Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial

Zoonotic coronavirus epidemics: Severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and coronavirus disease 2019

OBJECTIVE

To review the virology, immunology, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and treatment of the following 3 major zoonotic coronavirus epidemics: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

DATA SOURCES

Published literature obtained through PubMed database searches and reports from national and international public health agencies.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies relevant to the basic science, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and treatment of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19, with a focus on patients with asthma, allergy, and primary immunodeficiency.

RESULTS

Although SARS and MERS each caused less than a thousand deaths, COVID-19 has caused a worldwide pandemic with nearly 1 million deaths. Diagnosing COVID-19 relies on nucleic acid amplification tests, and infection has broad clinical manifestations that can affect almost every organ system. Asthma and atopy do not seem to predispose patients to COVID-19 infection, but their effects on COVID-19 clinical outcomes remain mixed and inconclusive. It is recommended that effective therapies, including inhaled corticosteroids and biologic therapy, be continued to maintain disease control. There are no reports of COVID-19 among patients with primary innate and T-cell deficiencies. The presentation of COVID-19 among patients with primary antibody deficiencies is variable, with some experiencing mild clinical courses, whereas others experiencing a fatal disease. The landscape of treatment for COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, with both antivirals and immunomodulators demonstrating efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Further data are needed to better understand the role of asthma, allergy, and primary immunodeficiency on COVID-19 infection and outcomes.

Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Hospitalization Among Patients With COVID-19: The TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04403100.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes.

METHODS

A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

Assessing the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as outpatient treatment of COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Identification of therapies to prevent severe COVID-19 remains a priority. We sought to determine whether hydroxychloroquine treatment for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection could prevent hospitalization, mechanical ventilation or death.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was conducted in Alberta during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic without direct contact with participants. Community-dwelling individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] viral ribonucleic acid test) within the previous 4 days, and symptom onset within the previous 12 days, were randomly assigned to oral hydroxychloroquine or matching placebo for 5 days. Enrolment began Apr. 15, 2020. The primary outcome was the composite of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included symptom duration and disposition at 30 days. Safety outcomes, such as serious adverse events and mortality, were also ascertained. Outcomes were determined by telephone follow-up and administrative data.

RESULTS

Among 4919 individuals with a positive RT-PCR test, 148 (10.2% of a planned 1446 patients) were randomly assigned, 111 to hydroxychloroquine and 37 to placebo. Of the 148 participants, 24 (16.2%) did not start the study drug. Four participants in the hydroxychloroquine group met the primary outcome (4 hospitalizations, 0 mechanical ventilation, 4 survived to 30 days) and none in the placebo group. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce symptom duration (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.21). Recruitment was paused on May 22, 2020, when a since-retracted publication raised concerns about the safety of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Although we had not identified concerns in a safety review, enrolment was slower than expected among those eligible for the study, and cases within the community were decreasing. Recruitment goals were deemed to be unattainable and the trial was not resumed, resulting in a study underpowered to assess the effect of treatment with hydroxychloroquine and safety.

INTERPRETATION

There was no evidence that hydroxychloroquine reduced symptom duration or prevented severe outcomes among outpatients with proven COVID-19, but the early termination of our study meant that it was underpowered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04329611.

A Narrative Review of Antiviral Drugs Used for COVID-19 Pharmacotherapy

PURPOSE

A number of research articles has been published evaluating safety and efficacy of drugs against COVID-19. This study was undertaken to collate and review the information regarding common proposed anti- viral drugs for easy reference.

METHODS

The literature was search was done using terms like severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV or COVID-19 in combination with drugs or treatment or pharmaco-therapy using PubMed and google scholar to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS

Despite showing good early results, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir has not shown clinical benefit in randomized controlled trials. However lopinavir in combination with other drugs specially interferon is being investigated. Remdesivir has shown positive effect in terms of clinical improvement and continued to being investigated alone or in combination with other drugs. Favipiravir has shown mixed results and more data from adequately powered study is needed to prove its efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Many drugs which showed positive effect in initial studies could not replicate the same benefit in large randomized controlled trials. There is need to evaluate efficacy and safety of drugs based on high quality evidence before allowing it to be used in general population.

Current evidence for COVID-19 therapies: a systematic literature review

Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively. In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation versus standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

A Comprehensive Overview of the COVID-19 Literature: Machine Learning-Based Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Shortly after the emergence of COVID-19, researchers rapidly mobilized to study numerous aspects of the disease such as its evolution, clinical manifestations, effects, treatments, and vaccinations. This led to a rapid increase in the number of COVID-19-related publications. Identifying trends and areas of interest using traditional review methods (eg, scoping and systematic reviews) for such a large domain area is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct an extensive bibliometric analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the COVID-19 literature.

METHODS

We used the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) that consists of a large number of research articles related to all coronaviruses. We used a machine learning-based method to analyze the most relevant COVID-19-related articles and extracted the most prominent topics. Specifically, we used a clustering algorithm to group published articles based on the similarity of their abstracts to identify research hotspots and current research directions. We have made our software accessible to the community via GitHub.

RESULTS

Of the 196,630 publications retrieved from the database, we included 28,904 in our analysis. The mean number of weekly publications was 990 (SD 789.3). The country that published the highest number of COVID-19-related articles was China (2950/17,270, 17.08%). The highest number of articles were published in bioRxiv. Lei Liu affiliated with the Southern University of Science and Technology in China published the highest number of articles (n=46). Based on titles and abstracts alone, we were able to identify 1515 surveys, 733 systematic reviews, 512 cohort studies, 480 meta-analyses, and 362 randomized control trials. We identified 19 different topics covered among the publications reviewed. The most dominant topic was public health response, followed by clinical care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical characteristics and risk factors, and epidemic models for its spread.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide an overview of the COVID-19 literature and have identified current hotspots and research directions. Our findings can be useful for the research community to help prioritize research needs and recognize leading COVID-19 researchers, institutes, countries, and publishers. Our study shows that an AI-based bibliometric analysis has the potential to rapidly explore a large corpus of academic publications during a public health crisis. We believe that this work can be used to analyze other eHealth-related literature to help clinicians, administrators, and policy makers to obtain a holistic view of the literature and be able to categorize different topics of the existing research for further analyses. It can be further scaled (for instance, in time) to clinical summary documentation. Publishers should avoid noise in the data by developing a way to trace the evolution of individual publications and unique authors.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU.

METHODS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Identification and Development of Therapeutics for COVID-19

After emerging in China in late 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 spread worldwide and as of mid-2021 remains a significant threat globally. Only a few coronaviruses are known to infect humans, and only two cause infections similar in severity to SARS-CoV-2: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, a closely related species of SARS-CoV-2 that emerged in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, which emerged in 2012. Unlike the current pandemic, previous epidemics were controlled rapidly through public health measures, but the body of research investigating severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome has proven valuable for identifying approaches to treating and preventing novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Building on this research, the medical and scientific communities have responded rapidly to the COVID-19 crisis to identify many candidate therapeutics. The approaches used to identify candidates fall into four main categories: adaptation of clinical approaches to diseases with related pathologies, adaptation based on virological properties, adaptation based on host response, and data-driven identification of candidates based on physical properties or on pharmacological compendia. To date, a small number of therapeutics have already been authorized by regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while most remain under investigation. The scale of the COVID-19 crisis offers a rare opportunity to collect data on the effects of candidate therapeutics. This information provides insight not only into the management of coronavirus diseases, but also into the relative success of different approaches to identifying candidate therapeutics against an emerging disease.

Failure of chronic hydroxychloroquine in preventing severe complications of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To compare baseline characteristics, clinical presentations and outcomes of patients with rheumatic conditions requiring hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who received chronic HCQ with those who did not receive chronic HCQ.

METHODS

We identified all patients with a rheumatologic disease who were admitted with COVID-19 to two hospitals in New York City between 3 March 3 and 30 April 2020. Patients who received chronic HCQ prior to admission were matched 1:2 (±10 years of age) with patients who did not receive chronic HCQ. We compared demographics, comorbidities, HCQ dosages, concurrent medications, presentations and outcomes between the groups.

RESULTS

There were 14 patients receiving HCQ and 28 matched control subjects. The median age of cases was 63 years [interquartile range (IQR) 43-73) and 60 years (IQR 41-75) for controls. Control subjects had a higher prevalence of pulmonary diseases (42.8%), diabetes (35.7%) and obesity (35.7%) than their case counterparts (28.6%, 14.3% and 7.1%, respectively). A higher proportion of cases than control subjects (50% vs 25%) reported the use of prednisone for their rheumatic conditions prior to admission. Despite these differences in baseline characteristics, univariate logistic regression revealed no statistically significant differences in the need for mechanical ventilation [OR 1.5 (95% CI 0.34, 6.38)] or in-hospital mortality [OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.13, 4.56)].

CONCLUSION

HCQ therapy in individuals with rheumatic conditions was not associated with less severe presentations of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients compared with individuals with rheumatic conditions not receiving HCQ.

Systems and Clinical Pharmacology of COVID-19 Therapeutic Candidates: A Clinical and Translational Medicine Perspective

Over 50 million people have been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while around 1 million have died due to COVID-19 disease progression. COVID-19 presents flu-like symptoms that can escalate, in about 7-10 days from onset, into a cytokine storm causing respiratory failure and death. Although social distancing reduces transmissibility, COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics are essential to regain socioeconomic normalcy. Even if effective and safe vaccines are found, pharmacological interventions are still needed to limit disease severity and mortality. Integrating current knowledge and drug candidates (approved drugs for repositioning among >35 candidates) undergoing clinical studies (>3000 registered in ClinicalTrials.gov), we employed Systems Pharmacology approaches to project how antivirals and immunoregulatory agents could be optimally evaluated for use. Antivirals are likely to be effective only at the early stage of infection, soon after exposure and before hospitalization, while immunomodulatory agents should be effective in the later-stage cytokine storm. As current antiviral candidates are administered in hospitals over 5-7 days, a long-acting combination that targets multiple SARS-CoV-2 lifecycle steps may provide a long-lasting, single-dose treatment in outpatient settings. Long-acting therapeutics may still be needed even when vaccines become available as vaccines are likely to be approved based on a 50% efficacy target.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for treatment of early SARS-CoV-2 infection among high-risk outpatient adults: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for outpatients with COVID-19 could reduce morbidity and prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, three-arm (1:1:1) placebo-equivalent controlled trial conducted remotely throughout the United States, adult outpatients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (400 mg BID x1day, followed by 200 mg BID x9days) with or without azithromycin (AZ) (500 mg, then 250 mg daily x4days) or placebo-equivalent (ascorbic acid (HCQ) and folic acid (AZ)), stratified by risk for progression to severe COVID-19 (high-risk vs. low-risk). Self-collected nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 PCR, FLUPro symptom surveys, EKGs and vital signs were collected daily. Primary endpoints were: (a) 14-day progression to lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalization, or death; (b) 14-day time to viral clearance; secondary endpoints included time to symptom resolution (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04354428). Due to the low rate of clinical outcomes, the study was terminated for operational futility.

FINDINGS

Between 15th April and 27th July 2020, 231 participants were enrolled and 219 initiated medication a median of 5.9 days after symptom onset. Among 129 high-risk participants, incident LRTI occurred in six (4.7%) participants (two control, four HCQ/AZ) and COVID-19 related hospitalization in seven (5.4%) (four control, one HCQ, two HCQ/AZ); no LRTI and two (2%) hospitalizations occurred in the 102 low-risk participants (one HCQ, one HCQ/AZ). There were no deaths. Among 152 participants with viral shedding at enrollment, median time to clearance was 5 days (95% CI=4-6) in HCQ, 6 days (95% CI=4-8) in HCQ/AZ, and 8 days (95% CI=6-10) in control. Viral clearance was faster in HCQ (HR=1.62, 95% CI=1.01-2.60, p = 0.047) but not HCQ/AZ (HR=1.25, p = 0.39) compared to control. Among 197 participants who met the COVID-19 definition at enrollment, time to symptom resolution did not differ by group (HCQ: HR=1.02, 95% CI-0.63-1.64, p = 0.95, HCQ/AZ: HR=0.91, 95% CI=0.57-1.45, p = 0.70).

INTERPRETATION

Neither HCQ nor HCQ/AZ shortened the clinical course of outpatients with COVID-19, and HCQ, but not HCQ/AZ, had only a modest effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. HCQ and HCQ/AZ are not effective therapies for outpatient treatment of SARV-CoV-2 infection.

FUNDING

The COVID-19 Early Treatment Study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-017062) through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator. University of Washington Institute of Translational Health Science (ITHS) grant support (UL1 TR002319), KL2 TR002317, and TL1 TR002318 from NCATS/NIH funded REDCap. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. PAN and MJA were supported by the Mayo Clinic Windland Smith Rice Comprehensive Sudden Cardiac Death Program.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04354428.

Notable Developments for Vitamin D Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic, but Caution Warranted Overall: A Narrative Review

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel contagion that has infected over 113 million people worldwide. It is responsible for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which has cost the lives of 2.5 million people. Ergo, the global scientific community has been scrambling to repurpose or develop therapeutics to treat COVID-19. Dietary supplements and nutraceuticals are among those under consideration due to the link between nutritional status and patient outcomes. Overall, poor vitamin D status seems to be associated with an increased risk of COVID-19. Severely ill COVID-19 patients appear to be deficient or have suboptimal levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a measure of vitamin D status. Consequently, vitamin D is now the subject of several prophylactic and therapeutic clinical trials. In this review, the general status of nutraceuticals and dietary supplements amid the pandemic is appraised, with a particular focus on vitamin D. Consumers should be aware of misinformation and unsubstantiated promises for products marketed for COVID-19 protection. However, maintaining a healthy diet and lifestyle will likely maintain health including optimum immune function that may affect patient outcomes. Those who are deficient in key nutrients such as vitamin D should consider lifestyle changes and potentially supplementation in consultation with their physician and/or registered dieticians.

TLR Agonists as Mediators of Trained Immunity: Mechanistic Insight and Immunotherapeutic Potential to Combat Infection

Despite advances in critical care medicine, infection remains a significant problem that continues to be complicated with the challenge of antibiotic resistance. Immunocompromised patients are highly susceptible to development of severe infection which often progresses to the life-threatening condition of sepsis. Thus, immunotherapies aimed at boosting host immune defenses are highly attractive strategies to ward off infection and protect patients. Recently there has been mounting evidence that activation of the innate immune system can confer long-term functional reprogramming whereby innate leukocytes mount more robust responses upon secondary exposure to a pathogen for more efficient clearance and host protection, termed trained immunity. Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists are a class of agents which have been shown to trigger the phenomenon of trained immunity through metabolic reprogramming and epigenetic modifications which drive profound augmentation of antimicrobial functions. Immunomodulatory TLR agonists are also highly beneficial as vaccine adjuvants. This review provides an overview on TLR signaling and our current understanding of TLR agonists which show promise as immunotherapeutic agents for combating infection. A brief discussion on our current understanding of underlying mechanisms is also provided. Although an evolving field, TLR agonists hold strong therapeutic potential as immunomodulators and merit further investigation for clinical translation.

The Rheumatology Drugs for COVID-19 Management: Which and When?

INTRODUCTION

While waiting for the development of specific antiviral therapies and vaccines to effectively neutralize the SARS-CoV2, a relevant therapeutic strategy is to counteract the hyperinflammatory status, characterized by an increase mainly of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-7, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, which hallmarks the most severe clinical cases. 'Repurposing' immunomodulatory drugs and applying clinical management approved for rheumatic diseases represents a game-changer option. In this article, we will review the drugs that have indication in patients with COVID-19, including corticosteroids, antimalarials, anti-TNF, anti-IL-1, anti-IL-6, baricitinib, intravenous immunoglobulins, and colchicine. The PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for English-language papers concerning COVID-19 treatment published between January 2020 and October 2020. Results were summarized as a narrative review due to large heterogeneity among studies. In the absence of specific treatments, the use of immunomodulatory drugs could be advisable in severe COVID-19 patients, but clinical outcomes are still suboptimal. An early detection and treatment of the complications combined with a multidisciplinary approach could allow a better recovery of these patients.

Efficacy and safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide and an effective treatment is needed. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have shown in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 which causes the disease, but the evidence from in vivo studies so far has been inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for all articles published between 01 January 2020 to 15 September 2020 on CQ/HCQ and COVID-19 using a predefined search protocol; without any language restrictions. A search of grey literature repositories (New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature and Open Grey), and pre-publication server deposits (medRxIV and bioRxIV) was also performed.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) which compared CQ/HCQ to standard supportive therapy in treating COVID-19 were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from original publications by four independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effect models. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The primary prespecified efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse effect attributed to use of CQ/HCQ.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included and pooled in the mortality meta-analysis (6,592 unique participants; mean age = 59.4 years; 42% women). CQ/HCQ did not show any mortality benefit when compared to standard supportive therapy (Pooled Relative Risk [RR] 1.07; 95% CI = 0.97-1.18; I2 statistic = 0.00%). Sensitivity and sub-group analyses showed similar findings. Any adverse event was significantly higher in patients randomized to CQ/HCQ (RR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.53-4.12; n = 1,818 patients), but the risk of developing severe adverse event was not statistically significant (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.53-1.86; n = 6,456 patients).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Evidence from currently published RCTs do not demonstrate any added benefit for the use of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Identification of existing pharmaceuticals and herbal medicines as inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 infection

The outbreak of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in more than 50 million confirmed cases and over 1 million deaths worldwide as of November 2020. Currently, there are no effective antivirals approved by the Food and Drug Administration to contain this pandemic except the antiviral agent remdesivir. In addition, the trimeric spike protein on the viral surface is highly glycosylated and almost 200,000 variants with mutations at more than 1,000 positions in its 1,273 amino acid sequence were reported, posing a major challenge in the development of antibodies and vaccines. It is therefore urgently needed to have alternative and timely treatments for the disease. In this study, we used a cell-based infection assay to screen more than 3,000 agents used in humans and animals, including 2,855 small molecules and 190 traditional herbal medicines, and identified 15 active small molecules in concentrations ranging from 0.1 nM to 50 μM. Two enzymatic assays, along with molecular modeling, were then developed to confirm those targeting the virus 3CL protease and the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Several water extracts of herbal medicines were active in the cell-based assay and could be further developed as plant-derived anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents. Some of the active compounds identified in the screen were further tested in vivo, and it was found that mefloquine, nelfinavir, and extracts of Ganoderma lucidum (RF3), Perilla frutescens, and Mentha haplocalyx were effective in a challenge study using hamsters as disease model.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: Perspectives on their failure in repurposing

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Non-clinical studies suggest that chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have antiviral activities. Early clinical reports of successful HCQ-associated reduction in viral load from small studies in COVID-19 patients spurred a large number of national and international clinical trials to test their therapeutic potential. The objective of this review is to summarize the current evidence on the safety and efficacy of these two agents and to provide a perspective on why their repurposing has hitherto failed.

METHODS

Published studies and rapidly emerging data were reviewed to gather evidence on safety and efficacy of CQ and HCQ in patients with COVID-19 infection or as prophylaxis. The focus is on clinically relevant efficacy endpoints and their adverse effects on QT interval.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

At the doses used, the two agents, given alone or with azithromycin (AZM), are not effective in COVID-19 infection. The choice of (typically subtherapeutic) dosing regimens, influenced partly by "QT-phobia," varied widely and seems anecdotal without any pharmacologically reliable supporting clinical evidence. A substantial proportion of patients receiving CQ/HCQ/AZM regimen developed QTc interval prolongation, many with absolute QTc interval exceeding the potential proarrhythmic threshold, but very few developed proarrhythmia.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The strategy to repurpose CQ/HCQ to combat COVID-19 infection is overshadowed by concerns about their QT liability, resulting in choice of potentially subtherapeutic doses. Although the risk of QT-related proarrhythmia is real, it is low and manageable by careful monitoring. Recent discontinuation of HCQ from at least four large studies effectively marks the end of efforts at repurposing of CQ or HCQ for COVID-19 infection. This episode leaves behind important questions on dose selection and risk/benefit balance in repurposing drugs generally.

Pregnancy and COVID-19: pharmacologic considerations

In this review, we summarize evidence regarding the use of routine and investigational pharmacologic interventions for pregnant and lactating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Antenatal corticosteroids may be used routinely for fetal lung maturation between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation, but decisions in those with critical illness and those < 24 or > 34 weeks' gestation should be made on a case-by-case basis. Magnesium sulfate may be used for seizure prophylaxis and fetal neuroprotection, albeit cautiously in those with hypoxia and renal compromise. There are no contraindications to using low-dose aspirin to prevent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications when indicated. An algorithm for thromboprophylaxis in pregnant patients with COVID-19 is presented, which considers disease severity, timing of delivery in relation to disease onset, inpatient vs outpatient status, underlying comorbidities and contraindications to the use of anticoagulation. Nitrous oxide may be administered for labor analgesia while using appropriate personal protective equipment. Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia should be used with caution in patients with respiratory depression. Liberal use of neuraxial labor analgesia may reduce the need for emergency general anesthesia which results in aerosolization. Short courses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be administered for postpartum analgesia, but opioids should be used with caution due to the risk of respiratory depression. For mechanically ventilated pregnant patients, neuromuscular blockade should be used for the shortest duration possible and reversal agents should be available on hand if delivery is imminent. To date, dexamethasone is the only proven and recommended experimental treatment for pregnant patients with COVID-19 who are mechanically ventilated or who require supplemental oxygen. Although hydroxycholoroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir may be used during pregnancy and lactation within the context of clinical trials, data from non-pregnant populations have not shown benefit. The role of monoclonal antibodies (tocilizumab), immunomodulators (tacrolimus), interferon, inhaled nitric oxide and convalescent plasma in pregnancy and lactation needs further evaluation. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19: a Rheumatologist's Take on the Lessons Learned

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Told from the viewpoint of rheumatologists, this review tells the story of hydroxychloroquine and its swift ascent to become a household name as a therapeutic strategy against the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus. This review describes the history, mechanisms, pharmacokinetics, therapeutic applications, and safety profile of hydroxychloroquine as an immunomodulatory and antiviral agent. It also summarizes the major studies that launched and assessed the use of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19 infection.

RECENT FINDINGS

More recent literature calls into question the long-held dogma that endolysosomal alkalinization is the primary mode of action of hydroxychloroquine. Ongoing uncertainty about the multiple potential mechanisms contributing to the therapeutic effect of hydroxychloroquine in rheumatic and viral disease led to a natural avenue for exploration in the treatment of COVID-19. Taken as a whole, the literature does not support utilizing hydroxychloroquine to treat or prevent infection from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is, at least in part, due to the wide variability in hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetics between patients and difficulty achieving adequate target tissue concentrations of hydroxychloroquine without encountering unacceptable toxicities. Hydroxychloroquine continues to be a routinely prescribed, well-tolerated, effective, and low-cost treatment for rheumatic disease. Its therapeutic versatility has led to frequent repurposing for other conditions, most recently as an investigative treatment against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Despite overall negative findings, the intense study of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19 infection has enhanced our overall understanding of how hydroxychloroquine operates in autoimmune disease and beyond.

SARS-CoV-2 Mediated Endothelial Dysfunction: The Potential Role of Chronic Oxidative Stress

Endothelial cells have emerged as key players in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 inflammatory pathologies. Dysfunctional endothelial cells can promote chronic inflammation and disease processes like thrombosis, atherosclerosis, and lung injury. In endothelial cells, mitochondria regulate these inflammatory pathways via redox signaling, which is primarily achieved through mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS). Excess mtROS causes oxidative stress that can initiate and exacerbate senescence, a state that promotes inflammation and chronic endothelial dysfunction. Oxidative stress can also activate feedback loops that perpetuate mitochondrial dysfunction, mtROS overproduction, and inflammation. In this review, we provide an overview of phenotypes mediated by mtROS in endothelial cells - such as mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation, and senescence - as well as how these chronic states may be initiated by SARS-CoV-2 infection of endothelial cells. We also propose that SARS-CoV-2 activates mtROS-mediated feedback loops that cause long-term changes in host redox status and endothelial function, promoting cardiovascular disease and lung injury after recovery from COVID-19. Finally, we discuss the implications of these proposed pathways on long-term vascular health and potential treatments to address these chronic conditions.

Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of outpatients with mildly symptomatic COVID-19: a multi-center observational study

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine has not been associated with improved survival among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the majority of observational studies and similarly was not identified as an effective prophylaxis following exposure in a prospective randomized trial. We aimed to explore the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy in mildly symptomatic patients diagnosed in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

We examined the association between outpatient hydroxychloroquine exposure and the subsequent progression of disease among mildly symptomatic non-hospitalized patients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome assessed was requirement of hospitalization. Data was obtained from a retrospective review of electronic health records within a New Jersey USA multi-hospital network. We compared outcomes in patients who received hydroxychloroquine with those who did not applying a multivariable logistic model with propensity matching.

RESULTS

Among 1274 outpatients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection 7.6% were prescribed hydroxychloroquine. In a 1067 patient propensity matched cohort, 21.6% with outpatient exposure to hydroxychloroquine were hospitalized, and 31.4% without exposure were hospitalized. In the primary multivariable logistic regression analysis with propensity matching there was an association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and a decreased rate of hospitalization from COVID-19 (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.95). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar associations. QTc prolongation events occurred in 2% of patients prescribed hydroxychloroquine with no reported arrhythmia events among those with data available.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient population is warranted.

Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19: The journey so far and the road ahead

As mortality and morbidity from novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continue to mount worldwide, the scientific community as well as public health systems are under immense pressure to contain the pandemic as well as to develop effective medical countermeasures. Meanwhile, desperation has driven prescribers, researchers as well as administrators to recommend and try therapies supported by little or no reliable evidence. Recently, hydroxychloroquine-sulfate (HCQS) has got significant media and political attention for the treatment as well as prophylaxis of COVID-19 despite the lack of convincing and unequivocal data supporting its efficacy and safety in these patients. This has unfortunately, yet foreseeably led to several controversies and confusion among the medical fraternity, the patient community as well as the general public. Based on the available studies, many with high risk of bias, relatively small sample sizes, and abbreviated follow-ups, HCQS is unlikely to be of dramatic benefit in COVID-19 patients and yet has the potential to cause harm, particularly when used in combination with azithromycin or other medications in high risk individuals with comorbidities. Although definitive data from larger well-controlled randomized trials will be forthcoming in the future, and we may be able to identify specific patient subpopulations likely to benefit from hydroxychloroquine, till that time it will be prudent to prescribe it within investigational trial settings with close safety monitoring. Here we review the current evidence and developments related to the use of HCQS in COVID-19 patients and highlight the importance of risk-benefit assessment and rational use of HCQS during this devastating pandemic.

Prevention and treatment of COVID-19: Focus on interferons, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and vaccine

The ongoing pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has drawn the attention of researchers and clinicians from several disciplines and sectors who are trying to find durable solutions both at preventive and treatment levels. To date, there is no approved effective treatment or vaccine available to control the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The preliminary in vitro studies on viral infection models showed potential antiviral activities of type I and III interferons (IFNs), chloroquine (CQ)/hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and azithromycin (AZM); however, the clinical studies on COVID-19 patients treated with CQ/HCQ and AZM led to controversies in different regions due to their adverse side effects, as well as their combined treatment could prolong the QT interval. Interestingly, the treatment with type I IFNs showed encouraging results. Moreover, the different preliminary reports of COVID-19 candidate vaccines showcase promising results by inducing the production of a high level of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and specific T cell-mediated immune response in almost all participants. The present review aims to summarize and analyze the recent progress evidence concerning the use of IFNs, CQ/HCQ, and AZM for the treatment of COVID-19. The available data on immunization options to prevent the COVID-19 are also analyzed with the aim to present the promising options which could be investigated in future for sustainable control of the pandemic.

Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials

Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. Methods: We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. Results: We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight in vitro studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-β1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). Conclusions: This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.

Hydroxychloroquine in the COVID-19 pandemic era: in pursuit of a rational use for prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few months, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has posed a serious threat to public health on a global scale. Given the current lack of an effective vaccine, several drugs have been repurposed for treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 in an attempt to find an effective cure.

AREAS COVERED

The antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) initially garnered widespread attention following the publication of preliminary results showing that this drug exerts an anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity in vitro.

EXPERT OPINION

To date, clinical evidence suggests lack of benefit from HCQ use for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. In such patients, HCQ also appears to be associated with an increased risk of QT interval prolongation and potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias. Therefore, FDA has recently revoked the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for emergency use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat COVID-19. Conversely, whether HCQ use may represent an effective prophylactic strategy against COVID-19 is a separate question that still remains to be answered. In addition, relevant aspects regarding the potential risks and benefits of HCQ need to be clarified, in pursuit of a rational use of this drug in the COVID-19 pandemic era.

Efficacy of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Clinical studies of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease reported conflicting results. We sought to systematically evaluate the effect of CQ and HCQ with or without azithromycin on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases, preprints and grey literature up to 17 July 2020. We pooled only adjusted-effect estimates of mortality using a random-effect model. We summarized the effect of CQ or HCQ on viral clearance, ICU admission/mechanical ventilation and hospitalization.

RESULTS

Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 14 cohort studies were included (20 979 patients). Thirteen studies (1 RCT and 12 cohort studies) with 15 938 hospitalized patients examined the effect of HCQ on short-term mortality. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.05 (95% CI 0.96-1.15, I2 = 0%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of the HCQ+azithromycin combination with a pooled adjusted OR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.00-1.75, I2 = 68.1%). Two cohort studies and four RCTs found no effect of HCQ on viral clearance. One small RCT demonstrated improved viral clearance with CQ and HCQ. Three cohort studies found that HCQ had no significant effect on mechanical ventilation/ICU admission. Two RCTs found no effect for HCQ on hospitalization risk in outpatients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence suggests that HCQ, with or without azithromycin, lacks efficacy in reducing short-term mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19.

Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCGs. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on 9 September, 2020, and this document is the revised edition (version 3.1) (released 30 March, 2021). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following seven drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), hydroxychloroquine (CQ3), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), ciclesonide (CQ6), and anticoagulants (CQ7). Favipiravir is recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 2C); remdesivir for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Hydroxychloroquine is not recommended for all COVID-19 patients (GRADE 1B). Corticosteroids are recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 1B) and severe COVID-19 patients requiring ventilator management/intensive care (GRADE 1A); however, their use is not recommended for mild COVID-19 patients not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Anticoagulant therapy is recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization and severe COVID-19 patients requiring ventilator management/intensive care (GRADE 2C). We hope that these clinical practice guidelines will aid medical professionals involved in the care of COVID-19 patients.

Effect of pre-exposure use of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 mortality: a population-based cohort study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus using the OpenSAFELY platform

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine has been shown to inhibit entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into epithelial cells in vitro, but clinical studies found no evidence of reduced mortality when treating patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19 mortality, as opposed to treatment for the disease.

METHODS

We did a prespecified observational, population-based cohort study using national primary care data and linked death registrations in the OpenSAFELY platform, which covers approximately 40% of the general population in England, UK. We included all adults aged 18 years and older registered with a general practice for 1 year or more on March 1, 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate the association between ongoing routine hydroxychloroquine use before the COVID-19 outbreak in England (considered as March 1, 2020) compared with non-users of hydroxychloroquine and risk of COVID-19 mortality among people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus. Model adjustment was informed by a directed acyclic graph.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020, of 194 637 people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, 30 569 (15·7%) received two or more prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine. Between March 1 and July 13, 2020, there were 547 COVID-19 deaths, 70 among hydroxychloroquine users. Estimated standardised cumulative COVID-19 mortality was 0·23% (95% CI 0·18 to 0·29) among users and 0·22% (0·20 to 0·25) among non-users; an absolute difference of 0·008% (-0·051 to 0·066). After accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, use of other immunosuppressive drugs, and geographical region, no association with COVID-19 mortality was observed (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80 to 1·33). We found no evidence of interactions with age or other immunosuppressive drugs. Quantitative bias analyses indicated that our observed associations were robust to missing information for additional biologic treatments for rheumatological disease. We observed similar associations with the negative control outcome of non-COVID-19 mortality.

INTERPRETATION

We found no evidence of a difference in COVID-19 mortality among people who received hydroxychloroquine for treatment of rheumatological disease before the COVID-19 outbreak in England. Therefore, completion of randomised trials investigating pre-exposure prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of severe outcomes from COVID-19 are warranted.

FUNDING

Medical Research Council.

Systematic Review on the Therapeutic Options for COVID-19: Clinical Evidence of Drug Efficacy and Implications

A novel coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in Wuhan, China, and quickly spread globally. Several treatments have been proposed, many of which have proven ineffective. Consequently, there is a need to review the published evidence of drug clinical trials to guide future prescribing. A systematic review of published clinical trials and retrospective observational studies was carried out. The search was made using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. Articles published between January 2020 and October 2020 and written in the English language were retrieved and included in the study. Researches that used traditional medicine, in-vitro and in-vivo animal studies, as well as reviews were excluded. Seventy-three relevant articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were finally selected and reviewed. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin produced no clinical evidence of efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT). However, retrospective observational studies reported the efficacy of remdesivir and lopinavir/ritonavir in reducing viral load, although there have been concerns with lopinavir/ritonavir and, more recently, remdesivir. Recently, tocilizumab, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone significantly relieved lung inflammation and decreased mortality in patients with severe COVID-19. In addition, convalescent plasma was effective in boosting strong immunity among patients with mild COVID-19. There is currently no single worldwide approved therapeutic option for patients with COVID-19 despite the initial hype with medicines, including hydroxychloroquine. Nonetheless, dexamethasone has shown promise in symptomatic treatment and convalescent plasma in boosting immunity. New treatments are currently being researched, and the findings will be reported accordingly to provide evidence-based guidance for prescribers and policymakers.

The Landscape of Emerging Randomized Clinical Trial Evidence for COVID-19 Disease Stages: A Systematic Review of Global Trial Registries

Purpose

A multitude of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have emerged in response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the distribution of trials among various settings is important to guide future research priorities and efforts. The purpose of this review was to describe the emerging evidence base of COVID-19 RCTs by stages of disease progression, from pre-exposure to hospitalization.

Methods

We collated trial data across international registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; Clinical Research Information Service; EU Clinical Trials Register; Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials; Japan Primary Registries Network; German Clinical Trials Register (up to 7 October 2020). Active COVID-19 RCTs in international registries were eligible for inclusion. We extracted trial status, intervention(s), control, sample size, and clinical context to generate descriptive frequencies, network diagram illustrations, and statistical analyses including odds ratios and the Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results

Our search identified 11503 clinical trials registered for COVID-19 and identified 2388 RCTs. After excluding 45 suspended RCTs and 480 trials with unclear or unreported disease stages, 1863 active RCTs were included and categorized into four broad disease stages: pre-exposure (n=107); post-exposure (n=208); outpatient treatment (n=266); hospitalization, including the intensive care unit (n=1376). Across all disease stages, most trials had two arms (n=1500/1863, 80.52%), most often included (hydroxy)chloroquine (n=271/1863, 14.55%) and were US-based (n=408/1863, 21.90%). US-based trials had lower odds of including (hydroxy)chloroquine than trials in other countries (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45–0.90) and similar odds of having two arms compared to other geographic regions (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.80–1.38).

Conclusion

There is a marked difference in the number of trials across settings, with limited studies on non-hospitalized persons. Focus on pre- and post-exposure, and outpatients, is worthwhile as a means of reducing infections and lessening the health, social, and economic burden of COVID-19.

An overview on the use of antivirals for the treatment of patients with COVID19 disease

Introduction: There is an urgent need for safe and efficacious antiviral drugs to improve outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Understanding SARS-CoV-2 virology can elucidate potential drug targets for the inhibition of viral replication. Areas covered: This review offers insights into novel and repurposed drugs that may have activity against SARS-CoV-2. We searched the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for COVID-19 related therapy until 28 October 2020. using search words 'SARS-CoV-2', 'COVID-19', 'antiviral', and/or 'treatment'. Expert opinion: Remdesivir decreased symptom duration modestly but had no significant impact on survival. Antivirals alone may be insufficient for a specific subset of patients with severe disease because of cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Treatment may require a combination of antivirals and immunomodulators to inhibit viral replication and CRS, respectively. A safe and efficacious SARS-CoV-2 specific vaccine is critical for prevention and mortality reduction. Moreover, we cannot overstate the importance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in testing of novel treatments. The pervasive stumbling block, however, is the low representation of minority groups. The benefit of remdesivir may not be generalizable to these populations because of significant underrepresentation in trials. Future endeavors should encompass the recruitment of patient populations that are reflective of the demographics significantly impacted by COVID-19.

Challenges and Opportunities from Targeting Inflammatory Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Narrative Review

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that continues to sweep across the world, posing an urgent need for effective therapies and prevention of the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome related to coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). A major hypothesis that is currently guiding research and clinical care posits that an excessive and uncontrolled surge of pro-inflammatory cytokines (the so-called "cytokine storm") drives morbidity and mortality in the most severe cases. In the overall efforts made to develop effective and safe therapies (including vaccines) for COVID-19, clinicians are thus repurposing ready-to-use drugs with direct or indirect anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activities. Speculatively, there are many opportunities and challenges in targeting immune/inflammatory processes in the evolving settings of COVID-19 disease because of the need to safely balance the fight against virus and aggressive inflammation versus the suppression of host immune defenses and the risk of additional harms in already compromised patients. To this end, many studies are globally underway to weigh the pros and cons of tailoring drugs used for inflammatory-driven conditions to COVID-19 patient care, and the next step will be to summarize the growing clinical trial experience into clean clinical practice. Based on the current evidence, anti-inflammatory drugs should be considered as complementary approaches to anti-viral drugs that need to be timely introduced in the management of COVID-19 according to disease severity. While drugs that target SARS-CoV-2 entry or replication are expected to confer the greatest benefits at the early stage of the infection, anti-inflammatory drugs would be more effective in limiting the inflammatory processes that drive the worsening of the disease.

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in healthcare professionals with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: Prospective, non-randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) compared with no treatment in healthcare workers with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

Prospective, non-randomized study. All health professionals with confirmed COVID-19 between April 7 and May 6, 2020, non-requiring initial hospitalization were asked to participate. Patients who accepted treatment were given HCQ for five days (loading dose of 400mg q12h the first day followed by200mg q12h). Control group included patients with contraindications for HCQ or who rejected treatment. Study outcomes were negative conversion and viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, symptoms duration and disease progression.

RESULT

Overall, 142 patients were enrolled: 87 in treatment group and 55 in control group. The median age was 37 years and 75% were female, with few comorbidities. There were no significant differences in time to negative conversion of PCR between both groups. The only significant difference in the probability of negative conversion of PCR was observed at day 21 (18.7%, 95%CI 2.0-35.4). The decrease of SARS-CoV-2 viral load during follow-up was similar in both groups. A non significant reduction in duration of some symptoms in HCQ group was observed. Two patients with HCQ and 4 without treatment developed pneumonia. No patients required admission to the Intensive Care Unit or died. About 50% of patients presented mild side effects of HCQ, mainly diarrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study failed to show a substantial benefit of HCQ in viral dynamics and in resolution of clinical symptoms in health care workers with mild COVID-19.

Credible learning of hydroxychloroquine and dexamethasone effects on COVID-19 mortality outside of randomized trials

Objectives

To investigate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and dexamethasone on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mortality using patient data outside of randomized trials.

Design

Phenotypes derived from electronic health records were analyzed using the stability-controlled quasi-experiment (SCQE) to provide a range of possible causal effects of hydroxychloroquine and dexamethasone on COVID-19 mortality.

Setting and participants

Data from 2,007 COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized at a large university hospital system over the course of 200 days and not enrolled in randomized trials were analyzed using SCQE. For hyrdoxychloroquine, we examine a high-use cohort (n=766, days 1 to 43) and a later, low-use cohort (n=548, days 44 to 82). For dexamethasone, we examine a low-use cohort (n=614, days 44 to 101) and high-use cohort (n=622, days 102 to 200).

Outcome measure

14-day mortality, with a secondary outcome of 28-day mortality.

Results

Hydroxycholoroquine could only have been significantly (p<0.05) beneficial if baseline mortality was at least 6.4 percentage points (55%) lower among patients in the later (low-use) than the earlier (high-use) cohort. Hydroxychloroquine instead proves significantly harmful if baseline mortality rose from one cohort to the next by just 0.3 percentage points. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality risk if baseline mortality in the later (high-use) cohort (days 102-200) was higher than, the same as, or up to 1.5 percentage points lower than that in the earlier (low-use) cohort (days 44-101). It could only prove significantly harmful if mortality improved from one cohort to the next by 6.8 percentage points due to other causes-an assumption implying an unlikely 84% reduction in mortality due to other causes, leaving an in-hospital mortality rate of just 1.3%.

Conclusions

The assumptions required for a beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine on 14 day mortality are difficult to sustain, while the assumptions required for hydroxychloroquine to be harmful are difficult to reject with confidence. Dexamethasone, by contrast, was beneficial under a wide range of plausible assumptions, and was only harmful if a nearly impossible assumption is met. More broadly, the SCQE reveals what inferences can be credibly supported by evidence from non-randomized uses of experimental therapies, making it a useful tool when randomized trials have not yet produced clear evidence or to provide corroborative evidence from different populations.

Reporting and design of randomized controlled trials for COVID-19: A systematic review

Background

The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has mobilized global research at an unprecedented scale. While challenges associated with the COVID-19 trial landscape have been discussed previously, no comprehensive reviews have been conducted to assess the reporting, design, and data sharing practices of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Purpose

The purpose of this review was to gain insight into the current landscape of reporting, methodological design, and data sharing practices for COVID-19 RCTs.

Data sources

We conducted three searches to identify registered clinical trials, peer-reviewed publications, and pre-print publications.

Study selection

After screening eight major trial registries and 7844 records, we identified 178 registered trials and 38 publications describing 35 trials, including 25 peer-reviewed publications and 13 pre-prints.

Data extraction

Trial ID, registry, location, population, intervention, control, study design, recruitment target, actual recruitment, outcomes, data sharing statement, and time of data sharing were extracted.

Data synthesis

Of 178 registered trials, 112 (62.92%) were in hospital settings, median planned recruitment was 100 participants (IQR: 60, 168), and the majority (n = 166, 93.26%) did not report results in their respective registries. Of 35 published trials, 31 (88.57%) were in hospital settings, median actual recruitment was 86 participants (IQR: 55.5, 218), 10 (28.57%) did not reach recruitment targets, and 27 trials (77.14%) reported plans to share data.

Conclusions

The findings of our study highlight limitations in the design and reporting practices of COVID-19 RCTs and provide guidance towards more efficient reporting of trial results, greater diversity in patient settings, and more robust data sharing.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions and the level of evidence behind each treatment regimen in different clinical settings. Both published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and confounding-adjusted observational studies which met our predefined eligibility criteria were collected. We included studies investigating the effect of pharmacological management of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 management. Mild patients who do not require hospitalization or have self-limiting disease courses were not eligible for our NMA. A total of 110 studies (40 RCTs and 70 observational studies) were included. PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, SSRN, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the beginning of 2020 to August 24, 2020. Studies from Asia (41 countries, 37.2%), Europe (28 countries, 25.4%), North America (24 countries, 21.8%), South America (5 countries, 4.5%), and Middle East (6 countries, 5.4%), and additional 6 multinational studies (5.4%) were included in our analyses. The outcomes of interest were mortality, progression to severe disease (severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and/or mechanical ventilation), viral clearance rate, QT prolongation, fatal cardiac complications, and noncardiac serious adverse events. Based on RCTs, the risk of progression to severe course and mortality was significantly reduced with corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.86, p = 0.032, and OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91, p = 0.002, respectively) and remdesivir (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p < 0.001, and OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98, p = 0.041, respectively) compared to standard care for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in non-ICU; corticosteroids were also shown to reduce mortality rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, p < 0.001) for critically ill patients in ICU. In analyses including observational studies, interferon-alpha (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.39, p = 0.004), itolizumab (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92, p = 0.042), sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.88, p = 0.030), anakinra (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p = 0.019), tocilizumab (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60, p < 0.001), and convalescent plasma (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96, p = 0.038) were associated with reduced mortality rate in non-ICU setting, while high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, p = 0.003), ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005), and tocilizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.012) were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. Convalescent plasma was the only treatment option that was associated with improved viral clearance rate at 2 weeks compared to standard care (OR 11.39, 95% CI 3.91 to 33.18, p < 0.001). The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was shown to be associated with increased QT prolongation incidence (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.20, p = 0.003) and fatal cardiac complications in cardiac-impaired populations (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.00, p = 0.007). No drug was significantly associated with increased noncardiac serious adverse events compared to standard care. The quality of evidence of collective outcomes were estimated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The major limitation of the present study is the overall low level of evidence that reduces the certainty of recommendations. Besides, the risk of bias (RoB) measured by RoB2 and ROBINS-I framework for individual studies was generally low to moderate. The outcomes deducted from observational studies could not infer causality and can only imply associations. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020186527).

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, we found that anti-inflammatory agents (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG), convalescent plasma, and remdesivir were associated with improved outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not provide clinical benefits while posing cardiac safety risks when combined with azithromycin, especially in the vulnerable population. Only 29% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is supported by moderate or high certainty and can be translated to practice and policy; the remaining 71% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.

Randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for virologic cure of non-severe Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine (HC) ± azithromycin (AZ) is widely used for Covid-19. The Qatar Prospective RCT of Expediting Coronavirus Tapering (Q-PROTECT) aimed to assess virologic cure rates of HC±AZ in cases of low-acuity Covid-19.

METHODS

Q-PROTECT employed a prospective, placebo-controlled design with blinded randomization to three parallel arms: placebo, oral HC (600 mg daily for one week), or oral HC plus oral AZ (500 mg day one, 250 mg daily on days two through five). At enrollment, non-hospitalized participants had mild or no symptoms and were within a day of Covid-19 positivity by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). After six days, intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the primary endpoint of virologic cure was assessed using binomial exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and χ2 testing. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04349592, trial status closed to new participants.).

FINDINGS

The study enrolled 456 participants (152 in each of three groups: HC+AZ, HC, placebo) between 13 April and 1 August 2020. HC+AZ, HC, and placebo groups had 6 (3·9%), 7 (4·6%), and 9 (5·9%) participants go off study medications before completing the medication course (p = 0·716). Day six PCR results were available for all 152 HC+AZ participants, 149/152 (98·0%) HC participants, and 147/152 (96·7%) placebo participants. Day six ITT analysis found no difference (p = 0·821) in groups' proportions achieving virologic cure: HC+AZ 16/152 (10·5%), HC 19/149 (12·8%), placebo 18/147 (12·2%). Day 14 assessment also showed no association (p = 0·072) between study group and viral cure: HC+AZ 30/149 (20·1%,), HC 42/146 (28·8%), placebo 45/143 (31·5%). There were no serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

HC±AZ does not facilitate virologic cure in patients with mild or asymptomatic Covid-19.

FUNDING

The study was supported by internal institutional funds of the Hamad Medical Corporation (government health service of the State of Qatar).

Use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19: How good is the quality of randomized controlled trials?

OBJECTIVES

We critically evaluated the quality of evidence and quality of harm reporting in clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CQ) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions.

CONCLUSION

In general, the quality of currently available evidence for the effectiveness of CQ/HCQ in patients with COVID-19 is suboptimal. The importance of a properly designed and reported clinical trial cannot be overemphasized amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and its dismissal could lead to poorer clinical and policy decisions, resulting in wastage of already stretched invaluable health care resources.