A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Respiratory Viruses and Cystic Fibrosis

The threat of respiratory virus infection to human health and well-being has been clearly highlighted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. For people with cystic fibrosis (CF), the clinical significance of viral infections long predated the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This article reviews the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of respiratory virus infection in the context of CF as well as the current understanding of interactions between viruses and other microorganisms in the CF lung. The incidence of respiratory virus infection in CF varies by age with young children typically experiencing more frequent episodes than adolescents and adults. At all ages, respiratory viruses are very common in CF and are associated with pulmonary exacerbations. Respiratory viruses are identified at up to 69% of exacerbations, while viruses are also frequently detected during clinical stability. The full impact of COVID-19 in CF is yet to be established. Early studies found that rates of COVID-19 were lower in CF cohorts than in the general population. The reasons for this are unclear but may be related to the effects of shielding, infection control practices, maintenance CF therapies, or the inflammatory milieu in the CF lung. Observational studies have consistently identified that prior solid organ transplantation is a key risk factor for poor outcomes from COVID-19 in CF. Several key priorities for future research are highlighted. First, the impact of highly effective CFTR modulator therapy on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of viral infections in CF requires investigation. Second, the impact of respiratory viruses on the development and dynamics of the CF lung microbiota is poorly understood and viral infection may have important interactions with bacteria and fungi in the airway. Finally, bacteriophages represent a key focus of future investigation both for their role in transmission of antimicrobial resistance and as a promising treatment modality for multiresistant pathogens.

How Protective are Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the Main Weapon of the B-Cell Response?

Since the beginning of the Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic in December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been responsible for more than 600 million infections and 6.5 million deaths worldwide. Given the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 and its ability to develop new variants, the implementation of an effective and long-term herd immunity appears to be crucial to overcome the pandemic. While a vast field of research has focused on the role of humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2, a growing body of evidence suggest that antibodies alone only confer a partial protection against infection of reinfection which could be of high importance regarding the strategic development goals (SDG) of the United Nations (UN) and in particular UN SDG3 that aims towards the realization of good health and well being on a global scale in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.In this review, we highlight the role of humoral immunity in the host defense against SARS-CoV-2, with a focus on highly neutralizing antibodies. We summarize the results of the main clinical trials leading to an overall disappointing efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy, variable results of monoclonal neutralizing antibodies in patients with COVID-19 but outstanding results for the mRNA based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Finally, we advocate that beyond antibody responses, the development of a robust cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 after infection or vaccination is of utmost importance for promoting immune memory and limiting disease severity, especially in case of (re)-infection by variant viruses.

The role of the glucocorticoid receptor and its impact on steroid response in moderate-severe COVID-19 patients

The effect of corticosteroid therapy in COVID-19 patients is mediated by its suppressive effect on the regulations of inflammatory response. However, its clinical outcome is often unpredictable. This study aimed to explore the role of glucocorticoid receptors in corticosteroid response in Moderate-Severe COVID-19 patients. In this cross-sectional study, we attempted to find the relationship between the expression of the glucocorticoid receptor (encoded by NR3C1), the variation of glucocorticoid receptors isoform, and the mutations of glucocorticoid receptors exon with clinical response to corticosteroids. In addition, the relationship between glucocorticoid receptors expression and the expression of IκBα (encoded by NFKBIA) and glucocorticoid-induced leucine zipper protein (GILZ; encoded by TSC22D3) as steroid pathways was also evaluated. Thirty-four COVID-19 patients were studied. Blood was drawn before and on day 5 of corticosteroid treatment. Glucocorticoid receptors expression, isoform, and mutation were determined by RNA sequencing from white blood cells. Based on the improvement of clinical and oxygen status, patients were classified into responder and non-responder groups. Of thirty-four patients, 23 (67.6%) showed excellent responses to corticosteroids, and 11 (32.4%) were non-responders. The NR3C1 gene expression was significantly higher in the responsive group at baseline and after five days of glucocorticoid treatment. Isoform variant and mutation of glucocorticoid receptors did not correlate with clinical response. The expression of IκBα and GILZ correlated positively with glucocorticoid receptors expression. This study elucidates the relationship between glucocorticoid receptor expression with therapeutic responses to corticosteroids in moderate-severe COVID-19.

Colchicine reduces the activation of NLRP3 inflammasome in COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether colchicine treatment was associated with the inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome activation in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We present a post hoc analysis from a double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT) on the effect of colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19. Serum levels of NOD-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome products-active caspase-1 (Casp1p20), IL-1β, and IL-18-were assessed at enrollment and after 48-72 h of treatment in patients receiving standard-of-care (SOC) plus placebo vs. those receiving SOC plus colchicine. The colchicine regimen was 0.5 mg tid for 5 days, followed by 0.5 mg bid for another 5 days.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients received SOC plus colchicine, and thirty-six received SOC plus placebo. Colchicine reduced the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalization. On Days 2-3, colchicine lowered the serum levels of Casp1p20 and IL-18, but not IL-1β.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with colchicine inhibited the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, an event triggering the 'cytokine storm' in COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

RBR-8jyhxh.

Case Series of Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia Treated with Hydroxychloroquine

The efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) therapy, a previous candidate drug for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was denied in the global guideline. The risk of severe cardiac events associated with HCQ was inconsistent in previous reports. In the present case series, we show the tolerability of HCQ therapy in patients treated in our hospital, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of HCQ therapy for patients with COVID-19. A representative case was a 66-year-old woman who had become infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and was diagnosed as having COVID-19 pneumonia via polymerase chain reaction. She was refractory to treatment with levofloxacin, lopinavir, and ritonavir, while her condition improved after beginning HCQ therapy without severe side effects. We show the tolerability of HCQ therapy for 27 patients treated in our hospital. In total, 21 adverse events occurred in 20 (74%) patients, namely, diarrhea in 11 (41%) patients, and elevated levels of both aspartate aminotransferase and alanine transaminase in 10 (37%) patients. All seven grade ≥ 4 adverse events were associated with the deterioration in COVID-19 status. No patients discontinued HCQ treatment because of HCQ-related adverse events. Two patients (7%) died of COVID-19 pneumonia. In conclusion, HCQ therapy that had been performed for COVID-19 was well-tolerated in our case series.

Validation of a specialized evaluation system for COVID-19 in Japan: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of a severity grade (SG) is important to classify patients for efficient use of limited medical resources. This study validates two existing evaluation systems for the prevention of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Japan: a criterion of SG and a list of 14 specialized underlying diseases (SUDs).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort was created using electronic medical records from 18 research institutes. The cohort includes 6,050 COVID-19 patients with two types of diagnosis information as follows: SG at hospitalization among mild, moderate I, moderate II, and severe and aggravation after hospitalization.

RESULTS

A crude mortality rate and an aggravation rate increased by the worsening of SG in the COVID-19 cohort. The transition of the aggravation rate was notable for COVID-19 patients with SUD. A conditional probability of the mortality given the aggravation in the COVID-19 cohort was 87.4% compared to mild or moderate patients (approximately 21%-45%) who have the possibility of the aggravation. An odds ratio of the mortality and aggravation information about the SUD list was higher than other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the possibility of improving the criteria of SG by including the SUD list for more effective operation of the criteria of SG. Furthermore, we demonstrated the importance of the prevention of the aggravation based on the conditional probability, and the possibility of predicting the aggravation using the risk factors.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients With NMO Spectrum Disorders and MOG-Antibody-Associated Diseases: COPANMO(G)-Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the life of patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated diseases (MOGAD).

METHODS

This multicenter, cross-sectional study included data of 187 patients recruited from 19 different German and Austrian Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS) centers between July 2021 and March 2022. The effects of the pandemic on immunotherapeutic treatment and access to care, the possible severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and the potential effect of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 on disease incidence and relapse risk were assessed using a patient questionnaire. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured with the EuroQoL Group 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L). Demographic and clinical characteristics were retrieved from the NEMOS database.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-seven patients (75% women; median age 47 [range 21-86] years; median disease duration 5.5 [range 0-67] years; median Expanded Disability Status Scale 2.0 [range 0-8.0]; 51% aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G (AQP4-IgG)-positive, 36% myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG)-IgG-positive 13% double-seronegative) were analyzed. Most patients maintained excellent access to healthcare services throughout the pandemic. Immunotherapy was not changed in 88% of patients. Ninety-one percent of all patients were satisfied with medical care during the pandemic. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of patients rated their risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 as low or moderate. Among this study sample, 23 patients (12%) knowingly acquired an infection with SARS-CoV-2 and predominantly had a nonsevere course of illness (n = 22/23, 96%). The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination rate was 89%, with 4 cases of confirmed attack or first manifestation of NMOSD/MOGAD occurring in temporal association with the vaccination (range 2-9 days). The reported HRQoL did not decline compared with a prepandemic assessment (mean EQ-5D-5L index value 0.76, 95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.80; mean EQ-VAS 66.5, 95% bootstrap CI 63.5-69.3).

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that, overall, patients with NMOSD/MOGAD affiliated with specialized centers received ongoing medical care during the pandemic. Patients' satisfaction with medical care and HRQoL did not decrease.

Quercetin for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently approved therapies for COVID-19 are mostly limited by their low availability, high costs or the requirement of parenteral administration by trained medical personnel in an in-hospital setting. Quercetin is a cheap and easily accessible therapeutic option for COVID-19 patients. However, it has not been evaluated in a systematic review until now. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the effect of quercetin on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Various databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until 5 October 2022 and results from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled using a random-effects model. All analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. Quercetin decreased the risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.99) and the incidence of hospitalisation (OR = 0.25; 95% CI 0.10-0.62) but did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality and the rate of no recovery. Quercetin may be of benefit in COVID-19 patients, especially if administered in its phytosome formulation which greatly enhances its bioavailability but large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Ivermectin's Role in the Prevention of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review was performed to determine the population that benefited from prophylactic ivermectin. Seven databases of health-related studies were searched for eligible trials without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies investigating ivermectin for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and subgroups were analyzed by study type and the pre- or postexposure population. The certainty of the evidence was determined by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Furthermore, 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies with a moderate to high risk of bias were included in the analysis. The prophylactic use of ivermectin significantly decreased the overall incidence of COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.44). Nevertheless, the positive result was not supported by the RCT. Ivermectin was associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40) in the preexposure population, whereas no protective effect was observed in the postexposure population (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.09-1.67). In summary, prophylactic ivermectin did not prevent COVID-19 in the postexposure population. Although the protective effect of ivermectin was shown in the overall and preexposure populations, the results were unreliable owing to poor-quality evidence.

Steroid Pulse Therapy as a Treatment for Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia at an Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Evidence supporting the use of steroid pulse therapy in severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of high-dose (1000 mg/day) methylprednisolone (mPSL), which is commonly used in Japan.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes with and without steroid pulse therapy (mPSL 1000 or 500 mg/day for three days) in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Study design was retrospective observational study. The inclusion criterion was severe to critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ICU admission. The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients (1) with a "Do not attempt to resuscitate" order; (2) with a "Do not intubate" order; or (3) admitted to the ICU owing to other infectious diseases were excluded. Treatment strategy was as follows: Patients were divided into two groups: steroid pulse therapy (Group P) and steroids without pulse therapy (Group NP). Group P received mPSL 1000 or 500 mg/day on ICU days 1-3, and Group NP received dexamethasone 6.6 mg or mPSL 1 or 2 mg/kg/day. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

We enrolled 82 patients. Out of 70 who met the inclusion criteria, 48 and 22 were included in Groups P and NP, respectively. No difference in 28-day survival was observed between the Groups P and NP (log-rank P=0.11). After adjusting for covariates (age, sex, interleukin-6 level, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score on ICU admission) using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, treatment with steroid pulse therapy significantly improved 28-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.86; P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Steroid pulse therapy may improve the 28-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in the ICU.

B-cell malignancies and COVID-19: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has been extensively characterized in immunocompetent hosts and to a lesser extent in immunocompromised populations. Among the latter, patients treated for B-cell malignancies have immunosuppression generated by B-cell lymphodepletion/aplasia resulting in an increased susceptibility to respiratory virus infections and poor response to vaccination. The consequence is that these patients are likely to develop severe or critical COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the overall impact of COVID-19 in patients treated for a B-cell malignancy or receiving chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) immunotherapy administered in case of relapsed or refractory disease.

SOURCES

We searched in the MEDLINE database to identify relevant studies, trials, reviews, or meta-analyses focusing on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 management in patients treated for a B-cell malignancy or recipients of CAR-T cell therapy up to 8 July 2022.

CONTENT

The epidemiology and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with B-cell malignancy and CAR-T cell recipients are summarized. Vaccine efficacy in these subgroups is compiled. Considering the successive surges of variants of concern, we propose a critical appraisal of treatment strategies by discussing the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma therapy, direct-acting antiviral drugs, corticosteroids, and immunomodulators.

IMPLICATIONS

For patients with B-cell malignancy, preventive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains essential and the management of COVID-19 includes control of viral replication because of protracted SARS-CoV-2 shedding. Passive immunotherapy (monoclonal neutralizing antibody therapy and convalescent plasma therapy) and direct-active antivirals, such as remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are the best currently available treatments. Real-world data and subgroup analyses in larger trials are warranted to assess COVID-19 therapeutics in B-cell depleted populations.

Could the fibromyalgia syndrome be triggered or enhanced by COVID-19?

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a complex disease with an uncertain aetiology and intricate pathophysiology. Although its genesis is not fully explained, potential environmental factors, such as viral infections might trigger FM or worsen patients' clinical outcomes. The SARS-CoV-2 virus may affect central and peripheral nervous systems, leading to musculoskeletal, neurological, and psychological disturbances. These symptoms might persist at least 12 months beyond the recovery, often referred to as post-COVID syndrome, which resembles FM syndrome. In this sense, we argued the potential consequences of COVID-19 exclusively on FM syndrome. First, we have described post-COVID syndrome and its painful symptoms. Afterwards, we argued whether FM syndrome could be triggered or enhanced by COVID-19 infection or by numerous and persistent stressors imposed daily by the pandemic setting (isolation, uncertainty, depression, mental stress, generalized anxiety, and fear of the virus). In addition, we have demonstrated similarities between pathophysiological mechanisms and cardinal symptoms of FM and COVID-19, speculating that SARS-CoV-2 might represent a critical mediator of FM or an exacerbator of its symptoms once both syndromes share similar mechanisms and complaints. Therefore, pharmacologic and non-pharmacological approaches commonly used to treat FM could serve as strategic therapies to attenuate painful and neurological manifestations of post-COVID syndrome. Although it is still theoretical, clinicians and researchers should be alert of patients who develop symptoms similar to FM or those who had their FM symptoms increased post-COVID to manage them better.

Implications of an HbA1c-based Diabetes Screening on Prevalence and Effect of Dysglycemia in Patients With COVID-19

CONTEXT

In patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infection, diabetes is associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis. However, case detection strategy is divergent and reported prevalence varies from 5% to 35%.

OBJECTIVE

We examined how far the choice of screening tools affects the detection rate of dysglycemia and in consequence the estimation of diagnosis-associated risk for moderate (mo) or severe (s) COVID-19.

METHODS

Non-intensive care unit inpatients with COVID-19 were screened systematically at admission for diabetes (D) and prediabetes (PreD) by glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (A), random blood glucose (B), and known history (C) from November 1, 2020 to March 8, 2021. Dysglycemia rate and effect on COVID-19 outcome were analyzed in 2 screening strategies (ABC vs BC).

RESULTS

A total of 578 of 601 (96.2%) of admitted patients were screened and analyzed. In ABC, prevalence of D and PreD was 38.2% and 37.5%, respectively. D was significantly associated with an increased risk for more severe COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] [moCOVID-19]: 2.27, 95% CI, 1.16-4.46 and aOR [sCOVID-19]: 3.26, 95% CI, 1.56-6.38). Patients with PreD also presented more often with more severe COVID-19 than those with normoglycemia (aOR [moCOVID-19]: 1.76, 95% CI, 1.04-2.97 and aOR [sCOVID-19]: 2.41, 95% CI, 1.37-4.23). Screening with BC failed to identify only 96% of PreD (206/217) and 26.2% of D diagnosis (58/221) and missed associations of dysglycemia and COVID-19 severity.

CONCLUSION

Pandemic conditions may hamper dysglycemia detection rate and in consequence the awareness of individual patient risk for COVID-19 severity. A systematic diabetes screening including HbA1c reduces underdiagnosis of previously unknown or new-onset dysglycemia, and enhances the quality of risk estimation and access of patients at risk to a diabetes-specific intervention.

VV116 versus Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir has been authorized for emergency use by many countries for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, the supply falls short of the global demand, which creates a need for more options. VV116 is an oral antiviral agent with potent activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

METHODS

We conducted a phase 3, noninferiority, observer-blinded, randomized trial during the outbreak caused by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2. Symptomatic adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 with a high risk of progression were assigned to receive a 5-day course of either VV116 or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. The primary end point was the time to sustained clinical recovery through day 28. Sustained clinical recovery was defined as the alleviation of all Covid-19-related target symptoms to a total score of 0 or 1 for the sum of each symptom (on a scale from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater severity; total scores on the 11-item scale range from 0 to 33) for 2 consecutive days. A lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of more than 0.8 was considered to indicate noninferiority (with a hazard ratio of >1 indicating a shorter time to sustained clinical recovery with VV116 than with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir).

RESULTS

A total of 822 participants underwent randomization, and 771 received VV116 (384 participants) or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (387 participants). The noninferiority of VV116 to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery was established in the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.35) and was maintained in the final analysis (median, 4 days with VV116 and 5 days with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.36). In the final analysis, the time to sustained symptom resolution (score of 0 for each of the 11 Covid-19-related target symptoms for 2 consecutive days) and to a first negative SARS-CoV-2 test did not differ substantially between the two groups. No participants in either group had died or had had progression to severe Covid-19 by day 28. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the VV116 group than in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group (67.4% vs. 77.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with mild-to-moderate Covid-19 who were at risk for progression, VV116 was noninferior to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with respect to the time to sustained clinical recovery, with fewer safety concerns. (Funded by Vigonvita Life Sciences and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05341609; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2200057856.).

Insights from comparison of the clinical presentation and outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in an Italian internal medicine ward during first and third wave

Background

The reasons of variability of clinical presentation of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) across different pandemic waves are not fully understood, and may include individual risk profile, SARS-CoV-2 lineage and seasonal variations of viral spread. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted with confirmed coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in the same season during the first (March 2020) and the third pandemic wave (March 2021, dominance of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage) in an internal medicine ward of a large teaching hospital in Italy.

Materials and methods

Data of 769 unvaccinated patients (399 from the first and 370 from the third wave) were collected from clinical records, including symptom type and duration, extension of lung abnormalities on chest computed tomography (CT) and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio on admission arterial blood gas analysis.

Results

Third wave patients were in average younger (median 65, interquartile range [IQR] 55-75, vs. 72, IQR 61-81 years old, p < 0.001), with less comorbidities and better pulmonary (CT visual score median 25, IQR 15-40, vs. 30, IQR 15-50, age- and sex-adjusted p = 0.017) and respiratory involvement (PaO₂/FiO₂ median 288, IQR 237-338, vs. 233, IQR 121-326 mmHg, age- and sex-adjusted p < 0.001) than first wave patients. Hospital mortality was lower (19% vs. 36%, p < 0.001), but not for subjects over 75 years old (46 vs. 49%). Age, number of chronic illnesses, PCT levels, CT visual score [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.022, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.009-1.036, p < 0.001] and PaO₂/FiO₂ (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.988-0.994, p < 0.001), but not the pandemic wave, were associated with mortality on stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Conclusion

Despite the higher virulence of B.1.1.7 lineage, we detected milder clinical presentation and improved mortality in patients hospitalized during the third COVID-19 wave, with involvement of younger subjects. The reasons of this discrepancy are unclear, but could involve the population effect of vaccination campaigns, that were being conducted primarily in older frail subjects during the third wave.

Heterogeneous treatment effects of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia-Post hoc exploratory analyses of the COVID STEROID 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids improve outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. In the COVID STEROID 2 randomised clinical trial, we found high probabilities of benefit with dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily. While no statistically significant heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) was found in the conventional, dichotomous subgroup analyses, these analyses have limitations, and HTE could still exist.

METHODS

We assessed whether HTE was present for days alive without life support and mortality at Day 90 in the trial according to baseline age, weight, number of comorbidities, category of respiratory failure (type of respiratory support system and oxygen requirements) and predicted risk of mortality using an internal prediction model. We used flexible models for continuous variables and logistic regressions for categorical variables without dichotomisation of the baseline variables of interest. HTE was assessed both visually and with p and S values from likelihood ratio tests.

RESULTS

There was no strong evidence for substantial HTE on either outcome according to any of the baseline variables assessed with all p values >.37 (and all S values <1.43) in the planned analyses and no convincingly strong visual indications of HTE.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no strong evidence for HTE with 12 versus 6 mg dexamethasone daily on days alive without life support or mortality at Day 90 in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, although these results cannot rule out HTE either.

Influenza antivirals and their role in pandemic preparedness

Effective antivirals provide crucial benefits during the early phase of an influenza pandemic, when vaccines are still being developed and manufactured. Currently, two classes of viral protein-targeting drugs, neuraminidase inhibitors and polymerase inhibitors, are approved for influenza treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis. Resistance to both classes has been documented, highlighting the need to develop novel antiviral options that may include both viral and host-targeted inhibitors. Such efforts will form the basis of management of seasonal influenza infections and of strategic planning for future influenza pandemics. This review focuses on the two classes of approved antivirals, their drawbacks, and ongoing work to characterize novel agents or combination therapy approaches to address these shortcomings. The importance of these topics in the ongoing process of influenza pandemic planning is also discussed.

Critical patients COVID-19 has changed the management and outcomes in the ICU after 1 year of the pandemic? A multicenter, prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of critical patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated in Intensive Care Units (ICU) after one year of pandemic.

METHODOLOGY

Multicenter, prospective study, which included critical COVID-19 patients in 9 ICUs in northwestern Spain. The clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of patients admitted to the ICU during the months of March-April 2020 (period 1) were compared with patients admitted in January-February 2021 (period 2).

RESULTS

337 patients were included (98 in period 1 and 239 in period 2). In period 2, fewer patients required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (65% vs 84%, p < 0.001), using high-flow nasal cannulas (CNAF) more frequently (70% vs 7%, p < 0.001), ventilation non-invasive mechanical (NIMV) (40% vs 14%, p < 0.001), corticosteroids (100% vs 96%, p = 0.007) and prone position in both awake (42% vs 28%, p = 0.012), and intubated patients (67% vs 54%, p = 0.034). The days of IMV, ICU stay and hospital stay were lower in period 2. Mortality was similar in the two periods studied (16% vs 17%).

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year of pandemic, we observed that in patients admitted to the ICU, CNAF, NIMV, use of the prone position, and corticosteroids have been used more frequently, reducing the number of patients in IMV, and the length of stay in the ICU and hospital stay. Mortality was similar in the two study periods.

Conceptualizing the reporting of living systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

As part of an effort to develop an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs), we discuss conceptual issues relevant to the reporting of LSRs and highlight a few challenges.

METHODS

Discussion of conceptual issues based on a scoping review of the literature and discussions among authors.

RESULTS

We first briefly describe aspects of the LSR production process relevant to reporting. The production cycles differ by whether the literature surveillance identifies new evidence and whether newly identified evidence is judged to be consequential. This impacts the timing, content, and format of LSR versions. Second, we discuss four types of information that are specific to the reporting of LSRs: justification for adopting the living mode, LSR specific methods, changes between LSR versions, and LSR updating status. We also discuss the challenge of conveying changes between versions to the reader. Third, we describe two commonly used reporting formats of LSRs: full and partial reports. Although partial reports are easier to produce and publish, they lead to the scattering of information across different versions. Full reports ensure the completeness of reporting. We discuss the implications for the extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs.

CONCLUSION

We argue that a dynamic publication platform would facilitate complete and timely reporting of LSRs.

Early administration of tofacitinib in COVID-19 pneumonitis: An open randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Controversies on sub-populations most sensitive to therapy and the best timing of starting the treatment still surround the use of immunomodulatory drugs in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

We designed a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial to test the effect of prompt adding of tofacitinib to standard therapy for hospitalised patients affected by mild/moderate COVID-19 pneumonitis.

METHODS

Patients admitted to three Italian hospitals affected by COVID-19 pneumonitis not requiring mechanical ventilation were randomised to receive standard treatment alone or tofacitinib (10 mg/bid) for 2 weeks, starting within the first 24 h from admission.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were randomised; 49 in the experimental arm completed the 14-day treatment period, 9 discontinued tofacitinib as the disease worsened and were included in the analysis, and 1 died of respiratory failure. All 58 control patients completed the study. Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar between the study groups. In the tofacitinib group, 9/58 (15.5%) patients progressed to noninvasive ventilation (CPAP) to maintain SO₂  > 93%, invasive mechanical ventilation or death by day 14 was 15.5%, significantly less than in the control group (20/58, 34.4%, RR 0,45, RRR -55%, NNT 5; p = .018). No differences in severe adverse effect incidence had been observed across the groups.

CONCLUSION

High-dose tofacitinib therapy in patients with COVID pneumonitis is safe and may prevent deterioration to respiratory failure.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in chronic kidney disease patients with pre-existing dialysis: description across different pandemic intervals and effect on disease course (mortality)

PURPOSE

Patients suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD) are in general at high risk for severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) but dialysis-dependency (CKD5D) is poorly understood. We aimed to describe CKD5D patients in the different intervals of the pandemic and to evaluate pre-existing dialysis dependency as a potential risk factor for mortality.

METHODS

In this multicentre cohort study, data from German study sites of the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-infected patients (LEOSS) were used. We multiply imputed missing data, performed subsequent analyses in each of the imputed data sets and pooled the results. Cases (CKD5D) and controls (CKD not requiring dialysis) were matched 1:1 by propensity-scoring. Effects on fatal outcome were calculated by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 207 patients suffering from CKD5D and 964 potential controls. Multivariable regression of the whole cohort identified age (> 85 years adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 7.34, 95% CI 2.45-21.99), chronic heart failure (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.25-2.23), coronary artery disease (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05-1.89) and active oncological disease (aOR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.80) as risk factors for fatal outcome. Dialysis-dependency was not associated with a fatal outcome-neither in this analysis (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75-1.54) nor in the conditional multivariable regression after matching (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 0.70-2.59).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present multicentre German cohort, dialysis dependency is not linked to fatal outcome in SARS-CoV-2-infected CKD patients. However, the mortality rate of 26% demonstrates that CKD patients are an extreme vulnerable population, irrespective of pre-existing dialysis-dependency.

A mixed methods study exploring requests for unproven COVID therapies such as ivermectin and healthcare distrust in the rural South

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to contentious discourse regarding unproven COVID-19 therapies (UCTs),(e.g. ivermectin). Despite recommendations against it, ivermectin remains, in some areas, highly demanded. The goal of this study is to understand patient and provider perspectives about UCTs (e.g., ivermectin) and how responses to requests for UCTs impact healthcare distrust. This mixed methods observational study was conducted in a rural healthcare system in the Southern United States. Adults (n = 26) with a history of COVID-19 or clinicians (n = 8) from the same system were interviewed using questionnaires assessing healthcare distrust and qualitatively interviewed exploring perceptions about UCTs. Patient themes were: 1) Importance of anecdotal stories for decision-making; 2) Use of haphazard approaches to 'research'; 3) Strong distrust of government and healthcare organizations; 4) Inherent trust in local healthcare; 5) Decision-making as weighing pros/cons; and 6) Feeling a right to try medications. High survey medians indicated high distrust with differences of 8.5 points for those who requested/used ivermectin versus those who did not (p = 0.027). Clinician themes were: 1) Frustration when patients trust social media over clinicians; 2) Acceptance of community beliefs about UCTs; 3) Distrust originating outside of the healthcare system; 4) Feeling torn about prescribing UCTs to build trust; and 5) Variable educational strategies. When clinicians are perceived as aligned with government, this may void patients' trust of clinicians. Clinicians should leverage trust in local healthcare and distance themselves from distrusted information sources. Ethical questions arise regarding appropriateness of acquiescing to patient requests for ivermectin for building trust.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy and COVID-19 vaccination improve clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection

To evaluate the effect of Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on clinical outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron infection, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 762 adult patients with confirmed Omicron BA2.2 variant infection, of them 488 patients received standard therapy and 274 patients received Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy. Subjects were matched by propensity score matching using R language, the baseline factors were balanced by the nearest-neighbor matching method and were compared, together with the factors including progression to severe/critical disease, viral clearance time, length of hospital stay, and virological rebound of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy significantly accelerated viral clearance at Days 14 and  28 during hospitalization, but it had no impact on disease progression, length of hospital stay, or infection rebound. In contrast, COVID-19 vaccination before admission was positively correlated with the viral clearance rate and negatively correlated with disease progression in a dose-dependent way. COVID-19 vaccination reduced the probability of infection rebound. Other factors such as the number of comorbidities, pneumonia on-admission, and high D2 levels were positively correlated with disease progression. Our study strongly recommended booster COVID-19 vaccination for the elderly population, particularly patients with comorbidities to prevent critical disease.

Honey and Nigella sativa against COVID-19 in Pakistan (HNS-COVID-PK): A multicenter placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

Until now, no specific and effective treatment exists for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since honey and Nigella sativa (HNS) have established antiviral, antibacterial, antiinflammatory, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory properties, we tested their efficacy for this disease in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, and randomized clinical trial at four medical care facilities in Pakistan. RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 adults showing moderate or severe disease were enrolled in the trial. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either honey (1 g kg^-1  day^-1 ) and Nigella sativa seeds (80 mg kg^-1  day^-1 ) or a placebo for up to 13 days along with standard care. The outcomes included symptoms' alleviation, viral clearance, and 30-day mortality in the intention-to-treat population. Three hundred and thirteen patients, 210 with moderate and 103 with severe disease, underwent randomization from April 30 to July 29, 2020. Among the moderate cases, 107 were assigned to HNS, whereas 103 were assigned to the placebo group. Among the severe cases, 50 were given HNS, and 53 were given the placebo. HNS resulted in ~50% reduction in time taken to alleviate symptoms as compared to placebo (moderate cases: 4 vs. 7 days, Hazard Ratio [HR]: 6.11; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 4.23-8.84, p < 0.0001 and for severe cases: 6 vs. 13 days, HR: 4.04; 95% CI: 2.46-6.64; p < 0.0001). HNS also cleared the virus earlier than placebo in both moderate cases (6 vs. 10 days, HR: 5.53; 95% CI: 3.76-8.14, p < 0.0001) and severe cases (8.5 vs. 12 days, HR: 4.32; 95% CI: 2.62-7.13, p < 0.0001). HNS further led to a better clinical score on day 6 with normal activity resumption in 63.6% vs. 10.9% among moderate cases (OR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.03-0.13, p < 0.0001) and hospital discharge in 50% versus 2.8% in severe cases (OR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.09, p < 0.0001). In severe cases, the mortality rate was less than 1/4th in the HNS group than in placebo (4% vs. 18.87%, OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.02-0.92, p = 0.029). No HNS-related adverse effects were observed. HNS, compared with placebo, significantly improved symptoms, expedited viral load clearance, and reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients. This trial was registered on April 15, 2020 with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04347382.

A randomised trial of anti-GM-CSF otilimab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (OSCAR)

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19.

METHODS

In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18-79 years (Part 1) or ≥70 years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90 mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28.

RESULTS

In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI -0.8-11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2-33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70-79 years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI -9.3-11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile.

[Critical patients COVID-19 has changed the management and outcomes in the ICU after 1 year of the pandemic? A multicenter, prospective, observational study]

Objective

To compare the clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of critical patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated in intensive care units (ICU) after one year of pandemic.

Methodology

Multicenter, prospective study, which included critical COVID-19 patients in 9 ICUs in northwestern Spain. The clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of patients admitted to the ICU during the months of March-April 2020 (period 1) were compared with patients admitted in January-February 2021 (period 2).

Results

337 patients were included (98 in period 1 and 239 in period 2). In period 2, fewer patients required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (65% vs. 84%, P < .001), using high-flow nasal cannulas (CNAF) more frequently (70% vs. 7%, P < .001), ventilation non-invasive mechanical (NIMV) (40% vs. 14%, P < .001), corticosteroids (100% vs. 96%, P = .007) and prone position in both awake (42% vs. 28%, P = .012), and intubated patients (67% vs. 54%, P = .034). The days of IMV, ICU stay and hospital stay were lower in period 2. Mortality was similar in the two periods studied (16% vs. 17%).

Conclusions

After one year of pandemic, we observed that in patients admitted to the ICU, CNAF, NIMV, use of the prone position, and corticosteroids have been used more frequently, reducing the number of patients in IMV, and the length of stay in the ICU and hospital stay. Mortality was similar in the two study periods.

Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To describe perceptions of providing, and using rapid evidence, to support decision making by two national bodies (one public health policy and one front-line clinical practice) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Descriptive qualitative study (March-August 2020): 25 semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

SETTING

Data were obtained as part of an evaluation of two Irish national projects; the Irish COVID-19 Evidence for General Practitioners project (General Practice (GP) project) which provided relevant evidence to address clinical questions posed by GPs; and the COVID-19 Evidence Synthesis Team (Health Policy project) which produced rapid evidence products at the request of the National Public Health Emergency Team.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sample of 14 evidence providers (EPs: generated and disseminated rapid evidence) and 11 service ssers (SUs: GPs and policy-makers, who used the evidence).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participant perceptions.

RESULTS

The Policy Project comprised 27 EPs, producing 30 reports across 1432 person-work-days. The GP project comprised 10 members from 3 organisations, meeting 49 times and posting evidence-based answers to 126 questions. Four unique themes were generated. 'The Work' highlighted that a structured but flexible organisational approach to producing evidence was essential. Ensuring quality of evidence products was challenging, particularly in the context of absent or poor-quality evidence. 'The Use' highlighted that rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. Trust and credibility of EPs were key, however, communication difficulties were highlighted by SUs (eg, website functionality). 'The Team' emphasised that a highly skilled team, working collaboratively, is essential to meeting the substantial workload demands and tight turnaround time. 'The Future' highlighted that investing in resources, planning and embedding evidence synthesis support, is crucial to national emergency preparedness.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. The credibility of EPs, a close relationship with SUs and having a highly skilled and adaptable team to meet the workload demands were identified as key strengths that optimised the utilisation of rapid evidence.

ETHICS APPROVAL

Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research, Ireland.

Predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hematological patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Main aim of this systematic review is to quantify the risk and identify predictors of clinical evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in hematological patients compared to different control populations. Two independent reviewers screened the literature assessing clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adult patients with active hematological malignancies published up to June 2021. Primary outcome was COVID-19 related mortality, secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive-care admission, mechanical ventilation (MV), and thromboembolic events. Variables related to study setting, baseline patients' demographic, comorbidities, underlying hematological disease, ongoing chemotherapy, COVID-19 presentation, and treatments were extracted. A total of 67 studies including 10,061 hematological patients and 111,143 controls were included. Most of the studies were retrospective cohorts (51 studies, 76%) and only 19 (13%) provided data for a control group. A significant increased risk of clinical progression in the hematological population compared to the controls was found in terms of COVID-19 related mortality (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.77-2.54), hospitalization (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.15-3.43), intensive-care admission (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.38-2.26), and MV (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.71-2.75). The risk remained significantly higher in the subgroup analysis comparing hematological patients versus solid cancer. Meta-regression analysis of uncontrolled studies showed that older age, male sex, and hypertension were significantly related to worse clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in hematological population. Older age and hypertension were found to be associated also to thromboembolic events. In conclusion, hematological patients have a higher risk of COVID-19 clinical progression compared to both the general population and to patients with solid cancer.

Regional trends in the use of steroids and favipiravir for COVID-19 treatment

BACKGROUND

Infectious diseases are treated based on clinical guidelines, which usually require a large amount of data and time to formulate. Therefore, various treatments are tried and used in the early stages of epidemics of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. In this study, we focused on two drugs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, i.e., steroids and favipiravir, and analyzed the changes in treatment trends by region.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of cases from the COVID-19 Registry Japan. The proportion of patients who received steroids and favipiravir was calculated on a monthly and pandemic wave basis, and the trend of drug administration by region was estimated using logistic curves.

RESULTS

The effect of wave on steroid administration was as high as 2.75 [2.60, 2.90], indicating a rapid increase in the proportion of steroid administration. The odds ratios for Hokuriku and Hokkaido were 0.49 [0.35, 0.68] and 0.55 [0.43, 0.71], respectively, indicating that steroids were less likely administered in these regions. For favipiravir, the effect of timing was 0.43 [0.41, 0.46], denoting a decreasing trend. On the other hand, the odds ratio was very high in some regions, such as Hokkaido (6.66 [5.24, 8.48]), indicating that the administration trend varied by region.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in the proportion of steroid use showed the same trend nationwide, although the rate of increase differed, confirming that the use of drugs with proven efficacy was spreading rapidly and that effective treatment was available nationwide. However, the results suggest that drugs such as favipiravir, which were initially expected to be effective, may continue to be administered. Registry studies include larger populations than clinical trials and enable real-time monitoring of medication status and trends. Further use of registry studies for treatment standardization is expected in the future.

Glycyrrhizic acid alters the hyperoxidative stress-induced differentiation commitment of MSCs by activating the Wnt/β-catenin pathway to prevent SONFH

This study aimed to examine the in vivo and in vitro therapeutic effects of glycyrrhizic acid (GA) on steroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head (SONFH), which is caused by the overuse of glucocorticoids (GCs). Clinically, we identified elevated oxidative stress (OS) levels and an imbalance in osteolipogenic homeostasis in SONFH patients compared to femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients. In vivo, we established experimental SONFH in rats via lipopolysaccharides (LPSs) combined with methylprednisolone (MPS). We showed that GA and Wnt agonist-S8320 alleviated SONFH, as evidenced by the reduced microstructural and histopathological alterations in the subchondral bone of the femoral head and the decreased levels of OS in rat models. In vitro, GA reduced dexamethasone (Dex)-induced excessive NOX4 and OS levels by activating the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, thereby promoting the osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and inhibiting lipogenic differentiation. In addition, GA regulated the expression levels of the key transcription factors downstream of this pathway, Runx2 and PPARγ, thus maintaining osteolipogenic homeostasis. In summary, we demonstrated for the first time that GA modulates the osteolipogenic differentiation commitment of MSCs induced by excessive OS through activating the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, thereby ameliorating SONFH.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience

OBJECTIVES

To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods.

RESULTS

The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode.

CONCLUSION

This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

Clinical characteristics and clinical outcome of community clusters with SARS-CoV-2 infection

Background

Community clustering is one of the main features of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, few studies have been conducted on the clinical characteristics and clinical outcome of clustered cases and sporadic cases with COVID-19.

Methods

We recruited 41 community clusters confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with 49 sporadic cases in Zhejiang Province from 19 January 2020 to 9 June 2020. Clinical data were collected to evaluate the clinical outcome and characteristics of community clusters.

Results

Compared to sporadic cases, clustered cases had significantly lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score {5.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 2.0-7.5] vs. 7.0 [IQR, 4.0-12.5]; P = 0.005}, less members in intensive care unit (ICU) (6 [14.6%] vs. 18 [36.7%]; P = 0.018), and shorter time of viral shedding in fecal samples (18.5 [IQR, 17.0-28.3] vs. 32.0 [IQR, 24.3-35.5]; P = 0.002). Univariable logistic regression revealed that older age (odds ratios 1.078, 95% confidence intervals 1.007-1.154, per year increase; p = 0.032), high APACHE II score (3.171, 1.147-8.76; P = 0.026), elevated interleukin-2 levels (3.078, 1.145-8.279; P = 0.026) were associated with ICU admission of clustered cases.

Conclusions

Compared to sporadic cases, clustered cases exhibited milder disease severity and a better clinical outcome, which may be closely related to the management of early detection, early diagnosis, early treatment and early isolation of COVID-19.

The 'myth of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19' is far from reality

The efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19 was contentious. In this randomized control double-blind clinical trial, asymptomatic individuals with direct contact with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were randomized into PEP/HCQ (N = 574) and control/placebo (N = 594) group. The PEP/HCQ group received tablet HCQ 400 mg q 12 hourly on day one followed by 400 mg once weekly for 3 weeks, and the control/Placebo group received matching Placebo. The incidence of COVID-19 was similar (p = 0.761) in PEP [N = 24 out of 574, (4.2%)] and control [N = 27 out of 594, (4.5%)] groups. Total absolute risk reduction for the incidence of new-onset COVID-19 was -0.3% points with an overall relative risk of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.60) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 333 to prevent the incident of one case of COVID-19. The study found that, PEP with HCQ was not advantageous for the prevention of COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Though HCQ is a safer drug, the practice of irrational and indiscriminate use of HCQ for COVID-19 should be restrained with better pharmacovigilance.

Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY

Objective

To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England.

Design

Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England.

Setting

Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.

Participants

Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes.

Interventions

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units.

Results

93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%).

Conclusions

Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.

Multicenter Case-Control Study of COVID-19-Associated Mucormycosis Outbreak, India

We found inappropriate glucocorticoid therapy and zinc supplementation were significantly associated with these illnesses.

We performed a case–control study across 25 hospitals in India for the period of January–June 2021 to evaluate the reasons for an COVID-19–associated mucormycosis (CAM) outbreak. We investigated whether COVID-19 treatment practices (glucocorticoids, zinc, tocilizumab, and others) were associated with CAM. We included 1,733 cases of CAM and 3,911 age-matched COVID-19 controls. We found cumulative glucocorticoid dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.006, 95% CI 1.004–1.007) and zinc supplementation (OR 2.76, 95% CI 2.24–3.40), along with elevated C-reactive protein (OR 1.004, 95% CI 1.002–1.006), host factors (renal transplantation [OR 7.58, 95% CI 3.31–17.40], diabetes mellitus [OR 6.72, 95% CI 5.45–8.28], diabetic ketoacidosis during COVID-19 [OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.03–9.60]), and rural residence (OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.12–3.79), significantly associated with CAM. Mortality rate at 12 weeks was 32.2% (473/1,471). We emphasize the judicious use of COVID-19 therapies and optimal glycemic control to prevent CAM.

Identification of berberine as a potential therapeutic strategy for kidney clear cell carcinoma and COVID-19 based on analysis of large-scale datasets

Background

Regarding the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID)-19 pandemic, kidney clear cell carcinoma (KIRC) has acquired a higher infection probability and may induce fatal complications and death following COVID-19 infection. However, effective treatment strategies remain unavailable. Berberine exhibits significant antiviral and antitumour effects. Thus, this study aimed to provide a promising and reliable therapeutic strategy for clinical decision-making by exploring the therapeutic mechanism of berberine against KIRC/COVID-19.

Methods

Based on large-scale data analysis, the target genes, clinical risk, and immune and pharmacological mechanisms of berberine against KIRC/COVID-19 were systematically investigated.

Results

In total, 1,038 and 12,992 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) of COVID-19 and KIRC, respectively, were verified from Gene Expression Omnibus and The Cancer Genome Atlas databases, respectively, and 489 berberine target genes were obtained from official websites. After intersecting, 26 genes were considered potential berberine therapeutic targets for KIRC/COVID-19. Berberine mechanism of action against KIRC/COVID-19 was revealed by protein-protein interaction, gene ontology, and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes with terms including protein interaction, cell proliferation, viral carcinogenesis, and the PI3K/Akt signalling pathway. In COVID-19 patients, ACOX1, LRRK2, MMP8, SLC1A3, CPT1A, H2AC11, H4C8, and SLC1A3 were closely related to disease severity, and the general survival of KIRC patients was closely related to ACOX1, APP, CPT1A, PLK1, and TYMS. Additionally, the risk signature accurately and sensitively depicted the overall survival and patient survival status for KIRC. Numerous neutrophils were enriched in the immune system of COVID-19 patients, and the lives of KIRC patients were endangered due to significant immune cell infiltration. Molecular docking studies indicated that berberine binds strongly to target proteins.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated berberine as a potential treatment option in pharmacological, immunological, and clinical practice. Moreover, its therapeutic effects may provide potential and reliable treatment options for patients with KIRC/COVID-19.

The evidence base for emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments: A rapid review

Background and Aims

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permitted emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for vaccines/treatments with promising data. Eight treatments were issued EUAs by May 31, 2021; one of these was approved (Remdesivir for certain populations) and two were revoked (chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine and bamlanivimab) by September 30, 2021. The aim of this study is to find out what evidence the EUAs were based on and how many studies were published while they remained active (up to September 30, 2021).

Methods

A review of published clinical studies for the 6 months before each EUA was issued, and the time after (until September 30, 2021, or until revoked). PubMed and the identified systematic reviews were the sources for identifying published literature.

Results

The number of clinical studies published pre-EUA varied from a single case study (for chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine) to numerous studies of multiple types (for convalescent plasma). Four treatments had a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) as evidence (bamlanivimab monotherapy, REGN-COV, bamlanivimab + etesevimab, sotrovimab) and two also had other study types (remdesivir and baricitinib). The number of clinical studies published post-EUA (for those active on September 30, 2021) was widely varied. Eighteen RCTs were published for Convalescent plasma, while Remdesivir had eight. Baricitinib, REGN-COV, and bamlanivimab + etesevimab all had one, but none were published for sotrovimab.

Conclusion

The number of trials for treatments with EUAs was limited in all cases before the EUA was issued, and in most cases for those with EUAs ongoing at the end of September 2021. The presence of EUAs may discourage participation in relevant clinical trials, which delays the widespread implementation of evidenced-based therapies. Large, robust RCTs should be completed, such as the RECOVERY trial in the United Kingdom, to quickly find the answers desperately required during a pandemic.

Early Treatment with Monoclonal Antibodies or Convalescent Plasma Reduces Mortality in Non-Vaccinated COVID-19 High-Risk Patients

Vulnerable patients such as immunosuppressed or elderly patients are at high risk for a severe course of COVID-19 upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. Immunotherapy with SARS-CoV-2 specific monoclonal antibodies (mAb) or convalescent plasma represents a considerable treatment option to protect these patients from a severe or lethal course of infection. However, monoclonal antibodies are not always available or less effective against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Convalescent plasma is more commonly available and may represent a good treatment alternative in low-income countries. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes in individuals treated with mAbs or convalescent plasma and compared the 30-day overall survival with a patient cohort that received supportive care due to a lack of SARS-CoV-2 specific therapies between March 2020 and April 2021. Our data demonstrate that mAb treatment is highly effective in preventing severe courses of SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients treated with mAb survived. Treatment with convalescent plasma improved overall survival to 82% compared with 61% in patients without SARS-CoV-2 targeted therapy. Our data indicate that early convalescent plasma treatment may be an option to improve the overall survival of high-risk COVID-19 patients. This is especially true when other antiviral drugs are not available or their efficacy is significantly reduced, which may be the case with emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Time to negative PCR conversion amongst high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to compare the clinical and virological outcomes in Omicron BA.1- and BA.2-infected patients who received sotrovimab with those in patients who received nirmatrelvir for the prevention of severe COVID-19.

METHODS

In this multi-centric, prospective ANRS 0003S CoCoPrev cohort study, patients at a high risk of progression of mild-to-moderate BA.1 or BA.2 COVID-19 who received sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir were included. The proportion of patients with progression to severe COVID-19, time between the start of treatment to negative PCR conversion, SARS-CoV-2 viral decay, and characterization of resistance variants were determined. A multi-variable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the time to negative PCR conversion and a mixed-effect model for the dynamics of viral decay.

RESULTS

Amongst 255 included patients, 199 (80%) received ≥3 vaccine doses, 195 (76%) received sotrovimab, and 60 (24%) received nirmatrelvir. On day 28, new COVID-19-related hospitalization occurred in 4 of 193 (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%) sotrovimab-treated patients and 0 of 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p 0.24). One out of the 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients died (2%; 95% CI, 0-10%). The median time to negative PCR conversion was 11.5 days (95% CI, 10.5-13) in the sotrovimab-treated patients vs. 4 days (95% CI, 4-9) in the nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p < 0.001). Viral decay was faster in the patients who received nirmatrelvir (p < 0.001). In the multi-variable analysis, nirmatrelvir and nasopharyngeal PCR cycle threshold values were independently associated with faster conversion to negative PCR (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.56-3.56; p < 0.0001 and hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; p 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Early administration of nirmatrelvir in high-risk patients compared with that of sotrovimab was associated with faster viral clearance. This may participate to decrease transmission and prevent viral resistance.

Supervised Machine Learning Models to Identify Early-Stage Symptoms of SARS-CoV-2

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and began in December 2019. The virus was first reported in the Wuhan region of China. It is a new strain of coronavirus that until then had not been isolated in humans. In severe cases, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure or even death may occur. Now, the existence of vaccines, antiviral drugs and the appropriate treatment are allies in the confrontation of the disease. In the present research work, we utilized supervised Machine Learning (ML) models to determine early-stage symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 occurrence. For this purpose, we experimented with several ML models, and the results showed that the ensemble model, namely Stacking, outperformed the others, achieving an Accuracy, Precision, Recall and F-Measure equal to 90.9% and an Area Under Curve (AUC) of 96.4%.

Ruxolitinib for severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS)

Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging infectious disease with high mortality. A 73-year-old woman presented to the hospital with fever after being bitten by ticks and was diagnosed with SFTS. Three days after treatment with high-flow oxygen and supportive therapy, her condition deteriorated to septic shock and multiple organ failure. Ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, was used for the treatment of cytokine release syndrome, and the patient finally recovered. Ruxolitinib and other host-based immunomodulatory drugs may be potential treatments for fatal SFTS.

Drug-induced liver injury following the use of tocilizumab or sarilumab in patients with coronavirus disease 2019

BACKGROUNDS

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) blockers including tocilizumab and sarilumab were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. The use of sarilumab or tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients has been related to a reduction in mortality compared to standard care. Recent evidence has emerged concerning drug-induced liver injury (DILI) after sarilumab or tocilizumab applications in COVID-19 patients.

AIMS

The study aimed to estimate DILI associated with sarilumab or tocilizumab in treating moderate to severe patients infected with SARS-Cov-2.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study by data mining of the FDA's adverse event reporting systems (FAERS) database from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2021 in confirmed COVID-19 patients. We analyzed DILI cases associated with tocilizumab or sarilumab in treating COVID-19 patients from the FAERS during this period. Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis of COVID-19 patients were utilized for case analysis, and we also next compared the onset time and fatality rates of DILI following tocilizumab or sarilumab.

RESULTS

A total of 275 cases of TCZ or SAR-related DILI reports were extracted. A total of 192 AEs cases were related to tocilizumab (TCZ), and 83 were related to sarilumab (SAR). In patients treated with TCZ, most were < 75 years old (51.57%), with more male than female (46.35% vs. 13.02%). The correlation between IL-6 receptor antagonists and DILI was stronger in SAR (ROR = 12.94; 95%CI 9.6-17.44) than in TCZ (ROR = 1.33; 95%CI 1.14-1.55). The onset time of DILI was different between TCZ and SAR, and a significant difference was observed in TCZ than SAR (P < 0.0001). A significant difference was observed in the mortality rate of TCZ and SAR (P = 0.0009). DILI associated with COVID-19 patients treated with TCZ appeared to have earlier onset-time (1(0-46) day) VS. SAR (3.5(0-27) day).

CONCLUSION

This study shows strict monitor ought to be paid for TCZ or SAR when used for COVID-19 patients with poor liver function.

Risk of Malnutrition in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Studies have reported that COVID-19 may increase the risk of malnutrition among patients. However, the prevalence of such risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is uncertain due to the inconsistent use of assessment methods. (2) Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies on the nutritional status of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A pooled prevalence of malnutrition risk evaluated by Nutrition Risk Score (NRS-2002) was obtained using a random effects model. Differences by study-level characteristics were examined by hospitalization setting, time of assessment, age, and country. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle−Ottawa Scale. (3) Results: 53 studies from 17 countries were identified and summarized. A total of 17 studies using NRS-2002, including 3614 COVID-19 patients were included in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of risk of malnutrition was significantly higher among ICU patients (92.2%, 95% CI: 85.9% to 96.8%) than among general ward patients (70.7%, 95% CI: 56.4% to 83.2%) (p = 0.002). No significant differences were found between age groups (≥65 vs. <65 years, p = 0.306) and countries (p = 0.893). (4) Conclusions: High risk of malnutrition is common and concerning in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, suggesting that malnutrition screening and nutritional support during hospitalization are needed.

The Association of Low CD4 Expression on Monocytes and Low CD8+ T-Cell Count at Hospital Admission Predicts the Need for Mechanical Ventilation in Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Prospective Monocentric Cohort Study

To identify COVID-19-associated immunophenotyping patterns at hospital admission and to determine if some patterns could predict the need for mechanical ventilation (MV).

DESIGN

Prospective observational monocentric cohort study.

SETTING

A university-affiliated hospital in Marseille, France.

PATIENTS

Thirty patients presenting with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled within the first 48 hours of hospital admission and compared with 18 healthy controls.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Whole-blood leukocytes were immunophenotyped with a rapid and simplified one-step flow cytometry method. Thirty-eight immune and five laboratory parameters were compared first between COVID-19 patients and controls and then between the COVID-19 patients who received or not MV during their stays. The variables that significantly discriminated MV from non-MV patients in univariate analysis were entered into a multiple stepwise logistic regression analysis. The COVID-19 patients were predominantly male (87%), aged 61 years (50-71 yr), and 93% received early corticosteroid therapy. Sixteen patients (53%) were managed with noninvasive respiratory support, and 14 (47%) required MV. Compared with controls, COVID-19 patients were characterized by an immune signature featuring: 1) decreased HLA-DR expression on monocytes; 2) reduced basophils, eosinophils, T-cells, NK cells, and nonclassical monocyte count; and 3) up regulation of CD169 on monocytes, CD64 on neutrophils, the adhesion/migration markers (CD62L and CD11b), and the checkpoint inhibitor CD274 on myeloid cells. Among the COVID-19 patients, those who received MV had lower level of CD4 and HLA-DR on monocytes, lower CD8+ T-cell count, and higher lactate dehydrogenase at hospital admission. In multivariate analysis, only CD4 on monocytes (p = 0.032) and CD8+ T-cell count (p = 0.026) were associated with MV requirement. The model combining these two variables provided an area under curve of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The association of low CD4 on monocytes and low CD8+ T-cell count at hospital admission was highly predictive of the need for MV in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Sequential Treatment by Antiviral Drugs Followed by Immunosuppressive Agents for COVID-19 Patients with Hematological Malignancy

Background

The detailed treatment regimen of COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies has been unclear, and some fatalities have occurred, although combination therapy with antiviral agents and corticosteroids has been established for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients.

Case Series

Case 1 was a 57-year-old woman who had malignant lymphoma and received CHOP therapy with obinutuzumab, and case 2 was a 70-year-old-man who had myeloma and received molecular targeted therapy with weekly corticosteroid. In both cases, SARS-CoV-2 genes and antigens were detected from their nasal swabs, and treatment was started for moderate to severe COVID-19. Case 1 received antiviral agents with high doses of corticosteroids for a long term simultaneously, but the high titer of viral antigens in her nasal swabs persisted. Ground-glass opacities and interstitial shadows also worsened in both lungs, and she finally died on day 60. In contrast, in case 2, antiviral agents were started first, and restarted the immunosuppressive agents, such as gamma globulin and corticosteroids after no titer of SARS-CoV-2 antigens was confirmed. The patient survived, and his abnormal chest shadows showed gradual improvement. Both of the patients received two vaccinations, but showed the low antibody titers for SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusion

Administration of both antiviral agents and corticosteroids has been recommended for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients, but in patients with hematological malignancies, it might be better to use antiviral agents first to reduce the viral titers, and then add steroid and related immunosuppressive agents later appropriately to inhibit the excessive inflammatory state. The dose, timing, and order of the antivirals and immunosuppressive agents for COVID-19 should be considered carefully in the patients with hematological malignancies who showed low vaccine effectiveness.

Potential interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients with Covid-19 are exposed to treatment combinations that can potentially result in interactions that adversely affect patient outcomes. This study aimed to identify potential drug-drug interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19.

METHODS

We conducted a search for potential interactions between 201 antineoplastic agents and 26 medicines used to treat Covid-19 on the Lexicomp^® and Micromedex^® databases. The following data were extracted: interaction severity ("major" and "contraindicated") and interaction effects (pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic). We also sought to identify the therapeutic indication of the antineoplastic drugs involved in the potential drug-drug interactions.

RESULTS

A total of 388 "major" or "contraindicated" drug-drug interactions were detected. Eight drugs or combinations (baricitinib, lopinavir/ritonavir, atazanavir, darunavir, azithromycin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and sirolimus) accounted for 91.5% of these interactions. The class of antineoplastic agents with the greatest potential for interaction was tyrosine kinase inhibitors (accounting for 46.4% of all interactions). The findings show that atazanavir, baricitinib, and lopinavir/ritonavir can affect the treatment of all common types of cancer. The most common pharmacokinetic effect of the potential drug-drug interactions was increased plasma concentration of the antineoplastic medicine (39.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Covid-19 is a recent disease and pharmacological interventions are undergoing constant modification. This study identified a considerable number of potential drug-drug interactions. In view of the vulnerability of patients with cancer, it is vital that health professionals carefully assess the risks and benefits of drug combinations.

Nitric Oxide and its Derivatives Containing Nasal Spray and Inhalation Therapy for the Treatment of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a major health concern worldwide and has evolved into different variants. SARS-CoV-2 possesses a spike glycoprotein on its envelope that binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor of the host cell via the receptor-binding domain (RBD) in the upper respiratory tract. Since the SARS-CoV-2 virus variants change the severity of the diesease and treatment scenarios, repurposing current medicines may provide a quick and appealing method with established safety features. The efficacy and safety of antiviral medicines against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been investigated, and several of them are now undergoing clinical studies. Recently, it has been found that nitric oxide (NO) shows antiviral properties against SARS-CoV-2 and prevents the virus from binding to a host cell. In addition, NO is a well-known vasodilator and acts as an important coagulation mediator. With the fast-track development of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, one avenue of research aimed at improving therapeutics is exploring different forms of drug delivery, including intranasal sprays and inhalation therapy. The nasal mucosa is more prone to be the site of infection as it is in more direct contact with the physical environment via air during inhalation and exhalation. Thus, the use of exogenous nasal NO therapy via the intranasal route displays a distinct advantage. Therefore, the objective of this review is to summarize the relevant actions of NO via the intranasal spray and inhalation delivery, its mechanism of action, and its use in the treatment of COVID-19.

Lung-function trajectories in COVID-19 survivors after discharge: A two-year longitudinal cohort study

Background

Data on the long-term trajectories of lung function are scarce in COVID-19 survivors.

Methods

We re-analyzed the data from a prospective longitudinal cohort follow-up study of COVID-19 survivors over 2 years after infection. All participants were divided into scale 3, scale 4 and scale 5-6 groups according to seven-category ordinal scale. The changes of pulmonary function tests (PFTs), the Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale, 6-min walking test health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across the three serial follow-up visits were evaluated, and compared among three groups. We performed liner regression to determine potential factors that were associated with changes of PFTs and distance walked in 6 minutes (6MWD).

Findings

In this study, 288 participants generally presented an improvement of PFTs parameters from 6 months to 1 year after infection. The scale 5-6 group displayed a significantly higher increase of PFTs compared with scale 3 and scale 4 groups (all p<0.0167), and corticosteroids therapy was identified as a protective factor for the PFTs improvement with a correlation coefficient of 2.730 (0.215-5.246) for forced vital capacity (FVC), 2.909 (0.383-5.436) for total lung capacity (TLC), and 3.299 (0.211-6.387) for diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLco), respectively. From 1-year to 2-year follow-up, the PFTs parameters generally decreased, which was not observed to be associated with changes of 6MWD and HRQoL. Dyspnea (mMRC≥1) generally decreased over time (23.3% [61/262] for 6-month, 27.9% [67/240] for 1-year, 13.4% [35/261] for 2-year), and 6MWD increased continuously (500.0 m vs 505.0 m vs 525.0 m).

Interpretation

Corticosteroids therapy during hospitalization was a protective factor for PFTs improvement from 6 months to 1 year. The relatively fast decline trend of PFTs from 1 year to 2 years needs to be paid attention and further validated in the future follow-up study.

Fundings

This work was supported by Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS 2021-I2M-1-048) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC0864700).

Guidelines for the prevention and management of children and adolescents with COVID-19

Children are the future of the world, but their health and future are facing great uncertainty because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In order to improve the management of children with COVID-19, an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts developed a rapid advice guideline at the beginning of the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. After publishing the first version of the rapid advice guideline, the panel has updated the guideline by including additional stakeholders in the panel and a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. All recommendations were supported by systematic reviews and graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Expert judgment was used to develop good practice statements supplementary to the graded evidence-based recommendations. The updated guideline comprises nine recommendations and one good practice statement. It focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health.

CONCLUSION

This updated evidence-based guideline intends to provide clinicians, pediatricians, patients and other stakeholders with evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Larger studies with longer follow-up to determine the effectiveness and safety of systemic glucocorticoids, IVIG, noninvasive ventilation, and the vaccines for COVID-19 in children and adolescents are encouraged.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Several clinical practice guidelines for children with COVID-19 have been developed, but only few of them have been recently updated. • We developed an evidence-based guideline at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and have now updated it based on the results of a comprehensive search of the latest evidence.

WHAT IS NEW

• The updated guideline provides key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health.