Azithromycin for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

Signal of safety due to adverse drug reactions induced by tacrolimus with or without azithromycin

INTRODUCTION

We identified two reports of drug levels increased and acute kidney injury caused by the drug-drug interaction between azithromycin (AZM) and tacrolimus (TAC). However, it is unclear whether the combined of these two drugs causes additive or synergistic adverse drug reactions. Therefore, we evaluated the disproportionality in reporting drug level increased and acute kidney injury for these two drugs are used alone and in combination with each other.

METHOD

Data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System from 1974 to Q3/2021 were used. Reports based on exposure to macrolide antibiotic alone, TAC alone, and each macrolide antibiotic + TAC were extracted. Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and a lower limit of the 95% CI (Lower95CI) value of 2.0 or higher was interpreted as a signal of safety.

RESULTS

Lower95CIs for macrolide antibiotic alone and TAC showed no potential signals of safety, including drug level increased, acute kidney injury, and control event. The PRRs and 95% CI for drug level increased was 3.27 (2.69-3.97) with AZM + TAC, and 10.81 (9.59-12.17) for clarithromycin (CAM) + TAC. For CAM + TAC, the PRR and 95% CI was 8.42 (7.51-9.44) in acute kidney injury. However, AZM + TAC was not associated with a signal of safety in acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSIONS

This suggests that AZM + TAC has a low risk of causing acute kidney injury but may cause drug level increased. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Experiences of running a stratified medicine adaptive platform trial: Challenges and lessons learned from 10 years of the FOCUS4 trial in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Complex innovative design trials are becoming increasingly common and offer potential for improving patient outcomes in a faster time frame. FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and it remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Here, we aim to describe lessons learned from delivery of the trial over the last 10 years.

METHODS

FOCUS4 was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial testing the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. It used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which sub-trial should close early, and new therapies were added as protocol amendments. Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified sub-trial (FOCUS4-B, C or D) or non-stratified FOCUS4-N. The primary outcome for all studies was progression-free survival comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. At the close of the trial, feedback was elicited from all investigators through surveys and interviews and consolidated into a series of recommendations and lessons learned for the delivery of similar future trials.

RESULTS

Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 UK hospitals. Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted sub-trials were activated: FOCUS4-D (February 2014-March 2016) evaluated AZD8931 in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wildtype subgroup; FOCUS4-B (February 2016-July 2018) evaluated aspirin in the PIK3CA mutant subgroup and FOCUS4-C (June 2017-October 2020) evaluated adavosertib in the RAS+TP53 double mutant subgroup. FOCUS4-N was active throughout and evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus a treatment break. A total of 361 (25%) registered patients were randomised into a sub-trial. Feedback on the experiences of delivery of FOCUS4 could be grouped into three main areas of challenge: funding/infrastructure, biomarker testing procedures and trial design efficiencies within which 20 recommendations are summarised.

CONCLUSION

Adaptive stratified medicine platform studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Our stakeholder feedback has helped to inform how these trial designs can succeed and answer multiple questions efficiently, providing resource is adequate.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions on mortality and the average length of hospital stay of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Up to now, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined various drugs as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results were diverse and occasionally even inconsistent with each other. To this point,we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological agents in published RCTs.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was performed using PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. RCTs evaluating mortality and the average length of hospital stay to standard of care (SOC)/placebo/control were included. RCTs mainly were classified into five categories of drugs, including anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antiparasitic, antibody and antibiotics. Meta-analysis was done on 5 drugs classes and sub-group meta-analysis was done on single drugs and moderate or severe stage of disease.

EXPERT OPINION

Mortality and the average length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients were significantly reduced with anti-inflammatory drugs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 to 0.85, P<0.00001, and mean difference [MD]: -1.41, CI:-1.75 to -1.07, P<0.00001, respectively) compared to SOC/control/placebo. Furthermore, antiparasitic was associated with reduced length of hospital stay (MD: -0.65, CI: -1.26 to -0.03, P<0.05) in comparison to SOC/placebo/control. However, no effectiveness was found in other pharmacological interventions.

Use of Antivirals in SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Critical Review of the Role of Remdesivir

The aim of this report is to review the literature and shed light on the uncertainties surrounding the use of antiviral agents in general and remdesivir in COVID-19 patients. This review evaluated a battery of antiviral compounds and their effectiveness in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. Remdesivir is the only antiviral approved by the EMA and FDA for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This work extensively reviews remdesivir data generated from clinical trials and observational studies, paying attention to the most recent data, and focusing on outcomes to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the results. This review also discusses the recommendations issued by official bodies during the pandemic in the light of the current knowledge. The use of remdesivir in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection is justified because a virus is the causative agent that triggers the inflammatory responses and its consequences. More trials are needed to improve the management of this disease.

COVID-19 Infections and Asthma

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has infected more than 200 million and led to the deaths of more than 4.3 million people. Although there are known risk factors for severe disease, asthma was initially hypothesized to be a risk factor for severe disease given the association between asthma exacerbations and respiratory viral illnesses in general. Fortunately, clinical outcomes for patients with asthma overall are similar to those for patients without asthma, without convincing evidence that asthma is a risk factor for severe disease. This may be explained in part by the decreasing gradient of angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptor from the upper to lower respiratory epithelium and that aeroallergen-sensitized patients with asthma can have up to 50% reduction in angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptor expression. Vaccination for patients with asthma is recommended for all without clear contraindications. COVID-19–specific treatment options are available depending on the severity of disease. We caution the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients with asthma not requiring supplemental oxygen given an association with worse outcomes. Postacute COVID-19 syndrome or long-haul COVID does not appear to be more prevalent in the population with asthma, and a multidisciplinary approach to care is a reasonable option.

[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.

Azithromycin Has Been Flying Off the Shelves: The Italian Lesson Learnt from Improper Use of Antibiotics against COVID-19

The warning by the Italian Medicines Agency on the high shortage of azithromycin in the country in January 2022 represents a paradigmatic lesson learnt from improper use of antibiotics during COVID-19 pandemic.

Polymeric nanoparticles and nanomicelles of hydroxychloroquine co-loaded with azithromycin potentiate anti-SARS-CoV-2 effect

The outbreak of coronavirus (COVID-19) has put the world in an unprecedented scenario. To reestablish the world routine as promote the effective treatment of this disease, the world is looking for new (and old) drug that can efficiently kill the virus. In this study, we have developed two nanosystems: polymeric nanoparticles and nanomicelles-based on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. The nanosystem was fully characterized by AFM and DLS techniques. Also, the nanosystems were radiolabeled with 99mTc and pulmonary applied (installation) in vivo to evaluate the biological behavior. The toxicity of both nanosystem were evaluated in primary cells (FGH). Finally, both nanosystems were evaluated in vitro against the SARS-CoV-2. The results demonstrated that the methodology used to produce the nanomicelles and the nanoparticle was efficient, the characterization showed a nanoparticle with a spherical shape and a medium size of 390 nm and a nanomicelle also with a spherical shape and a medium size of 602 nm. The nanomicelles were more efficient (~ 70%) against SARS-CoV-2 than the nanoparticles. The radiolabeling process with 99mTc was efficient (> 95%) in both nanosystems and the pulmonary application demonstrated to be a viable route for both nanosystems with a local retention time of approximately, 24 h. None of the nanosystems showed cytotoxic effect on FGH cells, even in high doses, corroborating the safety of both nanosystems. Thus, claiming the benefits of the nanotechnology, especially with regard the reduced adverse we believe that the use of nanosystems for COVID-19 treatment can be an optimized choice.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40097-022-00476-3.

Antibiotic Prescribing in Dutch Daytime and Out-of-Hours General Practice during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Database Study

COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in major changes in healthcare, including the prescribing of antibiotics. We aimed to monitor antibiotic prescribing trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in Dutch general practice, both during daytime and out-of-hours (OOH). Routine care data were used from 379 daytime general practices (DGP) and 28 OOH-services over the period 2019-2021. Per week, we analyzed prescription rates per 100,000 inhabitants, overall, for respiratory and urinary tract infections (RTIs and UTIs) specifically and within age categories. We assessed changes in antibiotic prescribing during different phases of the pandemic using interrupted time series analyses. Both at DGPs and OOH-services significantly fewer antibiotics were prescribed during the COVID-19 pandemic after government measures became effective. Furthermore, the number of contacts decreased in both settings. When restrictions were revoked in 2021 prescription rates increased both at DGP and OOH-services, returning to pre-pandemic levels at OOH-services, but not in DGP. Changes in antibiotic prescribing rates were prominent for RTIs and among children up to 11 years old, but not for UTIs. To conclude, while antibiotic prescribing decreased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic both in daytime and out-of-hours, the pandemic does not seem to have a lasting effect on antibiotic prescribing.

Azithromycin in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Azithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.

RESULTS

The initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.

ESCMID COVID-19 living guidelines: drug treatment and clinical management

SCOPE

In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19.

SCOPE

The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised.

Efficacy of repurposed antiviral drugs: lessons from COVID-19

The clinical, social, and economic impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, originated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have motivated a massive search and investment to find treatments for this new disease. Repurposing drugs has been an appealing strategy for the rapid translation of in vitro and ex vivo drug discovery to the clinic. Several repurposed drugs have been assessed clinically, but no effective repurposed antiviral has been identified so far. Of note, no effective treatments for COVID-19 or for any other viral disease have been found by repurposing drugs identified through hypothesis-free screens. Here, I discuss whether drug repurposing is the best strategy for developing effective therapies to eradicate COVID-19 and other viral human infections.

Treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from 2020 and new therapeutic options

To face the COVID-19 pandemic, prophylactic vaccines have been developed in record time, but vaccine coverage is still limited, accessibility is not equitable worldwide, and the vaccines are not fully effective against emerging variants. Therefore, therapeutic treatments are urgently needed to control the pandemic and treat vulnerable populations, but despite all efforts made, options remain scarce. However, the knowledge gained during 2020 constitutes an invaluable platform from which to build future therapies. In this review, we highlight the main drug repurposing strategies and achievements made over the first 18 months of the pandemic, but also discuss the antivirals, immunomodulators and drug combinations that could be used in the near future to cure COVID-19.

A short focus, azithromycin in the treatment of respiratory viral infection COVID-19: efficacy or inefficacy?

Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic. Recent evidence has demonstrated in vitro activity against a wide variety of respiratory tract viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 responsible for the current global pandemic COVID-19. A mechanism of action acting on different phases of the viral cycle is assumed. In addition to its in vitro antiviral properties, some evidence also suggests immunomodulatory and antifibrotic activity. These properties of azithromycin could be useful in the treatment of viral respiratory tract infections such as COVID-19. However, clinical data on the antiviral efficacy of azithromycin in the treatment of respiratory tract infections are inconsistent, both when used as monotherapy and in polypharmacological combination. In addition, cases of azithromycin-induced QT long and malignant arrhythmias are reported. In this short review, we attempt to determine the role of azithromycin in the treatment of viral respiratory tract infections such as COVID-19, therapeutic efficacy, or inefficacy?

Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

Pulmonary Aspects of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a respiratory virus that gains entry via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) within airway epithelium. Patients exhibit a spectrum of respiratory symptoms from asymptomatic to respiratory failure. Patient factors including obesity, tobacco use, and black race are all associated with increased ACE2 expression and may contribute to increased complications. Consolidation and ground-glass opacities on chest imaging are typical but not specific for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Venous thromboembolism occurs infrequently when prophylactic anticoagulation is provided. However, capillary microthrombosis is nearly ubiquitous, suggesting that it contributes to hypoxemia. Remdesivir and glucocorticoids may benefit some hospitalized patients. Many of those afflicted remain symptomatic two weeks following diagnosis and continue to require health care. Total lung capacity, diffusion capacity, and maximal oxygen consumption may be reduced for months in some survivors. Lung transplant offers chronically critically ill patients new hope, and this option may have increasing potential for outpatients with COVID-19-associated fibrosis.

Azithromycin for Treatment of Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: a randomised, multicentre, open-label clinical trial (DAWn-AZITHRO)

Background and objectives

Azithromycin was rapidly adopted as a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early in the pandemic. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy in patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

Methods

In a series of randomised, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicentre clinical trials (Direct Antivirals Working against the novel coronavirus (DAWn)), several treatments were compared with standard of care. In 15 Belgian hospitals, patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 were allocated 2:1 to receive standard of care plus azithromycin or standard of care alone. The primary outcome was time to live discharge or sustained clinical improvement, defined as a two-point improvement on the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale sustained for at least 3 days.

Results

Patients were included between April 22 and December 17, 2020. When 15-day follow-up data were available for 160 patients (56% of preset cohort), an interim analysis was performed at request of the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board. Subsequently, DAWn-AZITHRO was stopped for futility. In total, 121 patients were allocated to the treatment arm and 64 patients to the standard-of-care arm. We found no effect of azithromycin on the primary outcome with a hazard ratio of 1.044 (95% CI 0.772–1.413; p=0.7798). None of the predefined subgroups showed significant interaction as covariates in the Fine–Gray regression analysis. No benefit of azithromycin was found on any of the short- and longer-term secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

Time to clinical improvement is not influenced by azithromycin in patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Previous randomised controlled studies with azithromycin in hospitalised COVID-19 patients assessed end-points at fixed timepoints. Complementary to this, DAWn-AZITHRO assessed time to sustained improvement. No benefit of azithromycin was shown.https://bit.ly/3FapyC7

Perception, Attitude, and Confidence of Physicians About Antimicrobial Resistance and Antimicrobial Prescribing Among COVID-19 Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study From Punjab, Pakistan

Background: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could experience multiple coinfections, and judicial antimicrobials, including antibiotics, is paramount to treat these coinfections. This study evaluated physicians' perception, attitude, and confidence about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and antimicrobial prescribing in patients with COVID-19. Methods: A self-administered and validated online questionnaire comprised of six sections was disseminated among physicians working in public sector hospitals in Punjab, Pakistan, using the convenience sampling method from April to May 2021. The study also assessed the validity and reliability of the study questionnaire using exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha. In addition, the descriptive and inferential statistics present survey results. Results: A total of 387 physicians participated in this study. The study showed that the questionnaire demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.77). Most physicians (n = 221, 57.1%) believed that AMR is a considerable problem in Pakistan. Less than a quarter of respondents (n = 91, 23.5%) consulted with local antibiotic resistance data to prescribe antibiotics in COVID-19 patients. However, the respondents were confident to select a suitable antibiotic (n = 229, 59.2%). More than three-quarters of the respondents believed that advice from a senior colleague (n = 336, 86.8%), infectious disease (ID) physician (n = 315, 81.4%), and implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) could facilitate appropriate prescribing of antibiotics in COVID-19 patients. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that physicians with more than 10 years of experience had higher odds of consulting local guidelines for antibiotic therapy (OR, 4.71 95% CI: 1.62-13.73, p = 0.004) than physicians with less than 5 years of experience. Similar trends were found for consulting national guidelines and local resistance data to select an empiric antibiotic therapy. Conclusion: AMR-related awareness was optimal among physicians. Only a few physicians looked up local antibiotic resistance data before prescribing antibiotics to COVID-19 patients empirically. The significant approaches advised by physicians to reduce AMR risk among COVID-19 patients were the implementation of ASPs combined with advice from ID physicians.

Hesitancy Regarding Medical Advice on COVID-19: An Emergency Department Perspective

Objective:

The rejection of or non-compliance with treatment arises for different reasons by patients who receive treatment recommendations for various diseases. These states are described by various concepts, such as discharge against medical advice (DAMA) and medication nonadherence (MNA). The basis of the study is to determine how these states have arisen during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

Method:

The data of this study were collected through standardized interviews with 103 volunteer participants who were diagnosed with COVID-19 at different times and who did not use their prescribed medicine during the pandemic in Turkey. The data obtained in the research were analyzed through the MAXQDA qualitative analysis program.

Results:

As a result of the analysis of the data, 4 main themes and sub-codes have been reached: (1) prescribed medicine, (2) an information source for the COVID-19 period/treatment, (3) the reason for medication nonadherence, and (4) treatment of choice. When the approach toward treatment of patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and had started treatment by a physician was evaluated, it was revealed that the nonadherence state emerged as a cycle. In the initial period, nonadherence due to the medication itself was observed. The second period is when the patients recognize their disease and collect information from their environment. Although this period begins before the disease, the search for informative sources intensifies, especially once the diagnosis has been received. In the third period, with their diagnosis and the information they had obtained, patients consider the reasons to use the medication and then decide whether or not to use it. In the fourth period, the patients who will not use antivirals consider other medications, such as anti-flu, anticoagulant, supplements, and nutrition.

Conclusion:

Since a specific treatment protocol has not yet been revealed for COVID-19, a new conceptual framework is required. In the current condition, the state of “hesitation for medical advice” arises for non-hospitalized patients.

Antibiotics in the Community During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study to Understand Users' Perspectives of Antibiotic Seeking and Consumption Behaviors in Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic is thought to have led to increased "inappropriate" or "unjustified" seeking and consumption of antibiotics by individuals in the community. However, little reference has been made to antibiotic seeking and using behaviors from the perspectives of users in Bangladesh during this health crisis.

PURPOSE

This study seeks to document how antibiotic medicines are sought and used during a complex health crisis, and, within different contexts, what are the nuanced reasons why patients may utilize these medicines sub-optimally.

METHODS

We used an exploratory, qualitative design. Forty semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with people diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=20), who had symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 (n=20), and who had received care at home in two cities between May and June 2021 in Bangladesh. In this study, an inductive thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The analysis highlighted the interlinked relationships of antibiotic seeking and consumption behaviors with the diversity of information disseminated during a health crisis. Antibiotic-seeking behaviors are related to previous experience of use, perceived severity of illness, perceived vulnerability, risk of infection, management of an "unknown" illness and anxiety, distrust of expert advice, and intrinsic agency on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Suboptimal adherence, such as modifying treatment regimes and using medication prescribed for others, were found to be part of care strategies used when proven therapeutics were unavailable to treat COVID-19. Early cessation of therapy was found to be a rational practice to avoid side effects and unknown risks.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, we highly recommend the take up of a pandemic specific antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) program in the community. To deliver better outcomes of AMS, incorporating users' perspectives could be a critical strategy. Therefore, a co-produced AMS intervention that is appropriate for a specific cultural context is an essential requirement to reduce the overuse of antibiotics during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Alternative Management of Cushing's Syndrome During Covid-19 Pandemic

:

Cushing's syndrome results from prolonged exposure to glucocorticoids. Surgery is often the first-line treatment for this condition, regardless of etiology. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a decrease in surgical procedures due to the risk of infection transmission. There are still emergency cases of Cushing’s syndrome that are admitted to the hospital and require urgent management. The current treatment should be focused on medical management and endovascular embolization in selective cases. Embolization can be performed in facilities where there aretrained personnel with experience in adrenal embolization. Surgery, which traditionally is a first-line therapy, can increase the risk of infection, therefore, it should be avoided. The current review provides a brief description of the possible options for the management of adrenal Cushing’s syndrome during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of therapeutics on mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analyses informing the European Respiratory Society living guideline

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high mortality rate. There are an increasing number of published randomised controlled trials for anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and other treatments. The European Respiratory Society Living Guidelines for the Management of Hospitalised Adults with COVID-19 were published recently, providing recommendations on appropriate pharmacotherapy.Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes questions for key interventions were identified by an international panel and systematic reviews were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The importance of end-points were rated, and mortality was identified as the key "critical" outcome for all interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies and provide effect estimates for the impact of treatments on mortality.Corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β have been reviewed.Our results found further evidence in support of the use of corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, and anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. These data support the need to identify additional therapies with beneficial effects on mortality.

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

COVID-19 Patient Management in Outpatient Setting: A Population-Based Study from Southern Italy

Evidence on treatments for early-stage COVID-19 in outpatient setting is sparse. We explored the pattern of use of drugs prescribed for COVID-19 outpatients' management in Southern Italy in the period February 2020-January 2021. This population-based cohort study was conducted using COVID-19 surveillance registry from Caserta Local Health Unit, which was linked to claims databases from the same catchment area. The date of SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis was the index date (ID). We evaluated demographic and clinical characteristics of the study drug users and the pattern of use of drugs prescribed for outpatient COVID-19 management. Overall, 40,030 patients were included in the analyses, with a median (IQR) age of 44 (27-58) years. More than half of the included patients were asymptomatic at the ID. Overall, during the study period, 720 (1.8%) patients died due to COVID-19. Azithromycin and glucocorticoids were the most frequently prescribed drugs, while oxygen was the less frequently prescribed therapy. The cumulative rate of recovery from COVID-19 was 84.2% at 30 days from ID and it was lower among older patients. In this study we documented that the drug prescribing patterns for COVID-19 treatment in an outpatient setting from Southern Italy was not supported from current evidence on beneficial therapies for early treatment of COVID-19, thus highlighting the need to implement strategies for improving appropriate drug prescribing in general practice.

A critical analysis about the supposed role of azithromycin in the treatment of covid-19

After over one year, the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) has still affected millions of people. For this reason, global efforts to promote better treatment of covid-19 have been undertaken focused on the repurposing of existing medications.In Brazil, azithromycin, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, has been used in association with other drugs as an immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and anti-viral agent, regardless of bacterial co-infection. Indeed, data from experimental studies have demonstrated the capacity of this drug in reducing the production of infection-induced pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-8, IL-6, and TNF-alpha. However, observational studies revealed conflicting results regarding its effect, whereas well-conducted clinical trials have not shown a considerable effect of this agent on the improvement of clinical outcomes. This narrative review addressed the possible role of this antibiotic in the management of covid-19, based on data from clinical and preclinical studies.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Community Antibiotic Prescribing and Stewardship: A Qualitative Interview Study with General Practitioners in England

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived the pandemic as having had less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations) in addition to changing patient presentations and GP workloads as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. The pandemic disrupted, and required adaptations in, the usual ways of working and AMS. It is now important to identify opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

Understanding the social drivers of antibiotic use during COVID-19 in Bangladesh: Implications for reduction of antimicrobial resistance

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health crisis that is now impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known how COVID-19 risks influence people to consume antibiotics, particularly in contexts like Bangladesh where these pharmaceuticals can be purchased without a prescription. This paper identifies the social drivers of antibiotics use among home-based patients who have tested positive with SARS-CoV-2 or have COVID-19-like symptoms. Using qualitative telephone interviews, the research was conducted in two Bangladesh cities with 40 participants who reported that they had tested positive for coronavirus (n = 20) or had COVID-19-like symptoms (n = 20). Our analysis identified five themes in antibiotic use narratives: antibiotics as 'big' medicine; managing anxiety; dealing with social repercussions of COVID-19 infection; lack of access to COVID-19 testing and healthcare services; and informal sources of treatment advice. Antibiotics were seen to solve physical and social aspects of COVID-19 infection, with urgent ramifications for AMR in Bangladesh and more general implications for global efforts to mitigate AMR.

Antibiotic Prescribing Trends in Belgian Out-of-Hours Primary Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Study Using Routinely Collected Health Data

Antibiotic overprescribing is one of the main drivers of the global and growing problem of antibiotic resistance, especially in primary care and for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). RTIs are the most common reason for patients to consult out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way general practitioners (GPs) work, both during office hours and OOH. In Belgian OOH primary care, remote consultations with the possibility of issuing prescriptions and telephone triage were implemented. We aimed to describe the impact of COVID-19 on GPs’ antibiotic prescribing during OOH primary care. In an observational study, using routinely collected health data from GP cooperatives (GPCs) in Flanders, we analyzed GPs’ antibiotic prescriptions in 2019 (10 GPCs) and 2020 (20 GPCs) during OOH consultations (telephone and face-to-face). We used autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modeling to identify any changes after lockdowns were implemented. In total, 388,293 contacts and 268,430 prescriptions were analyzed in detail. The number of antibiotic prescriptions per weekend, per 100,000 population was 11.47 (95% CI: 9.08–13.87) or 42.9% lower after compared to before the implementation of lockdown among all contacts. For antibiotic prescribing per contact, we found a decrease of 12.2 percentage points (95% CI: 10.6–13.7) or 56.5% among all contacts and of 5.3 percentage points (95% CI: 3.7–6.9) or 23.2% for face-to-face contacts only. The decrease in the number of prescriptions was more pronounced for cases with respiratory symptoms that corresponded with symptoms of COVID-19 and for antibiotics that are frequently prescribed for RTIs, such as amoxicillin (a decrease of 64.9%) and amoxicillin/clavulanate (a decrease of 38.1%) but did not appear for others such as nitrofurantoin. The implementation of COVID-19 lockdown measures coincided with an unprecedented drop in the number of antibiotic prescriptions, which can be explained by a decrease in face-to-face patient contacts, as well as a lower number of antibiotics prescriptions per face-to-face patient contact. The decrease was seen for antibiotics used for RTIs but not for nitrofurantoin, the first-choice antibiotic for urinary tract infections.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units.

METHODS

Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Effect of PEP flute self-care versus usual care in early covid-19: non-drug, open label, randomised controlled trial in a Danish community setting

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether positive expiratory pressure (PEP) by PEP flute self-care is effective in reducing respiratory symptoms among community dwelling adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection and early stage covid-19.

DESIGN

Non-drug, open label, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Capital Region and Region Zealand in Denmark from 6 October 2020 to 26 February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Community dwelling adults, able to perform self-care, with a new SARS-CoV-2 infection (verified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests) and symptoms of covid-19.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomised to use PEP flute self-care in addition to usual care or have usual care only. Randomisation was based on permuted random blocks in a 1:1 ratio, stratified for sex and age (<60 or ≥60 years). The PEP self-care group was instructed to use a PEP flute three times per day during the 30 day intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was a change in symptom severity from baseline to day 30, as assessed by the self-reported COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) assessment test (CAT), which was adjusted for baseline values and stratification factors. Participants completed the CAT test questionnaire every day online. Secondary outcomes were self-reported urgent care visits due to covid-19, number of covid-19 related symptoms, and change in self-rated health, all within 30-days' follow-up.

RESULTS

378 participants were assigned to the PEP flute self-care intervention (n=190) or usual care only (n=188). In the PEP self-care group, the median number of days with PEP flute use was 21 days (interquartile range 13-25). For the intention-to-treat population, a group difference was observed in changes from baseline in CAT scores of -1.2 points (95% confidence interval -2.1 to -0.2; P=0.017) in favour of the PEP flute self-care group. At day 30, the PEP flute self-care group also reported less chest tightness, less dyspnoea, more vigour, and higher level of daily activities, but these differences were small, and no consistent effects were seen on the secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In community dwelling adults with early covid-19, PEP flute self-care had a significant, yet marginal and uncertain clinical effect on respiratory symptom severity, as measured by CAT scores.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04530435.

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Control between Drug Repurposing and Vaccination: A Comprehensive Overview

Respiratory viruses represent a major public health concern, as they are highly mutated, resulting in new strains emerging with high pathogenicity. Currently, the world is suffering from the newly evolving severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This virus is the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a mild-to-severe respiratory tract infection with frequent ability to give rise to fatal pneumonia in humans. The overwhelming outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 continues to unfold all over the world, urging scientists to put an end to this global pandemic through biological and pharmaceutical interventions. Currently, there is no specific treatment option that is capable of COVID-19 pandemic eradication, so several repurposed drugs and newly conditionally approved vaccines are in use and heavily applied to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The emergence of new variants of the virus that partially or totally escape from the immune response elicited by the approved vaccines requires continuous monitoring of the emerging variants to update the content of the developed vaccines or modify them totally to match the new variants. Herein, we discuss the potential therapeutic and prophylactic interventions including repurposed drugs and the newly developed/approved vaccines, highlighting the impact of virus evolution on the immune evasion of the virus from currently licensed vaccines for COVID-19.

Drug Interactions for Patients with Respiratory Diseases Receiving COVID-19 Emerged Treatments

Pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is still pressing the healthcare systems worldwide. Thus far, the lack of available COVID-19-targeted treatments has led scientists to look through drug repositioning practices and exploitation of available scientific evidence for potential efficient drugs that may block biological pathways of SARS-CoV-2. Till today, several molecules have emerged as promising pharmacological agents, and more than a few medication protocols are applied during hospitalization. On the other hand, given the criticality of the disease, it is important for healthcare providers, especially those in COVID-19 clinics (i.e., nursing personnel and treating physicians), to recognize potential drug interactions that may lead to adverse drug reactions that may negatively impact the therapeutic outcome. In this review, focusing on patients with respiratory diseases (i.e., asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) that are treated also for COVID-19, we discuss possible drug interactions, their underlying pharmacological mechanisms, and possible clinical signs that healthcare providers in COVID-19 clinics may need to acknowledge as adverse drug reactions due to drug-drug interactions.

Identification of Coinfections by Viral and Bacterial Pathogens in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients in Peru: Molecular Diagnosis and Clinical Characteristics

The impact of respiratory coinfections in COVID-19 is still not well understood despite the growing evidence that consider coinfections greater than expected. A total of 295 patients older than 18 years of age, hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate/severe pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2 infection (according to definitions established by the Ministry of Health of Peru) were enrolled during the study period. A coinfection with one or more respiratory pathogens was detected in 154 (52.2%) patients at hospital admission. The most common coinfections were Mycoplasma pneumoniae (28.1%), Chlamydia pneumoniae (8.8%) and with both bacteria (11.5%); followed by Adenovirus (1.7%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae/Adenovirus (0.7%), Chlamydia pneumoniae/Adenovirus (0.7%), RSV-B/Chlamydia pneumoniae (0.3%) and Mycoplasma pneumoniae/Chlamydia pneumoniae/Adenovirus (0.3%). Expectoration was less frequent in coinfected individuals compared to non-coinfected (5.8% vs. 12.8%). Sepsis was more frequent among coinfected patients than non-coinfected individuals (33.1% vs. 20.6%) and 41% of the patients who received macrolides empirically were PCR-positive for Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae.

The immunomodulatory effects of macrolide antibiotics in respiratory disease

Macrolide antibiotics are well known for their antibacterial properties, but extensive research in the context of inflammatory lung disease has revealed that they also have powerful immunomodulatory properties. It has been demonstrated that these drugs are therapeutically beneficial in various lung diseases, with evidence they significantly reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD, asthma, bronchiectasis and cystic fibrosis. The efficacy demonstrated in patients infected with macrolide tolerant organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa supports the concept that their efficacy is at least partly related to immunomodulatory rather than antibacterial effects. Inconsistent data and an incomplete understanding of their mechanisms of action hampers the use of macrolide antibiotics as immunomodulatory therapies. Macrolides recently demonstrated no clinically relevant immunomodulatory effects in the context of COVID-19 infection. This review provides an overview of macrolide antibiotics and discusses their immunomodulatory effects and mechanisms of action in the context of inflammatory lung disease.

Host-modifying drugs against COVID-19: some successes, but not yet the breakthrough

After reviewing antiviral drugs (Brüssow Environmental Microbiology 2021) the present review summarizes the results of clinical trials with host‐modifying drugs in COVID‐19 patients. Clinical benefits were observed with different immunomodulators. The variable outcomes of trials with the interleukin 6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab demonstrated that treatment benefits might only be present in specific subgroups of patients or in specific infection stages. A meta‐analysis of trials with the interleukin 1 receptor antagonist anakinra showed a survival benefit only in patients with hyperinflammation. The Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib is an anti‐inflammatory treatment that showed a clinical benefit in hospitalized patients who do not yet need supplementary oxygen. In contrast, the corticosteroid dexamethasone showed mortality reducing effects that were limited to patients on ventilation or in need of supplementary oxygen. Therapeutic dose of anticoagulation met the criteria for inferiority in severe cases, but showed a small survival benefit in non‐severe COVID‐19 patients. Large trials with colchicine showed a small or no survival benefit. Azithromycin, an antibiotic with immunomodulatory activity, showed no effects in numerous clinical trials. The trials showed a clear need for new drugs instead of repurposed drugs and drugs that specifically target the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus or the pathology developing in COVID‐19 patients.

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.

Frequency of respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 detected during COVID-19 testing

The frequencies of 19 respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 were assessed in 6,"?>235 Brazilian individuals tested for COVID-19. Overall, only 83 individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had codetection of other pathogens. Individuals infected with Rhinovirus/Enterovirus, Human Coronavirus (HCoV)-HKU1, HCoV-NL63, HPIV-4, Influenza A (-H1N1 and other subtypes), Influenza B, Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Human Metapneumovirus were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2. Infection with Streptococcys pyogenes, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Bordetella pertussis were more frequent in individuals who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, but without significancy. We found 150 individuals infected with ≥2 pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, only 3 out of whom tested positive for COVID-19. The codetection frequency was low in individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. Other viral infections may provide a cross-reactive, protective immune response against SARS-CoV-2. Screening for bacterial respiratory infections upon COVID-19 testing is important to drive suitable therapeutic approaches and avoid unnecessary antibiotic prescription.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications.

Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Azithromycin versus standard care in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (ATOMIC2): an open-label, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed.

FINDINGS

298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Efficacy of clarithromycin in patients with mild COVID-19 pneumonia not receiving oxygen administration: protocol for an exploratory, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (CAME COVID-19 study)

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged worldwide. Although several medications have been approved for treating moderate-to-severe COVID-19, very few treatment strategy has been established for patients with mild COVID-19 who do not require oxygen administration. Clarithromycin is a macrolide antimicrobial agent that has been widely used for bacterial respiratory infectious diseases. Clarithromycin also acts an immunomodulating drug and suppresses cytokine storms in viral respiratory diseases, including influenza. In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy of clarithromycin in patients with mild COVID-19.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an exploratory, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. This study was initiated in May 2021 and will end in July 2022. Patients with mild COVID-19 pneumonia who do not require oxygen administration will be enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to group A (administration of clarithromycin 800 mg/day), group B (administration of clarithromycin 400 mg/day) or group C (standard treatment without clarithromycin). The planned number of enrolled patients is 60 (20 patients × three groups). The primary endpoint is the number of days required to improve the clinical symptoms as measured by the severity score. Secondary endpoints include days for recovery of the body temperature, proportion of patients with oxygen administration, inflammatory cytokines, viral load, serum immunoglobulins, peripheral blood lymphocytes, blood biomarkers and pneumonia infiltrations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Clinical Research Review Board of Nagasaki University in accordance with the Clinical Trials Act in Japan. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Clinical Trials Act and other current legal regulations in Japan. Written informed consent will be obtained from all the participants. The results of this study will be reported as journal publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs071210011.

Lower antibiotic prescription rates in hospitalized COVID-19 patients than influenza patients, a prospective study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 patients are extensively treated with antibiotics despite few bacterial complications. We aimed to study antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to influenza patients in two consecutive years. Furthermore, we investigated changes in antibiotic use from the first to second pandemic wave.

METHODS

This prospective study included both patients from two referral hospitals in Bergen, Norway, admitted with influenza (n = 215) during the 2018/2019 epidemic and with COVID-19 (n = 82) during spring/summer 2020, and national data on registered Norwegian COVID-19 hospital admissions from March 2020 to January 2021 (n = 2300). Patient characteristics were compared, and logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for antibiotic use.

RESULTS

National and local COVID-19 patients received significantly less antibiotics (53% and 49%) than influenza patients (69%, p < .001). Early antibiotics contributed to >90% of antibiotic prescriptions in the two local hospitals, and >70% of prescriptions nationally. When adjusted for age, comorbidities, symptom duration, chest X-ray infiltrates and oxygen treatment, local COVID-19 patients still had significantly lower odds of antibiotic prescription than influenza patients (aOR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09-0.50). At the national level, we observed a significant reduction in antibiotic prescription rates in the second pandemic wave compared to the first (aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.29-0.43).

CONCLUSION

Fewer COVID-19 patients received antibiotics compared to influenza patients admitted to the two local hospitals one year earlier. The antibiotic prescription rate was lower during the second pandemic wave, possibly due to increased clinical experience and published evidence refuting the efficacy of antibiotics in treating COVID-19 pneumonia.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community.

METHODS

PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19).

INTERPRETATION

Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications.

FUNDING

National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Antiviral therapy and immunotherapy of COVID-19

The pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 has evolved in the months since the description of the disease. Published observational studies and, above all, clinical trials have highlighted drugs that are useful as well as ruled out any benefit from other drugs used at the beginning of the pandemic. The pathogenesis of the disease has suggested that patients may benefit from the administration of both antivirals, mainly in the earliest stages, and anti-inflammatory/immunomodulatory medications in more advanced stages. We present a short review of the drugs used and under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19.

Antibiotics Use and Its Knowledge in the Community: A Mobile Phone Survey during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Bangladesh

The general population has been excessively using antibiotics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the use of antibiotics for any reported illnesses in the preceding four weeks and knowledge of antibiotics among the general population in the community were assessed for possible interventions. A mobile phone survey among a general population across eight administrative divisions of Bangladesh was conducted during January-March 2021. Reported illness episodes irrespective of COVID-19 in the preceding four weeks of the interview, use of antibiotics for the illnesses, and knowledge on antibiotics among the general population were recorded. Descriptive analyses were performed. We randomly interviewed 1854 participants, with a mean age of 28.5 years (range: 18-75 years); 60.6% were male. Among all participants, 86.3% (95% CI: 84.7-87.8) heard names of antibiotics, but only 12.1% reported unspecified harmful effects, and 3.5% reported antimicrobial resistance when antibiotics were taken without a physician's prescription. Among 257 (13.9%) participants, who consumed medicines for their recent illness episode, 32.7% (95% CI: 27.2-38.6) reported using antibiotics. Of those who could recall the names of antibiotics prescribed (n = 36), the most frequently used was azithromycin (22.2%) followed by cefixime (11.1%) and ciprofloxacin (5.6%). Our findings show an increased antibiotic use for illnesses reported in the preceding four weeks and an elevated knowledge at the community level during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre-pandemic period.

Sars-Cov-2 Infection in Patients on Long-Term Treatment with Macrolides in Spain: A National Cross-Sectional Study

The aim of this study was to know the prevalence and severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with long-term macrolides and to describe the factors associated with worse outcomes. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Primary Care setting. Patients with macrolides dispensed continuously from 1 October 2019 to 31 March 2020, were considered. Main outcome: diagnosis of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Secondary outcomes: symptoms, severity, characteristics of patients, comorbidities, concomitant treatments. A total of 3057 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age: 73 (64–81) years; 55% were men; 62% smokers/ex-smokers; 56% obese/overweight. Overall, 95% of patients had chronic respiratory diseases and four comorbidities as a median. Prevalence of COVID-19: 4.8%. This was in accordance with official data during the first wave of the pandemic. The most common symptoms were respiratory: shortness of breath, cough, and pneumonia. Additionally, 53% percent of patients had mild/moderate symptoms, 28% required hospital admission, and 19% died with COVID-19. The percentage of patients hospitalized and deaths were 2.6 and 5.8 times higher, respectively, in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.001). There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of long-term courses of macrolides in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or the progression to worse outcomes in old patients with underlying chronic respiratory diseases and a high burden of comorbidity.