Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

Cyanobacterial and microalgae polymers: antiviral activity and applications

At the end of 2019, the world witnessed the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. As an aggressive viral infection, the entire world remained attentive to new discoveries about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its effects in the human body. The search for new antivirals capable of preventing and/or controlling the infection became one of the main goals of research during this time. New biocompounds from marine sources, especially microalgae and cyanobacteria, with pharmacological benefits, such as anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory and antiviral attracted particular interest. Polysaccharides (PS) and extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), especially those containing sulfated groups in their structure, have potential antiviral activity against several types of viruses including HIV-1, herpes simplex virus type 1, and SARS-CoV-2. We review the main characteristics of PS and EPS with antiviral activity, the mechanisms of action, and the different extraction methodologies from microalgae and cyanobacteria biomass.

Real life experience on the use of Remdesivir in patients admitted to COVID-19 in two referral Italian hospital: a propensity score matched analysis

Remdesivir (RDV) was the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication for COVID-19, with discordant data on efficacy in reducing mortality risk and disease progression. In the context of a dynamic and rapidly changing pandemic landscape, the utilization of real-world evidence is of utmost importance. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of RDV on patients who have been admitted to two university referral hospitals in Italy due to COVID-19. All patients older than 18 years and hospitalized at two different universities (Bari and Palermo) were enrolled in this study. To minimize the effect of potential confounders, we used propensity score matching with one case (Remdesivir) and one control that never experienced this kind of intervention during hospitalization. Mortality was the primary outcome of our investigation, and it was recorded using death certificates and/or medical records. Severe COVID-19 was defined as admission to the intensive care unit or a qSOFAscore ≥ 2 or CURB65scores ≥ 3. After using propensity score matching, 365 patients taking Remdesivir and 365 controls were included. No significant differences emerged between the two groups in terms of mean age and percentage of females, while patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently active smokers (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently vaccinated against COVID-19. All the other clinical, radiological, and pharmacological parameters were balanced between the two groups. The use of Remdesivir in our cohort was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality during the follow-up period (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.86; p = 0.007). Moreover, RDV was associated with a significantly lower incidence of non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.20-0.36). Furthermore, in the 365 patients taking Remdesivir, we observed two cases of mild renal failure requiring a reduction in the dosage of Remdesivir and two cases in which the physicians decided to interrupt Remdesivir for bradycardia and for QT elongation. Our study suggests that the use of Remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a safe therapy associated with improved clinical outcomes, including halving of mortality and with a reduction of around 75% of the risk of invasive ventilation. In a constantly changing COVID-19 scenario, ongoing research is necessary to tailor treatment decisions based on the latest scientific evidence and optimize patient outcomes.

Patterns of corticosteroid use among remdesivir and matched patients and associated clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate patterns of corticosteroid use and their relationship with remdesivir use and clinical outcomes in a large real-life cohort of COVID-19 patients treated in a tertiary-level institution.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a total of 1558 severe and critical COVID-19 patients, including 779 patients treated with remdesivir and 779 matched control patients.

RESULTS

A total of 167 (10.7%) patients received none, 710 (45.6%) low, 539 (34.6%) high, and 142 (9.1%) very high corticosteroid doses. Patients treated with remdesivir had significantly longer exposure to corticosteroids, received higher average and maximal daily doses, and cumulative corticosteroid doses. In the multivariate analysis remdesivir use, lower cumulative comorbidity burden, higher severity of COVID-19 symptoms, and mechanical ventilation were recognized as mutually independent predictors of the use of higher corticosteroid doses. Higher corticosteroid doses were associated with significantly increased mortality.Among non-remdesivir treated patients, there was a U-shaped relationship between maximal daily corticosteroid dose and mortality. Among remdesivir treated patients gradual increase in mortality with increasing corticosteroid doses was observed.

CONCLUSION

Patterns of corticosteroid use differ regarding the use of remdesivir and may moderate its association with survival among severe and critical COVID-19 patients.

Evaluation of the safety profile and therapeutic efficacy of remdesivir in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection - a single-center, retrospective, cohort study

Despite 3.5 years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we still lack effective drugs against COVID-19. The first and most widely used drug, remdesivir, has not yet been shown to be effective in adults. Even less is known about its effectiveness in children. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of remdesivir in pediatric patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in one medical center. The medical records of 328 children with COVID-19 were analyzed. Analysis was performed on the subgroups of children treated and not treated with remdesivir. Clinical data on general health, course of COVID-19 and treatment received were analyzed. Remdesivir was administered to 64 children, 16 to treat severe or critical illness and 48 because of the presence of risk factors to prevent progression to severe COVID-19. In children with severe COVID-19, remdesivir did not reduce the mortality rate. However, in patients with milder disease and risk factors, the drug significantly reduced the risk of progression to severe disease. Among adverse events, only mild aminotransferase elevations were observed in 4 patients, but none of these required discontinuation of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir is a safe treatment option for children with COVID-19. However, the efficacy of this therapy is still uncertain. It appears that in children with asymptomatic to moderate COVID-19 and risk factors for severe disease, remdesivir could be an effective method of prophylaxis. However, its efficacy in controlling severe disease is questionable and requires further study.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• There are still no effective drugs to combat COVID-19, and the efficacy of the widely used remdesivir in adults is controversial. • All recommendations and guidelines on the use of remdesivir in the pediatric population are based mainly on clinical trials in adults.

WHAT IS NEW

• Remdesivir is a safe treatment for COVID-19 in the pediatric population. • In children with asymptomatic to moderate COVID-19 and risk factors for severe disease, remdesivir could be an effective drug to prevent disease progression. However, its efficacy in treating severe disease in children needs further exploration.

Post-covid-19 conditions in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of health outcomes in controlled studies

Objective

To assess the impact of post-covid-19 conditions among adults.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of health outcomes in controlled studies.

Data sources

Two sources were searched from database inception to 20 October 2022: Cochrane covid-19 study register (comprising Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, clinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv) and WHO's covid-19 research database.

Eligibility criteria

Cohort studies recruiting more than 100 participants with a control group and a follow-up of at least 12 weeks were included. Adults who were documented to have SARS-CoV-2 infection based on clinical, imaging, or laboratory criteria were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes included quality of life, functionality in daily activities, use of resources, recovery rates (cluster of symptoms), and the incidence of new medical diagnoses. Data were pooled using a random effects model. The risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for cohort studies.

Results

We included 63 controlled cohort studies, encompassing more than 96 million participants. Based on five studies, we found a reduction in overall quality of life between individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection versus controls at six to 24 months follow-up, although heterogeneity was very high (mean difference in EQ-5D scale -5.28 (95% confidence interval -7.88 to 2.68; I2=93.81%). Evidence from ten studies, which could not be pooled in a meta-analysis, indicated that an increased rate of functional impairment associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Use of care increased compared with controls at six to 24 months follow-up at intensive care units (risk ratio 2.00 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 5.80), five studies, I2=91.96%) and in outpatient care (1.12 (1.01 to 1.24), seven studies, I2=99.51%). Regarding persistent symptoms, individuals with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection had an increased risk of having two or more persistent symptoms at follow-up, especially those related to neurological clusters (ie, risk ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.93), I2=98.91%). Evidence also showed an increased incidence of a wide variety of metabolic, cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, haematological and other incident diagnoses.

Conclusion

Evidence suggests functional impairment after SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to a higher use of resources and a higher incidence of widely varying medical diagnoses. These results should be interpreted with caution, considering the high heterogeneity across studies and study limitations related to outcome measurement and attrition of participants.

Systematic review registration

Open Science Framework, osf.io/drm39.

Absolute oral bioavailability and possible metabolic pathway of panduratin A from Boesenbergia rotunda extract in beagle dogs

CONTEXT

Attempts are ongoing to develop medications to fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Our previous study revealed the in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of fingerroot [Boesenbergia rotunda (L.) Mansf. (Zingiberaceae)] and its phytochemical, panduratin A.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the pharmacokinetic profiles of panduratin A as a pure compound and in a fingerroot extract formulation in beagle dogs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 12 healthy dogs were randomly divided into three groups, a single dose of 1 mg/kg panduratin A by intravenous and multiple doses of 5 and 10 mg/kg panduratin A fingerroot extract formulation by oral administration for seven consecutive days. The plasma concentration of panduratin A was determined by LCMS.

RESULTS

The peak concentrations of a single dose of 5 and 10 mg/kg panduratin A fingerroot extract formulation were 12,416 ± 2,326 and 26,319 ± 8,221 µg/L, respectively. Increasing the oral dose of fingerroot extract formulation, equivalent to panduratin A 5-10 mg/kg, showed dose proportionality, with an approximately 2-fold increase in C_max and AUC. The absolute oral bioavailability of panduratin A in the fingerroot extract formulation was approximately 7-9%. The majority of panduratin A was biotransformed into several products via oxidation and glucuronidation, and predominantly excreted via the faecal route.

CONCLUSION

The oral formulation of fingerroot extract was safe in beagle dogs, and increasing dose showed dose proportionality in terms of the systemic exposure of panduratin A. This information will support the phytopharmaceutical product development of fingerroot extract against the COVID-19 pandemic.

Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The role of early tracheostomy as an intervention for critically ill COVID-19 patients is unclear. Previous reports have described prolonged intensive care stays and difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in those developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pre-pandemic evidence on the benefits of early tracheostomy is conflicting but suggests shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates compared to late tracheostomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, which comprises CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv, as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 14 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill adults irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of our prioritized categories: mortality, clinical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. As the timing of tracheostomy was very heterogeneous among the included studies, we applied GRADE only to studies that defined early tracheostomy as 10 days or less, which was chosen according to clinical relevance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT with 150 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 24 NRSIs with 6372 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were admitted to the ICU, orally intubated and mechanically ventilated. The RCT was a multicenter, parallel, single-blinded study conducted in Sweden. Of the 24 NRSIs, which were mostly conducted in high- and middle-income countries, eight had a prospective design and 16 a retrospective design. We did not find any ongoing studies. RCT-based evidence We judged risk of bias for the RCT to be of low or some concerns regarding randomization and measurement of the outcome. Early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29; RD 67 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 178 fewer to 108 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of improvement of clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (MD 1.50 days fewer, 95%, CI 5.74 days fewer to 2.74 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of worsening clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 164 fewer to 102 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.20; RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 162 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported need for renal replacement therapy. Early tracheostomy may result in little benefit to no difference in ICU length of stay (MD 0.5 days fewer, 95% CI 5.34 days fewer to 4.34 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). NRSI-based evidence We considered risk of bias for NRSIs to be critical because of possible confounding, study participant enrollment into the studies, intervention classification and potentially systematic errors in the measurement of outcomes. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases overall mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.00; RD 143 more per 1000, 95% CI 174 less to 1218 more; I2 = 79%; 2 studies, 719 participants) or duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation (MD 1.98 days fewer, 95% CI 0.16 days fewer to 4.12 more; 1 study, 50 participants), because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. Three NRSIs reported ICU length of stay for 519 patients with early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) as a median value, which we could not include in the meta-analyses. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases the ICU length of stay, because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. In terms of clinical improvement, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. We are not certain about the impact of early tracheostomy on clinical worsening in terms of the incidence of adverse events, need for renal replacement therapy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or the length of stay in the ICU. Future RCTs should provide additional data on the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy for defined main outcomes of COVID-19 research, as well as of comparable diseases, especially for different population subgroups to reduce clinical heterogeneity, and report a longer observation period. Then it would be possible to draw conclusions regarding which patient groups might benefit from early intervention. Furthermore, validated scoring systems for more accurate predictions of the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation should be developed and used in new RCTs to ensure safer indication and patient safety. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted in the future to provide valuable answers to clinical questions. This could enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of early tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Remdesivir in pregnant women with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a retrospective cohort study

Data on the efficacy of remdesivir in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited in pregnant patients since they have been excluded from clinical trials. We aimed to investigate some clinical outcomes following remdesivir administration in pregnancy. This was a retrospective cohort study conducted on pregnant women with moderate to severe COVID-19. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups with and without remdesivir treatment. The primary outcomes of this study were the length of hospital and intensive care unit stay; respiratory parameters of hospital day 7 including respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and mode of oxygen support; discharge until days 7 and 14, and need for home oxygen therapy. Secondary outcomes included some maternal and neonatal consequences. Eighty-one pregnant women (57 in the remdesivir group and 24 in the non-remdesivir group) were included. The two study groups were comparable according to the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Of the respiratory outcomes, remdesivir was significantly associated with a reduced length of hospital stay (p = 0.021) and also with a lower level of oxygen requirement in patients on low-flow oxygen [odds ratio (OR) 3.669]. Among the maternal consequences, no patients in the remdesivir group developed preeclampsia but three patients (12.5%) experienced this complication in the non-remdesivir group (p = 0.024). Furthermore, in patients with moderate COVID-19, the percentage of emergency termination was significantly lower in remdesivir group (OR 2.46). Our results demonstrated some probable benefits of remdesivir in respiratory and also maternal outcomes. Further investigations with a larger sample size should confirm these results.

[Options for treatment of feline infectious peritonitis - previously and today]

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is one of the most common infectious diseases in cats that is fatal when untreated. So far, there is no legally available effective treatment in Germany. Treatment options include only symptomatic treatment (e. g. glucocorticoids, propentofylline), immunomodulatory approaches (e. g. interferons, polyprenyl immunostimulant), and antiviral chemotherapy with protease inhibitors (e. g. GC376) or nucleoside analogues (e. g. GS-441524, remdesivir). Symptomatic treatment does not cure FIP but may lead to a short-term improvement of clinical signs in a subset of cats. Immunomodulatory treatment has also not shown to be very promising. In contrary, the antiviral compounds GS-441524 and GC376 exhibited significant efficacy in several studies and their use saved the lives of many cats suffering from FIP. However, both agents are currently not licensed and thus cannot be legally administered by veterinarians in Germany. Legally, cats may only be legally treated with GS-441524 in a few countries (e.g. Great Britain and Australia). In other countries, GS-441524 is imported by cat owners via the black market and administered on their own. This article provides an overview of the available treatment options and an outlook on the legal use of effective antiviral drugs.

Real life treatment experience and outcome of consecutively hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia by Omicron-1 vs Delta variants

BACKGROUND

Omicron-1 COVID-19 is less invasive in the general population than previous viral variants. However, clinical course and outcome of hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia during the shift of the predominance from Delta to Omicron variants are not fully explored.

METHODS

During January 2022 consecutively hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 variants were identified by a 2-step pre-screening protocol and randomly confirmed by whole genome sequencing analysis. Clinical, laboratory and treatment data split by type of variant were analysed along with logistic regression of factors associated to mortality.

RESULTS

150 patients [mean age (SD) 67.2(15.8) years, male 54%] were analysed. Compared to Delta (n = 46), Omicron-1 patients (n = 104) were older [mean age (SD): 69.5(15.4) vs 61.9(15.8) years, p = 0.007], with more comorbidities (89.4% vs 65.2%, p = 0.001), less obesity (BMI >30Kg/m2 in 24% vs 43.5%, p = 0.034) but higher vaccination rates for COVID-19 (52.9% vs 8.7%, p < 0.001). Severe pneumonia (48.7%), pulmonary embolism (4.7%), need for invasive mechanical ventilation (8%), administration of dexamethasone (76%) and 60-day mortality (22.6%) did not significantly differ. Severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia independently predicted mortality [OR 8.297 (CI95% 2.080-33.095), p = 0.003]. Remdesivir administration (n = 135) was protective from death both in unadjusted and adjusted models [OR 0.157 (CI95% 0.026-0.945), p = 0.043.

CONCLUSIONS

In a COVID-19 department the severity of pneumonia that did not differ between Omicron-1 and Delta variants predicted mortality whilst remdesivir remained protective in all analyses. Death rates did not differ between SARS-CoV-2 variants. Vigilance and consistency with prevention and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is mandatory regardless of the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Impact of some antiviral drugs on health care utilization for patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the impact of antiviral drugs (fluvoxamine,remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), molnupiravir, andnirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NRV/r)) on health care utilization (HCU) inCOVID-19 patients. We summarized findings from randomized controlledtrials (RCTs) and observational studies.

METHODS

We systematically searched four medical databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library) for COVID-19 studies up to February 15, 2023. A comprehensive review, meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were conducted. Pooled effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for antiviral drugs' impact on hospitalization, mechanical ventilation (MV), and intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 34 studies (584,978 patients). Meta-analysisindicated potential benefits: remdesivir and molnupiravir potentiallyreduced MV risk, and NRV/r correlated with lower hospitalizationrates. However, LPV/r did not notably curb HCU. Remdesivir waspreferable for high-risk COVID-19 patients, while molnupiravir andNRV/r were recommended for those aged 60 and above.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir, molnupiravir, and NRV/r may reduce HCU during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, due to limited study details and significant heterogeneity in effect estimates, further precise evidence is crucial, especially concerning emerging variants.

An Antiviral Drug-Peramivir: Degradation and Identification of Impurities and the Endorsement of an HPLC-MS Method

BACKGROUND

Peramivir is a neuraminidase inhibitor that serves as a transition state analogue for influenza neuraminidase, inhibiting the formation of new viruses in infected cells, and has been approved for intravenous administration.

OBJECTIVE

To validate an HPLC method used to identify the degraded products of the antiviral drug peramivir.

METHODS

Herein, we report the identification of compounds formed after the degradation of peramivir through acid, alkali, peroxide, thermal, and photolytic degradation. At the level of toxicology, a technique was devised for the isolation and measurement of peramivir.

RESULTS

A sensitive and reliable LC-tandem mass spectrometry technique for the quantitative measurement of Peramivir and its impurities was developed and verified in order to comply with the recommendations made by the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). The proposed protocol was in the 50-750 µg/mL range. Relative Standard Deviation values of less than 2.0% indicated good recovery in the range of 98.36-102.57%. Within the studied range, the calibration curves demonstrated good linearity and, in addition, the fitting of correlation coefficient was more than 0.999 for every impurity. Quantitative analysis of contaminants revealed the high efficiency at a low level.

CONCLUSION

Given its ability to separate degradation products, quantitative analysis is used to detect and quantify known and unknown impurities and degradants in the peramivir drug substance during routine analysis and stability studies. No significant degradation was found in peroxide and photolytic degradation studies.

HIGHLIGHTS

An HPLC method was developed and put to the test in order to analyze the behavior of the impurities of peramivir as they degraded when subjected to the stress conditions suggested by the ICH. Peramivir was found to be stable under peroxide and photolysis conditions but not stable or degradable when exposed to the acid, base, and thermal stress conditions. The method developed was extremely precise, linear, accurate, robust, and rugged. As a result, this technology has the potential to be used in the medication production process for regular impurity analysis as well as for the stability analysis of peramivir.

Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19

Remdesivir (Veklury®), a nucleotide analogue prodrug with broad-spectrum antiviral activity, is approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Unlike some antivirals, remdesivir has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. In the pivotal ACTT-1 trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, daily intravenous infusions of remdesivir significantly reduced time to recovery relative to placebo. Subsequent trials provided additional support for the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19, with a greater benefit seen in patients with minimal oxygen requirements at baseline. Clinical trials also demonstrated the efficacy of remdesivir in other patient populations, including outpatients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as well as hospitalized paediatric patients. In terms of mortality, results were equivocal. However, remdesivir appeared to have a small mortality benefit in hospitalized patients who were not already being ventilated at baseline. Remdesivir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, but pharmacovigilance data found an increased risk of hepatic, renal and cardiovascular adverse drug reactions in the real-world setting. In conclusion, remdesivir represents a useful treatment option for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require supplemental oxygen.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir combination: an antiviral therapy for COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern in late November 2021 presaged yet another stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Paxlovid, a co-packaged dosage form of two antiviral drugs (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir) developed by Pfizer, received its first FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and conditional marketing by European Medical Agency in patients at high risk of developing severe COVID-19.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed the timeline of the drug nirmatrelvir from its discovery to authorization by FDA. After 1 year of its authorization, numerous studies and reports on paxlovid's use and post-use consequences are available. This review summarizes the complete journey of paxlovid from its development, preclinical studies, clinical trials, regulatory approvals, ongoing clinical trials, and safety measures, followed by discussions on recent updates on drug-drug interactions, adverse effects, and relapse of COVID-19.

EXPERT OPINION

Paxlovid, a new oral antiviral therapy for COVID-19, has shown promising results in clinical trials and has the potential to be effective against the pandemic, particularly for individuals at high risk of severe illness. Comorbidity usage and pharmacovigilance will play a significant stake in the future of paxlovid development. Second-generation Mpro inhibitors play an important role in the upcoming problems associated with COVID-19.

OligoBinders: Bioengineered Soluble Amyloid-like Nanoparticles to Bind and Neutralize SARS-CoV-2

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become a primary health concern. Molecules that prevent viral entry into host cells by interfering with the interaction between SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein and the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor (ACE2r) opened a promising avenue for virus neutralization. Here, we aimed to create a novel kind of nanoparticle that can neutralize SARS-CoV-2. To this purpose, we exploited a modular self-assembly strategy to engineer OligoBinders, soluble oligomeric nanoparticles decorated with two miniproteins previously described to bind to the S protein receptor binding domain (RBD) with high affinity. The multivalent nanostructures compete with the RBD-ACE2r interaction and neutralize SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles (SC2-VLPs) with IC50 values in the pM range, preventing SC2-VLPs fusion with the membrane of ACE2r-expressing cells. Moreover, OligoBinders are biocompatible and significantly stable in plasma. Overall, we describe a novel protein-based nanotechnology that might find application in SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics and diagnostics.

Effect of Lactoferrin on Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: The LAC Randomized Clinical Trial

As lactoferrin is a nutritional supplement with proven antiviral and immunomodulatory abilities, it may be used to improve the clinical course of COVID-19. The clinical efficacy and safety of bovine lactoferrin were evaluated in the LAC randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. A total of 218 hospitalized adult patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 were randomized to receive 800 mg/die oral bovine lactoferrin (n = 113) or placebo (n = 105), both given in combination with standard COVID-19 therapy. No differences in lactoferrin vs. placebo were observed in the primary outcomes: the proportion of death or intensive care unit admission (risk ratio of 1.06 (95% CI 0.63-1.79)) or proportion of discharge or National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) ≤ 2 within 14 days from enrollment (RR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-1.04)). Lactoferrin showed an excellent safety and tolerability profile. Even though bovine lactoferrin is safe and tolerable, our results do not support its use in hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

Use and effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with covid-19 using data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS): a multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The use of remdesivir (RDV) as the first drug approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial. Based on the Lean European Open Survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients (LEOSS), we aim to contribute timing-focused complementary real-world insights to its evaluation.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 infected patients between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with RDV were matched 1:1 to controls considering sociodemographics, comorbidities and clinical status. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing data. Effects on fatal outcome were estimated using uni- and multivariable Cox regression models.

RESULTS

We included 9,687 patients. For those starting RDV administration in the complicated phase, Cox regression for fatal outcome showed an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.83). Positive trends could be obtained for further scenarios: an aHR of 0.51 (95%CI 0.16-1.68) when RDV was initiated in uncomplicated and of 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-1.04) in a critical phase of disease. Patients receiving RDV with concomitant steroids exhibited a further reduction in aHR in both, the complicated (aHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.88) and critical phase (aHR 0.63, 95%CI 0.39-1.02).

CONCLUSION

Our study results elucidate that RDV use, in particular when initiated in the complicated phase and accompanied by steroids is associated with improved mortality. However, given the limitations of non-randomized trials in estimating the magnitude of the benefit of an intervention, further randomized trials focusing on the timing of therapy initiation seem warranted.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

Remdesivir Influence on SARS-CoV-2 RNA Viral Load Kinetics in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients: A Real-Life Experience

There are still conflicting data on the virological effects of the SARS-CoV-2 direct antivirals used in clinical practice, in spite of the documented clinical efficacy. The aim of this monocentric retrospective study was to compare virologic and laboratory data of patients admitted due to SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to December 2020 treated with either remdesivir (R), a protease inhibitor (lopinavir or darunavir/ritonavir (PI)) or no direct antiviral drugs (NT). Viral load variation was indirectly assessed through PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values on the nasopharyngeal swab, analyzing the results from swabs obtained at ward admission and 7 (±2) days later. Overall, 253 patients were included: patients in the R group were significantly older, more frequently males with a significantly higher percentage of severe COVID-19, requiring more often intensive care admission, compared to the other groups. Ct variation over time did not differ amongst the three treatment groups and did not seem to be influenced by corticosteroid use, even after normalization of the treatment groups for disease severity. Non-survivors had lower Ct on admission and showed a significantly slower viral clearance compared to survivors. CD4 T-lymphocytes absolute count assessed at ward admission correlated with a reduced Ct variation over time. In conclusion, viral clearance appears to be slower in COVID-19 non-survivors, while it seems not to be influenced by the antiviral treatment received.

Venous Thromboembolism in COVID-19 Patients: A Single-Center Case Series

: Since thrombosis occurrence among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is a critical complication, this study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19-associated pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE). This case series of 39 venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients represents clinical characteristics, laboratory data, imaging data, and outcomes. The mean age of the patients was 55 ± 15 years. Moreover, 25 patients (64.10%) were male. The most frequent COVID-19 clinical presentations were dyspnea and cough in 22 (56.41%) and 19 (48.71%) patients, respectively. Additionally, the most frequent PTE clinical presentations were palpitation and anxiety in 28 (71.79%) and dyspnea in 24 (61.53%) patients. Additionally, eight patients (20.51%) showed deep vein thrombosis in color Doppler ultrasound. The mean measures of D-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were 3680 ng/mL, 53 mm/hour, and 44 mg/L, respectively. Supplemental oxygen and a ventilator were required in 29 (74.35%) and 2 (5.12%) patients, respectively. One patient died from PTE complications, and others improved without any complications. The VTE is a potentially life-threatening complication that frequently occurs in patients with COVID-19. Therapeutic doses of anticoagulants, extended thromboprophylaxis, meticulous assessments, follow-up, and high clinical suspicion to the early detection of PTE are necessary in this regard.

Effectiveness of different treatment regimens on patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in Sanandaj hospitals: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Different drugs have different effects on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different drug regimens on patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in Sanandaj city.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 660 patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in the Tohid, Kowsar and Besat hospitals located Sanandaj (Kurdistan Province, Iran) were studied from February 2020 to February 2021 with clinical symptoms and positive test results.

RESULTS

The results of multivariate regression analysis showed the days of hospitalization for patients who had received the drug regimen 2 (Interferons (ReciGen/Ziphron) or Interferon Vectra (lopinavir/ritonavir)) was 1.92 times higher than those who had received the drug regimen 1 (hydroxychloroquine group or a combination of chloroquine and azithromycin) while a significant association was observed (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.16-3.16, P = 0.011). Also, the hospitalization in ICU was longer in patients treated by the drug regimen 2 (Interferons (ReciGen/Ziphron) or Interferon Vectra (lopinavir/ritonavir)) (OR = 4.63, 95% CI: 1.80-11.82, P = 0.001), however, drug regimens did not show a significant effect on mortality and use of ventilator in patients (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study results showed the drug regimens 2 and 5 increased the days of hospitalization and hospitalization in ICU, respectively, while the other drug regimens had no significant effect on mortality and use a ventilator in the studied patients and none of the drug regimens had an effect on reducing mortality compared to other ones.

Clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir: a retrospective analysis of a large tertiary care center in Germany

PURPOSE

The benefits of antiviral treatment with remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain controversial. Clinical analyses are needed to demonstrate which patient populations are most likely to benefit.

METHODS

In a retrospective monocentric analysis, patients with COVID-19 treated between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021 at Hospital St. Georg, Leipzig, Germany were evaluated. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement, and the secondary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Propensity score matching was used for the endpoint analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 839 patients were fully evaluated, 68% of whom received specific COVID-19 drug therapy. Remdesivir was used in 31.3% of the patients, corticosteroids in 61.7%, and monoclonal antibodies in 2.3%. While dexamethasone administration was the most common therapeutic approach during the second pandemic wave, combination therapy with remdesivir and corticosteroids predominated during the third wave. Cox regression analysis revealed that combination therapy was not associated with faster clinical improvement (median: 13 days in both matched groups, HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.77-1.21], P = 0.762). By contrast, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the corticosteroid-remdesivir group (14.8% versus 22.2% in the corticosteroid group, HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.95], P = 0.03) in the low-care setting. This effect was also demonstrated in a subgroup analysis of patients with remdesivir monotherapy (n = 44) versus standard of care (SOC).

CONCLUSION

In COVID-19 patients with only mild disease (low-flow oxygen therapy and treatment in a normal ward) who received corticosteroids and/or remdesivir in addition to SOC, early administration of remdesivir was associated with a measurable survival benefit.

Peginterferon lambda for the treatment of hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19: A pilot phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous injection of peginterferon lambda in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Methods

In this study (NCT04343976), patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swab were randomly assigned within 48 h to receive peginterferon lambda or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Participants were subcutaneously injected with a peginterferon lambda or saline placebo at baseline and day 7 and were followed up until day 14.

Results

We enrolled 14 participants; 6 participants (85.7%) in the peginterferon lambda group and 1 participant (14.3%) in the placebo group were treated with remdesivir prior to enrollment. Fifty percent of participants were SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative at baseline although they tested SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive within 48 h of randomization. Among participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive at baseline, 2 out of 5 participants (40%) in the peginterferon lambda group became negative at day 14, while 0 out of 2 participants (0%) in the placebo group achieved negativity for SARS-CoV-2 by day 14 (p > 0.05). The median change in viral load (log copies per ml) was +1.72 (IQR -2.78 to 3.19) in the placebo group and -2.22 (IQR -3.24 to 0.55) in the peginterferon lambda group at day 14 (p = 0.24). Symptomatic changes did not differ between the two groups. Peginterferon lambda was well tolerated with a few treatment-related adverse effects.

Conclusion

Peginterferon lambda appears to accelerate SARS-CoV-2 viral load decline and improve plasma disease progression markers in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Real-life experience with remdesivir for treatment of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients: matched case-control study from a large tertiary hospital registry

AIM

To evaluate the association of remdesivir use and the survival of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 5959 COVID-19 patients admitted to our tertiary-level hospital from March 2020 to June 2021. A total of 876 remdesivir-treated patients were matched with 876 control patients in terms of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), WHO-defined COVID-19 severity on admission, and oxygen requirement at the time of remdesivir use.

RESULTS

Among 1752 COVID-19 patients (median age 66 years, 61.8% men), 1405 (80.2%) had severe and 311 (17.8%) had critically severe COVID-19 on admission. Remdesivir was given at a median of one day after hospital admission and at a median of eight days from the onset of symptoms. Overall, 645 (73.6%) patients received remdesivir before high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) or mechanical ventilation (MV), 198 (22.6%) after HFOT institution, and 83 (9.5%) after MV institution. Remdesivir use was associated with improved survival in the entire cohort (hazard ratio 0.79, P=0.006). Survival benefit was evident among patients receiving remdesivir during low-flow oxygen requirement (hazard ratio 0.61, P<0.001) but not among patients who received it after starting HFOT (P=0.499) or MV (P=0.380).

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir, if given during low-flow oxygen therapy, might be associated with survival benefit in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Real-life experience with remdesivir for treatment of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients: matched case-control study from a large tertiary hospital registry

AIM

To evaluate the association of remdesivir use and the survival of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 5959 COVID-19 patients admitted to our tertiary-level hospital from March 2020 to June 2021. A total of 876 remdesivir-treated patients were matched with 876 control patients in terms of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), WHO-defined COVID-19 severity on admission, and oxygen requirement at the time of remdesivir use.

RESULTS

Among 1752 COVID-19 patients (median age 66 years, 61.8% men), 1405 (80.2%) had severe and 311 (17.8%) had critically severe COVID-19 on admission. Remdesivir was given at a median of one day after hospital admission and at a median of eight days from the onset of symptoms. Overall, 645 (73.6%) patients received remdesivir before high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) or mechanical ventilation (MV), 198 (22.6%) after HFOT institution, and 83 (9.5%) after MV institution. Remdesivir use was associated with improved survival in the entire cohort (hazard ratio 0.79, P=0.006). Survival benefit was evident among patients receiving remdesivir during low-flow oxygen requirement (hazard ratio 0.61, P<0.001) but not among patients who received it after starting HFOT (P=0.499) or MV (P=0.380).

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir, if given during low-flow oxygen therapy, might be associated with survival benefit in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Short and Long-Term Wellbeing of Children following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review

Post-COVID conditions in children and adolescents were mostly investigated as the incidence of individual or clusters of symptoms. We aimed to describe the findings of studies assessing key outcomes related to global wellbeing and recovery in children and adolescents from a public health perspective. We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database on 5 November 2021 and tracked ongoing studies published after this date. We included observational studies on children and adolescents with a follow-up greater than 12 weeks and focused on the outcomes of quality of life, recovery/duration of symptoms, school attendance and resource use/rehabilitation. We assessed their methodological quality, and we prepared a narrative synthesis of the results. We included 21 longitudinal and 4 cross-sectional studies (6 with a control group) with over 68 thousand unvaccinated children and adolescents with mostly asymptomatic or mild disease. Study limitations included convenience sampling, a poor description of their study population and heterogeneous definitions of outcomes. Quality of life was not largely affected in adolescents following COVID-19, but there might be greater impairment in young children and in those with more severe forms of the disease (4 studies). There might also be an impairment in daily activities and increased school absenteeism following COVID-19, but the findings were heterogeneous (5 studies). A total of 22 studies provided highly variable estimates based on heterogeneous definitions of overall persistence of symptoms (recovery), ranging from 0 to 67% at 8-12 weeks and 8 to 51% at 6-12 months. We found limited data on resource use and the need for rehabilitation. One controlled study indicated that the quality of life of infected children and adolescents might not substantially differ from controls. All controlled studies found a higher burden of persistent symptoms in COVID-19 cases compared with test-negative controls or cases of influenza. There is limited evidence on the short and long-term well-being of children following SARS-CoV-2 infection. High-quality longitudinal studies with control groups are needed to describe the outcomes in this population, especially in vaccinated children and those affected by new variants of the virus.

Remdesivir-induced emergence of SARS-CoV2 variants in patients with prolonged infection

We here investigate the impact of antiviral treatments such as remdesivir on intra-host genomic diversity and emergence of SARS-CoV2 variants in patients with a prolonged course of infection. Sequencing and variant analysis performed in 112 longitudinal respiratory samples from 14 SARS-CoV2-infected patients with severe disease progression show that major frequency variants do not generally arise during prolonged infection. However, remdesivir treatment can increase intra-host genomic diversity and result in the emergence of novel major variant species harboring fixed mutations. This is particularly evident in a patient with B cell depletion who rapidly developed mutations in the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene following remdesivir treatment. Remdesivir treatment-associated emergence of novel variants is of great interest in light of current treatment guidelines for hospitalized patients suffering from severe SARS-CoV2 disease, as well as the potential use of remdesivir to preventively treat non-hospitalized patients at high risk for severe disease progression.

Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in Brazil (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence.

Remdesivir Reduces Mortality in Hemato-Oncology Patients with COVID-19

Introduction

Remdesivir is the first agent with proven clinical efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, its benefit is associated with early use, and its efficacy has been poorly studied in patients with hemato-oncological diseases, who have an increased risk of a severe course of infection. This study aimed to assess the effects of remdesivir on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and the duration of hospitalization in both the general population and in patients with hemato-oncological diseases.

Materials and Methods

Longitudinal data for 4287 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed, including a subset of 200 individuals with hemato-oncological diseases. In total, 1285 (30.0%) patients received remdesivir, while the remaining patients were treated with other methods. Survival statistics for the 14- and 30-day observation time points were calculated using non-parametric and multivariate Cox models.

Results

Mortality for the 14- and 30-day observation time points was notably lower among patients receiving remdesivir (7.2% vs 11.6%, p < 0.001 and 12.7% vs 16.0, p = 0.005, respectively); however, in multivariate models adjusted for age, sex, lung involvement, and lactate dehydrogenase and interleukin-6 levels, the administration of remdesivir did not reduce patient mortality at either the 14-day or 30-day time points. Among patients with haemato-oncological disease, significant survival benefit was observed at 14 and 30 days for patients treated with remdesivir (11.3% vs.16.7% and 24.2% vs 26.1%, respectively; p < 0.001). A favorable effect of remdesivir was also noted for the 14-day time point in multivariate survival analysis (HR:4.03 [95% confidence interval:1.37-11.88]; p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Remdesivir significantly reduced the early mortality rate in COVID-19 patients with comorbid hemato-oncological disease, which emphasizes the need to administer this agent to immunosuppressed patients.

Prolonged COVID-19 in an Immunocompromised Patient Treated with Obinutuzumab and Bendamustine for Follicular Lymphoma

A patient with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and bendamustine experienced prolonged coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). One month after the symptoms transiently improved, the patient experienced exacerbated COVID-19 symptoms. The patient recovered from COVID-19 with remdesivir and dexamethasone and was discharged 77 days after the disease onset. The patient completed a primary series of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations on day 176, but the anti-spike protein IgG was not detected later. A careful observation to detect any subsequent relapse of COVID-19 symptoms is necessary in immunocompromised patients. Chemotherapy should be based on the disease status and type of lymphoma.

Long-Term Health Symptoms and Sequelae Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: An Evidence Map

Post-COVID-19 conditions, also known as 'Long-COVID-19', describe a longer and more complex course of illness than acute COVID-19 with no widely accepted uniform case definition. We aimed to map the available evidence on persistent symptoms and sequelae following SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults. We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database on 5 November 2021. We included longitudinal and cross-sectional studies and we extracted their characteristics, including the type of core outcomes for post-COVID-19 conditions. We included 565 studies (657 records). Most studies were uncontrolled cohort studies. The median follow-up time was 13 weeks (IQR 9 to 24). Only 72% of studies were conducted in high-income countries, 93% included unvaccinated adults with mild-to-critical disease, only 10% included children and adolescents, and less than 5% included children under the age of five. While most studies focused on health symptoms, including respiratory symptoms (71%), neurological symptoms (57%), fatigue (54%), pain (50%), mental functioning (43%), cardiovascular functioning (40%), and post-exertion symptoms (28%), cognitive function (26%), fewer studies assessed other symptoms such as overall recovery (24%), the need for rehabilitation (18%), health-related quality of life (16%), changes in work/occupation and study (10%), or survival related to long-COVID-19 (4%). There is a need for controlled cohort studies with long-term follow-up and a focus on overall recovery, health-related quality of life, and the ability to perform daily tasks. Studies need to be extended to later phases of the pandemic and countries with low resources.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

Early spontaneous breathing for acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID-19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation-perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator-induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID-19-ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID-19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non-RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full-text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta-analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer-reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients.  RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID-19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and people with non-SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS.

Remdesivir in Very Old Patients (≥80 Years) Hospitalized with COVID-19: Real World Data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

(1) Background: Large cohort studies of patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir have reported improved clinical outcomes, but data on older patients are scarce. Objective: This work aims to assess the potential benefit of remdesivir in unvaccinated very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (2) Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized in Spain between 15 July and 31 December 2020 (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Differences in 30-day all-cause mortality were adjusted using a multivariable regression analysis. (3) Results: Of the 4331 patients admitted, 1312 (30.3%) were ≥80 years. Very old patients treated with remdesivir (n: 140, 10.7%) had a lower mortality rate than those not treated with remdesivir (OR (95% CI): 0.45 (0.29−0.69)). After multivariable adjustment by age, sex, and variables associated with lower mortality (place of COVID-19 acquisition; degree of dependence; comorbidities; dementia; duration of symptoms; admission qSOFA; chest X-ray; D-dimer; and treatment with corticosteroids, tocilizumab, beta-lactams, macrolides, and high-flow nasal canula oxygen), the use of remdesivir remained associated with a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate (adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.40 (0.22−0.61) (p < 0.001)). (4) Conclusions: Remdesivir may reduce mortality in very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Approach to the management of COVID-19 patients: When home care can represent the best practice

BACKGROUND

The pandemic that began around February 2020, caused by the viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), has still not completed its course at present in June 2022.

OBJECTIVE

The open research to date highlights just how varied and complex the outcome of the contagion can be.

METHOD

The clinical pictures observed following the contagion present variabilities that cannot be explained completely by the patient's age (which, with the new variants, is rapidly changing, increasingly affecting younger patients) nor by symptoms and concomitant pathologies (which are no longer proving to be decisive in recent cases) in relation to medium-to-long term sequelae. In particular, the functions of the vascular endothelium and vascular lesions at the pre-capillary level represent the source of tissue hypoxia and other damage, resulting in the clinical evolution of COVID-19.

RESULTS

Keeping the patient at home with targeted therapeutic support, aimed at not worsening vascular endothelium damage with early and appropriate stimulation of endothelial cells, ameliorates the glycocalyx function and improves the prognosis and, in some circumstances, could be the best practice suitable for certain patients.

CONCLUSION

Clinical information thus far collected may be of immense value in developing a better understanding of the present pandemic and future occurrences regarding patient safety, pharmaceutical care and therapy liability.

D,L-Lysine-Acetylsalicylate + Glycine (LASAG) Reduces SARS-CoV-2 Replication and Shows an Additive Effect with Remdesivir

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is still challenging healthcare systems and societies worldwide. While vaccines are available, therapeutic strategies are developing and need to be adapted to each patient. Many clinical approaches focus on the repurposing of approved therapeutics against other diseases. However, the efficacy of these compounds on viral infection or even harmful secondary effects in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection are sparsely investigated. Similarly, adverse effects of commonly used therapeutics against lifestyle diseases have not been studied in detail. Using mono cell culture systems and a more complex chip model, we investigated the effects of the acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) salt D,L-lysine-acetylsalicylate + glycine (LASAG) on SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. ASA is commonly known as Aspirin^® and is one of the most frequently used medications worldwide. Our data indicate an inhibitory effect of LASAG on SARS-CoV-2 replication and SARS-CoV-2-induced expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and coagulation factors. Remarkably, our data point to an additive effect of the combination of LASAG and the antiviral acting drug remdesivir on SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving supplemental oxygen: a targeted literature review and meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO₂); high-flow oxygen (HFO₂), including NIV (non-invasive ventilation); or oxygen at any flow (AnyO₂) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N = 5245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO₂ patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34-0.79; RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69-0.95) and LFO₂ patients (RR 0.21, 95%CrI 0.09-0.46; RR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.11-0.48); no improvement was observed among HFO₂ patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO₂ patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09-1.38; RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09-1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO₂ and LFO₂ patients.

Omicron-included mutation-induced changes in epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and effectiveness assessments of current antibodies

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is spreading globally and continues to rage, posing a serious threat to human health and life quality. Antibody therapy and vaccines both have shown great efficacy in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, whose development progress and adaptation range have attracted wide attention. However, with the emergence of variant strains of SARS-CoV-2, the neutralization activity of therapeutic or vaccine-induced antibodies may be reduced, requiring long-term virus monitoring and drug upgrade in response to its evolution. In this paper, conformational changes including continuous epitopes (CPs), discontinuous epitopes (DPs) and recognition interfaces of the three representative SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (SP) mutants (i.e., the Delta (B.1.617.2), Mu (B.1.621) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) strains), were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of current mainstream antibodies. The results showed that the conformation of SP wild type (WT) and mutants both remained stable, while the local antigenic epitopes underwent significant changes. Sufficient flexibility of SP CPs is critical for effective antibody recognition. The DPs of Delta, Mu and Omicron variants have showed stronger binding to human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (hACE2) than WT; the possible drug resistance mechanisms of antibodies against three different epitopes (i.e., NTD_DP, RBD1_DP and RBD2_DP) were also proposed, respectively; the RBD2 of Delta, NTD of Mu, NTD and RBD2 of Omicron are deserve more attention in the subsequent design of next-generation vaccines. The simulation results not only revealed structural characteristics of SP antigenic epitopes, but also provided guidance for antibody modification, vaccine design and effectiveness evaluation.

Use of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

Studies in the literature regarding the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 patients have shown conflicting results. This study sought to answer questions related to the use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Methods:

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies selected from various databases, comparing patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and controls.

Results:

A total of 207 studies were retrieved, 9 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The meta-analysis using RCTs alone showed no statistically significant differences regarding mortality or use of mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between remdesivir and control groups, and the quality of evidence was moderate and low, respectively. The use of remdesivir increased the recovery rate by 6% (95% CI, 3-9); p = 0.004) and the clinical improvement rate by 7% (95% CI, 1-14); p = 0.02). Additionally, no significant differences in mortality were found between remdesivir and control groups when the meta-analysis used observational cohort studies alone (risk difference = −0.01 (95% CI, −0.02 to 0.01; p = 0.32), the quality of evidence being moderate, and the risk of adverse events was 4% ([95% CI, −0.08 to 0.01]; p = 0.09).

Conclusions:

The use of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had no significant impact on clinically important outcomes.

A Peek into Pandora’s Box: COVID-19 and Neurodegeneration

Ever since it was first reported in Wuhan, China, the coronavirus-induced disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has become an enigma of sorts with ever expanding reports of direct and indirect effects of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on almost all the vital organ systems. Along with inciting acute pulmonary complications, the virus attacks the cardiac, renal, hepatic, and gastrointestinal systems as well as the central nervous system (CNS). The person-to-person variability in susceptibility of individuals to disease severity still remains a puzzle, although the comorbidities and the age/gender of a person are believed to play a key role. SARS-CoV-2 needs angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for its infectivity, and the association between SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2 leads to a decline in ACE2 activity and its neuroprotective effects. Acute respiratory distress may also induce hypoxia, leading to increased oxidative stress and neurodegeneration. Infection of the neurons along with peripheral leukocytes’ activation results in proinflammatory cytokine release, rendering the brain more susceptible to neurodegenerative changes. Due to the advancement in molecular biology techniques and vaccine development programs, the world now has hope to relatively quickly study and combat the deadly virus. On the other side, however, the virus seems to be still evolving with new variants being discovered periodically. In keeping up with the pace of this virus, there has been an avalanche of studies. This review provides an update on the recent progress in adjudicating the CNS-related mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its potential to incite or accelerate neurodegeneration in surviving patients. Current as well as emerging therapeutic opportunities and biomarker development are highlighted.

COVID-19 infection: from stress-related cortisol levels to adrenal glands infarction

Cortisol is a key element in acute stress including a severe infection. However, in coronavirus-associated disease, 20% of subjects experience hypocortisolemia due to direct or immune damage of pituitary and adrenal glands. One extreme form of adrenal insufficiency is found in 2∕3 of cases with viral and post-viral adrenal infarction (AI) (with∕without adrenal hemorrhage) that is mostly associated with a severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection; it requires prompt glucocorticoid intervention. Some reports are incidental findings at computed tomography (CT)∕magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for non-adrenal complications like pulmonary spreading and others are seen on post-mortem analysis. This is a review of PubMed-accessible, English papers focusing on AI in addition to the infection, between March 1, 2020 and November 1, 2021. Exclusion criteria were acute adrenal insufficiency without the histopathological (HP) and∕or imaging report of adrenal enlargement, necrosis, etc., respective adrenal failure due to pituitary causes, or non-COVID-19-related adrenal events. We identified a total of 84 patients (different levels of statistical evidence), as follows: a retrospective study on 51 individuals, two post-mortem studies comprising nine, respectively 12 patients, a case series of five subjects, seven single-case reports. HP aspects include necrosis associated with ischemia, cortical lipid degeneration (+/- focal adrenalitis), and infarcts at the level of adrenal cortex, blood clot into vessels, acute fibrinoid necrosis in arterioles and capsules, as well as subendothelial vacuolization. Collateral potential contributors to adrenal damage are thrombotic events, coagulation anomalies, antiphospholipid syndrome, endothelial dysfunction, severe COVID-19 infection with multiorgan failure, etc. Clinical picture is variable from acute primary adrenal insufficiency to asymptomatic or mild evolution, even a retrospective diagnostic; it may be a part of long COVID-19 syndrome; glucocorticoid therapy for non-adrenal considerations might mask cortisol deficient status due to AI∕hemorrhage. Despite its rarity, the COVID-19-associated AI/hemorrhage represents a challenging new chapter, a condition that is essential to be recognized due to its gravity since prompt intervention with glucocorticoid replacement is lifesaving.

Remdesivir for pregnancy: A systematic review of antiviral therapy for COVID-19

Objective

The use of remdesivir for pregnant patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed conflicting results in prior studies. We aimed to systematically review its efficacy and safety for this population from the existing literature.

Methods

On July 26, 2021, registries (ClinicalTrials.gov) and databases (MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, JSTOR, DOAJ, and medRxiv) were systematically searched for research articles investigating remdesivir use in pregnant people with COVID-19. Clinical outcome, hospitalization duration, laboratory outcome, mortality, and adverse events were investigated.

Results

We obtained 13 observation studies with 113 pregnant people. In these studies, remdesivir improved the clinical condition of pregnant patients with COVID-19, especially those who had a better clinical status at baseline and received earlier remdesivir treatment. Most fetuses were delivered via cesarean section, primarily because of emergency causes. No vertical transmissions were noted. The most reported adverse event was transaminitis, in which 10-day remdesivir treatment yielded more incidence than the 5-day treatment.

Conclusions

In pregnancy, the use of Remdesivir in combination with other COVID-19 treatments is inconclusive but its use should be followed with careful monitoring of adverse reactions and transaminase enzyme levels. Further studies are required to confirm its finding.

Baricitinib combination therapy: a narrative review of repurposed Janus kinase inhibitor against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection

PURPOSE

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is one of the most devastating global problems. Regarding the lack of disease-specific treatments, repurposing drug therapy is currently considered a promising therapeutic approach in pandemic situations. Recently, the combination therapy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib has been authorized for emergency COVID-19 hospitalized patients; however, this strategy's safety, drug-drug interactions, and cellular signaling pathways remain a tremendous challenge.

METHODS

In this study, we aimed to provide a deep insight into the baricitinib combination therapies in severe COVID-19 patients through reviewing the published literature on PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar databases. We also focused on cellular and subcellular pathways related to the synergistic effects of baricitinib plus antiviral agents, virus entry, and cytokine storm (CS) induction. The safety and effectiveness of this strategy have also been discussed in moderate to severe forms of COVID-19 infection.

RESULTS

The severity of COVID-19 is commonly associated with a dysregulated immune response and excessive release of pro-inflammatory agents, resulting in CS. It has been shown that baricitinib combined with antiviral agents could modulate the inflammatory response and provide a series of positive therapeutic outcomes in hospitalized adults and pediatric patients (age ≥ two years old).

CONCLUSION

Baricitinib plus the standard of care treatment might be a potential strategy in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.