improvements in COVID-19 outcomes when compared to untreated patients. The apparent yet likely positive results raised ethical concerns on the employment of further full placebo controlled studies in early-stage COVID-19. The present analysis aimed to elucidate, through a comparative analysis with two control groups, whether full placebo-control randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on early-stage COVID-19 are still ethically acceptable. The Active group (AG) consisted of patients enrolled in the Pre-AndroCoV-Trial (n = 585). Control Group 1 (CG1) consisted of a retrospectively obtained group of untreated patients of the same population (n = 137), and Control Group 2 (CG2) resulted from a precise prediction of clinical outcomes based on a thorough and structured review of indexed articles and official statements. Patients were matched for sex, age, comorbidities and disease severity at baseline. Compared to CG1 and CG2, AG showed reduction of 31.5-36.5% in viral shedding (p < 0.0001), 70-85% in disease duration (p < 0.0001), and 100% in respiratory complications, hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, deaths and post-COVID manifestations (p < 0.0001 for all). For every 1000 confirmed cases for COVID-19, at least 70 hospitalizations, 50 mechanical ventilations and five deaths were prevented. Benefits from the combination of early COVID-19 detection and early pharmacological approaches were consistent and overwhelming when compared to untreated groups, which, together with the well-established safety profile of the drug combinations tested in the Pre-AndroCoV Trial, precluded our study from continuing employing full placebo in early COVID-19.

What we learned in the past year in managing our COVID-19 patients in intensive care units?

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a pandemic, was first recognized at Wuhan province, China in December 2019. The disease spread quickly across the globe, spreading stealthily from human to human through both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. A multisystem disease which appears to primarily spread via bio aerosols, it has exhibited a wide clinical spectrum involving multiple organ systems with the respiratory system pathology being the prime cause of morbidity and mortality. Initially unleashing a huge destructive trail at Wuhan China, Lombardy Italy and New York City, it has now spread to all parts of the globe and has actively thrived and mutated into new forms. Health care systems and Governments responded initially with panic, with containment measures giving way to mitigation strategies. The global medical and scientific community has come together and responded to this huge challenge. Professional medical societies quickly laid out "expert" guidelines which were conservative in their approach. Many drugs were re formulated and tested quickly with the help of national and international collaborative groups, helping carve out effective treatment strategies and help build a good scientific foundation for evidence-based medicine. Out of the darkness of chaos, we now have an orderly approach to manage this disease both from a public health preventive and therapeutic standpoint. With preventive measures such as masking and social distancing to the development of highly effective and potent vaccines, the public health success of such measures has been tempered by behavioral responses and resource mobilization. From a therapy standpoint, we now have drugs that were promising but now proven ineffective, and those that are effective when given early during viral pathogenesis or later when immune dysregulation has established, and the goal is to help reign in the destructive cascade. It has been a fascinating journey for mankind and our work here recapitulates the evolution of various aspects of critical care and other inpatient practices which continue to evolve.

Triangle of cytokine storm, central nervous system involvement, and viral infection in COVID-19: the role of sFasL and neuropilin-1

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) is identified as the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and is often linked to extreme inflammatory responses by over activation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), cytokine storm, and sepsis. These are robust causes for multi-organ damage. In particular, potential routes of SARS-CoV2 entry, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), have been linked to central nervous system (CNS) involvement. CNS has been recognized as one of the most susceptible compartments to cytokine storm, which can be affected by neuropilin-1 (NRP-1). ACE2 is widely-recognized as a SARS-CoV2 entry pathway; However, NRP-1 has been recently introduced as a novel path of viral entry. Apoptosis of cells invaded by this virus involves Fas receptor-Fas ligand (FasL) signaling; moreover, Fas receptor may function as a controller of inflammation. Furthermore, NRP-1 may influence FasL and modulate cytokine profile. The neuroimmunological insult by SARS-CoV2 infection may be inhibited by therapeutic approaches targeting soluble Fas ligand (sFasL), cytokine storm elements, or related viral entry pathways. In the current review, we explain pivotal players behind the activation of cytokine storm that are associated with vast CNS injury. We also hypothesize that sFasL may affect neuroinflammatory processes and trigger the cytokine storm in COVID-19.