Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19

Adverse events associated with azithromycin and clarithromycin in adults aged ≥65: a disproportionality analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database

BACKGROUND

Azithromycin and clarithromycin are commonly used to treat community-acquired pneumonia in adults aged ≥ 65, such as mycoplasma pneumonia. This study aims to evaluate adverse events (AEs) associated with azithromycin and clarithromycin in this age group by analyzing the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), providing insights for clinical use and management of AEs in this population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We retrieved reports of AEs related to azithromycin and clarithromycin from the FAERS database. Disproportionality analysis was conducted using the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Multi-Gamma Poisson Shrinkage (MGPS) to identify AEs associated with azithromycin and clarithromycin in adults aged ≥ 65.

RESULTS

A total of 2,019 adverse event reports were retrieved for azithromycin, and 2,392 for clarithromycin. Off-label use (n = 349) and drug interactions (n = 487) were the most reported AEs in adults aged ≥ 65 for azithromycin and clarithromycin, respectively. Prolonged QT interval showed the strongest signal among AEs for azithromycin in this age group. Drug interaction-related medication errors had the strongest signal for clarithromycin. Seven signals not explicitly included in the azithromycin package insert were identified in adults aged ≥ 65. Fourteen signals not explicitly included in the clarithromycin package insert were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults aged ≥ 65, cardiac-related adverse events are more closely associated with azithromycin than with clarithromycin. Conversely, AEs related to drug interactions and psychiatric symptoms are more associated with clarithromycin. Additionally, clinicians should be vigilant regarding AEs not specified in the package inserts. The findings of this study may help optimize the selection of azithromycin and clarithromycin based on patient circumstances and assist clinicians in focusing on relevant AEs for early intervention.

Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of clinical trials. In this context, we described the mechanisms of the three repurposed drugs [Ivermectin-antiparasitic drug, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine-antimalarial drugs, and Azithromycin-antimicrobial drug]; and, based on this description, the study evaluated the clinical efficacy of those drugs published in clinical trials. The use of these drugs reflects the period of uncertainty that marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made them a possible treatment for COVID-19. Methods: In our review, we evaluated phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy of these drugs published from the COVID-19 pandemic onset to 2023. We included eight RCTs published for Ivermectin, 11 RCTs for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and three RCTs for Azithromycin. The research question (PICOT) accounted for P-hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19; I-use of oral or intravenous Ivermectin OR Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine OR Azithromycin; C-placebo or no placebo (standard of care); O-mortality OR hospitalization OR viral clearance OR need for mechanical ventilation OR clinical improvement; and T-phase III RCTs. Results: While studying these drugs' respective mechanisms of action, the reasons for which they were thought to be useful became apparent and are as follows: Ivermectin binds to insulin-like growth factor and prevents nuclear transportation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), therefore preventing cell entrance, induces apoptosis, and osmotic cell death and disrupts viral replication. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine blocks the movement of SARS-CoV-2 from early endosomes to lysosomes inside the cell, also, this drug blocks the binding between SARS-CoV-2 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 inhibiting the interaction between the virus spike proteins and the cell membrane and this drug can also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral replication causing, ultimately, the reduction in viral infection as well as the potential to progression for a higher severity phenotype culminating with a higher chance of death. Azithromycin exerts a down-regulating effect on the inflammatory cascade, attenuating the excessive production of cytokines and inducing phagocytic activity, and acts interfering with the viral replication cycle. Ivermectin, when compared to standard care or placebo, did not reduce the disease severity, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. Only one study demonstrated that Ivermectin may improve viral clearance compared to placebo. Individuals who received Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine did not present a lower incidence of death, improved clinical status, or higher chance of respiratory deterioration compared to those who received usual care or placebo. Also, some studies demonstrated that Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine resulted in worse outcomes and side-effects included severe ones. Adding Azithromycin to a standard of care did not result in clinical improvement in hospitalized COVID-19 participants. In brief, COVID-19 was one of the deadliest pandemics in modern human history. Due to the potential health catastrophe caused by SARS-CoV-2, a global effort was made to evaluate treatments for COVID-19 to attenuate its impact on the human species. Unfortunately, several countries prematurely justified the emergency use of drugs that showed only in vitro effects against SARS-CoV-2, with a dearth of evidence supporting efficacy in humans. In this context, we reviewed the mechanisms of several drugs proposed to treat COVID-19, including Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin, as well as the phase III clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of these drugs for treating patients with this respiratory disease. Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials.

Severe COVID-19 infection: An institutional review and literature overview

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to describe the group of severe COVID-19 patients at an institutional level, and determine factors associated with different outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients admitted with severe acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 infection. Based on outcomes, we categorized 3 groups of severe COVID-19: (1) Favorable outcome: progressive care unit admission and discharge (2) Intermediate outcome: ICU care (3) Poor outcome: in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients met our inclusion criteria; 42.7% were female. The average age was 59.7 (standard deviation (SD):13.7). Most of the population were Caucasian (95.5%) and non-Hispanic (91.0%). Age, sex, race, and ethnicity were similar between outcome groups. Medicare and Medicaid patients accounted for 62.9%. The average BMI was 33.5 (SD:8.2). Moderate comorbidity was observed, with an average Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) of 3.8 (SD:2.6). There were no differences in the average CCI between groups(p = 0.291). Many patients (67.4%) had hypertension, diabetes (42.7%) and chronic lung disease (32.6%). A statistical difference was found when chronic lung disease was evaluated; p = 0.002. The prevalence of chronic lung disease was 19.6%, 27.8%, and 40% in the favorable, intermediate, and poor outcome groups, respectively. Smoking history was associated with poor outcomes (p = 0.04). Only 7.9% were fully vaccinated. Almost half (46.1%) were intubated and mechanically ventilated. Patients spent an average of 12.1 days ventilated (SD:8.5), with an average of 6.0 days from admission to ventilation (SD:5.1). The intermediate group had a shorter average interval from admission to ventilator (77.2 hours, SD:67.6), than the poor group (212.8 hours, SD:126.8); (p = 0.001). The presence of bacterial pneumonia was greatest in the intermediate group (72.2%), compared to the favorable group (17.4%), and the poor group (56%); this was significant (p<0.0001). In-hospital mortality was seen in 28.1%.

CONCLUSION

Most patients were male, obese, had moderate-level comorbidity, a history of tobacco abuse, and government-funded insurance. Nearly 50% required mechanical ventilation, and about 28% died during hospitalization. Bacterial pneumonia was most prevalent in intubated groups. Patients who were intubated with a good outcome were intubated earlier during their hospital course, with an average difference of 135.6 hours. A history of cigarette smoking and chronic lung disease were associated with poor outcomes.

Electrophysiological Profile of Different Antiviral Therapies in a Rabbit Whole-Heart Model

Antiviral therapies for treatment of COVID-19 may be associated with significant proarrhythmic potential. In the present study, the potential cardiotoxic side effects of these therapies were evaluated using a Langendorff model of the isolated rabbit heart. 51 hearts of female rabbits were retrogradely perfused, employing a Langendorff-setup. Eight catheters were placed endo- and epicardially to perform an electrophysiology study, thus obtaining cycle length-dependent action potential duration at 90% of repolarization (APD90), QT intervals and dispersion of repolarization. After generating baseline data, the hearts were assigned to four groups: In group 1 (HXC), hearts were treated with 1 µM hydroxychloroquine. Thereafter, 3 µM hydroxychloroquine were infused additionally. Group 2 (HXC + AZI) was perfused with 3 µM hydroxychloroquine followed by 150 µM azithromycin. In group 3 (LOP) the hearts were perfused with 3 µM lopinavir followed by 5 µM and 10 µM lopinavir. Group 4 (REM) was perfused with 1 µM remdesivir followed by 5 µM and 10 µM remdesivir. Hydroxychloroquine- and azithromycin-based therapies have a significant proarrhythmic potential mediated by action potential prolongation and an increase in dispersion. Lopinavir and remdesivir showed overall significantly less pronounced changes in electrophysiology. In accordance with the reported bradycardic events under remdesivir, it significantly reduced the rate of the ventricular escape rhythm.

Acute and post-acute respiratory complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection: population-based cohort study in South Korea and Japan

Considering the significant burden of post-acute COVID-19 conditions among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, we aimed to identify the risk of acute respiratory complications or post-acute respiratory sequelae. A binational population-based cohort study was conducted to analyze the risk of acute respiratory complications or post-acute respiratory sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection. We used a Korean nationwide claim-based cohort (K-COV-N; n = 2,312,748; main cohort) and a Japanese claim-based cohort (JMDC; n = 3,115,606; replication cohort) after multi-to-one propensity score matching. Among 2,312,748 Korean participants (mean age, 47.2 years [SD, 15.6]; 1,109,708 [48.0%] female), 17.1% (394,598/2,312,748) were infected with SARS-CoV-2. The risk of acute respiratory complications or post-acute respiratory sequelae is significantly increased in people with SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population (acute respiratory complications: HR, 8.06 [95% CI, 6.92-9.38]; post-acute respiratory sequelae: 1.68 [1.62-1.75]), and the risk increased with increasing COVID-19 severity. We identified COVID-19 vaccination as an attenuating factor, showing a protective association against acute or post-acute respiratory conditions. Furthermore, while the excess post-acute risk diminished with time following SARS-CoV-2 infection, it persisted beyond 6 months post-infection. The replication cohort showed a similar pattern in the association. Our study comprehensively evaluates respiratory complications in post-COVID-19 conditions, considering attenuating factors such as vaccination status, post-infection duration, COVID-19 severity, and specific respiratory conditions.

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.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other 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. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Tocilizumab versus anakinra in COVID-19: results from propensity score matching

Background

Tocilizumab and anakinra are anti-interleukin drugs to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) refractory to corticosteroids. However, no studies compared the efficacy of tocilizumab versus anakinra to guide the choice of the therapy in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab or anakinra.

Methods

Our retrospective study was conducted in three French university hospitals between February 2021 and February 2022 and included all the consecutive hospitalized patients with a laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection assessed by RT-PCR who were treated with tocilizumab or anakinra. A propensity score matching was performed to minimize confounding effects due to the non-random allocation.

Results

Among 235 patients (mean age, 72 years; 60.9% of male patients), the 28-day mortality (29.4% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.76), the in-hospital mortality (31.7% vs. 33.0%, p = 0.83), the high-flow oxygen requirement (17.5% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.86), the intensive care unit admission rate (30.8% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.30), and the mechanical ventilation rate (15.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.50) were similar in patients receiving tocilizumab and those receiving anakinra. After propensity score matching, the 28-day mortality (29.1% vs. 30.4%, p = 1) and the rate of high-flow oxygen requirement (10.1% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.081) did not differ between patients receiving tocilizumab or anakinra. Secondary infection rates were similar between the tocilizumab and anakinra groups (6.3% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.44).

Conclusion

Our study showed comparable efficacy and safety profiles of tocilizumab and anakinra to treat severe COVID-19.

The state of current research on COVID-19 and antibiotic use: global implications for antimicrobial resistance

BACKGROUND

During the initial stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the administration of antibiotics to patients was prevalent in numerous countries. Despite this, the rising threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a significant public health concern. The escalation of AMR has been exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Against this backdrop, the primary aim of this study was to conduct a bibliometric and visual analysis of research pertaining to the use of antibiotics in COVID-19.

METHODS

This study examined documents indexed in Scopus between 2020 and 2022. To visualize the trends and hotspots of research related to antibiotics and COVID-19, as well as collaborative networks, the researcher utilized version 1.6.18 of the VOSviewer software. Scopus data were analysed to extract information on the types of publications, annual research output, countries, institutions, funding agencies, journals, citations, and highly cited references. Microsoft Excel 2019 was used to process and organize the extracted data.

RESULTS

This study analysed 1137 documents related to COVID-19 and antibiotics and found that the number of publications increased from 130 in 2020 to 527 in 2022. These publications included 777 (68.34%) articles and 205 (18.03%) reviews. The top five countries in terms of scientific production were the United States (n = 231; 20.32%), the United Kingdom (n = 156; 13.72%), China (n = 101; 8.88%), India (n = 100; 8.8%), and Italy (n = 63; 5.54%), and the leading institutions were Imperial College London (n = 21; 1.85%), University of Oxford (n = 20; 1.76%), and University College London (n = 15; 1.32%). The National Natural Science Foundation of China provided funding for the highest number of articles (n = 48; 4.22%), followed by the National Institutes of Health (n = 32; 2.81%). The most productive journals were Antibiotics (n = 90; 7.92%), Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (n = 30; 2.64%), and Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (n = 26; 2.29%). Finally, the research hotspots identified in this study were 'antimicrobial stewardship during the COVID-19 outbreak' and 'implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance.'

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first bibliometric analysis of COVID-19-related research on antibiotics. Research was carried out in response to global requests to increase the fight against AMR and awareness of the issue. More restrictions on the use of antibiotics are urgently needed from policy makers and authorities, more so than in the current situation.

Biopsychosocial analysis of antibiotic use for the prevention or management of COVID-19 infections: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The novelty and complexity of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in various coping mechanisms adopted by individuals as a means of averting the perceived fatalities of the pandemic. The use of antibiotics in the management of COVID-19 is clinically recommended under specific conditions. However, there are increasing trends of non-adherence to the recommended criteria resulting in the unwarranted use of antibiotics as an adaptative approach to the ongoing pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to identify and classify factors associated with the unwarranted use of antibiotics in the management of COVID-19 from published literature and the perspectives of key stakeholders along a Biopsychosocial model.

METHODS

Literature was searched in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar for studies published between 31st December 2019 and 31st January 2022. The Arskey and O'Malley framework modified by Levac in the six-stage methodological process was adopted for this review and included: a) identification of research questions, b) identification of relevant research articles, c) selection of studies, d) data charting and synthesis, e) summary, discussion and analysis, and f) stakeholder consultations.

RESULTS

Out of 10,252 records identified from all sources, 12 studies were selected for inclusion in this scoping review. The selected articles reflected both antibiotic use and COVID-19 whilst capturing the biological (medical) and psychosocial perspectives. Most of the studies reported the overuse or abuse of Azithromycin especially in hospital settings. Common themes across the review and stakeholder consultations included fear, anxiety, media influences and deficits in public knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the study highlight the complexity of antibiotic control especially in the context of a pandemic. The identified determinants of antibiotic use provide the necessary framework to simulate health emergencies and be better positioned in the future through the development of targeted and comprehensive policies on antibiotic stewardship.

Do selected lifestyle parameters affect the severity and symptoms of COVID-19 among elderly patients? The retrospective evaluation of individuals from the STOP-COVID registry of the PoLoCOV study

BACKGROUND

Older individuals tend to include less physical activity in their routine and are more prone to chronic diseases and severe medical complications, making them the most burdened group that is losing years of life due to pandemic-related premature mortality. This research aimed to assess the lifestyle factors that affect the COVID-19 course among patients ≥ 65 years old.

METHODS

The study included 568 convalescents (64.1% women and 35.9% men) with persistent clinical symptoms after isolation. The mean age was 70.41 ± 4.64 years (minimum: 65 years; maximum: 89 years). The patients completed the questionnaire during their in-person visit to the medical center. The survey included questions regarding their health status when suffering from COVID-19, basic sociodemographic data, and medical history concerning chronic conditions and lifestyle.

RESULTS

Physical inactivity (p < 0.001) and feeling nervous (p = 0.026) increased the risk of having a severe disease course. Coronary artery disease raised both the risk of a severe disease course (p = 0.002) and the number of present symptoms up to 4 weeks (p = 0.039). Sleep disturbances increased the number of symptoms during infection (p = 0.001). The occurrence of any symptoms was also associated with the female sex (p = 0.004). The severity of the course was associated with longer persistent symptoms (p < 0.001) and a greater number of symptoms (p = 0.004); those with a more severe course were also at a greater risk of persistent symptoms for up to 4 weeks (p = 0.006). Senior citizens in the third pandemic wave suffered with more severe disease (p = 0.004), while illness during the fourth (p = 0.001) and fifth (p < 0.001) waves was associated with a lower risk of persistent symptoms for up to 4 weeks. The disease duration was significantly shorter among vaccinated patients (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly COVID-19 patients should re-think their lifestyle habits to consider a physical activity level that is adjusted to their abilities, in order to decrease the risk of a severe disease course and to further limit both the number and duration of symptoms. The research was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approval from the Bioethics Committee of Lodz Regional Medical Chamber to conduct the study was obtained (approval number 0115/2021). The PoLoCOV-Study ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT05018052.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo.

LIMITATION

Many outcomes had few events and small samples.

CONCLUSION

Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Prevalence and characteristics of antibiotic prescription for acute COVID-19 patients in Japan

COVID-19 is a viral infection and does not require antibiotics. The study aimed to elucidate a prescribing pattern of antibiotics for COVID-19. A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted in Japan. The Diagnosis and Procedure Combinations (DPC) data was used to collect information, covering 25% of all acute care hospitals in the country. In 140,439 COVID-19 patients, 18,550 (13.21%) patients received antibiotics. Antibiotics were prescribed more often in inpatients (10,809 out of 66,912, 16.15%) than outpatients (7741 out of 73,527, 10.53%) (p < 0.001). Outpatient prescription was significantly associated with older patients (odds ratio [OR], 4.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.41-4.93) and a greater Charlson index (OR with one-point index increase, 1.22; 95% CI 1.21-1.23). Inpatient prescription was significantly associated with older patients (OR 2.10; 95% CI 2.01-2.21), male gender (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07-1.18), a greater Charlson index (OR with one-point increase, 1.06; 95% CI 1.05-1.07), requirement of oxygen therapy (OR 3.44; 95% CI 3.28-3.60) and mechanical ventilation (OR 15.09; 95% CI 13.60-16.74). The most frequently prescribed antibiotic among outpatients was cefazolin, while that among inpatients was ceftriaxone. Antibiotic prescription is relatively low for acute COVID-19 in Japan. Antibiotic prescription was associated with older age, multi-morbidity, severe disease, and winter season.

Factors Associated with the Antibiotic Treatment of Children Hospitalized for COVID-19 during the Lockdown in Serbia

Unselective use of antibiotics to treat children with COVID-19 is one of the major issues during the pandemic in Serbia. Thus far, there has been no evidence about the predictors of multiple antibiotic use in the treatment of children with COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of antibiotic use, as well as to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with a greater number of antibiotics and with a longer antibiotic treatment administered to hospitalized children with COVID-19 during the lockdown in Serbia. This study included all children who were hospitalized from 6 March to 31 May 2020 at the only pediatric COVID-19 hospital, and who were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected from medical records. The antibiotic treatment included the use of azithromycin, cephalosporin (ceftriaxone), ampicillin-amikacin, and hydroxychloroquine. The overall prevalence of antibiotics use in children hospitalized with COVID-19 regardless of age was 47.2% (43.3% in children aged 1-5 years and 44.4% in those aged 5-17 years). In children aged 1-5 years, not having a family member affected by COVID-19 (B = -1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.43, -0.34, p = 0.011), having pneumonia on chest X-ray (B = 0.81, 95%CI 0.34, 1.29, p = 0.002), being a boy (B = -0.65, 95%CI -1.17, -0.13, p = 0.018), and having higher C-reactive protein (CRP) values on admission (B = 0.12, 95%CI 0.07, 0.17, p = 0.001) were associated with the administration of a higher number of antibiotics. These factors, along with having fever (B = 3.20, 95%CI 1.03, 5.37, p = 0.006), were associated with a longer duration of antibiotic treatment in children aged 1-5 years. In children aged 5-17 years, having pharyngeal erythema (B = 1.37, 95%CI 0.61, 2.13, p = 0.001), fever (B = 0.43, 95%CI 0.07, 0.79, p = 0.018), and pneumonia on chest X-ray (B = 0.91, 95%CI 0.53, 1.29, p = 0.001), not having rhinorrhea (B = -1.27, 95%CI -2.47, -0.08, p = 0.037), being a girl (B = 0.52, 95%CI 0.08, 0.97, p = 0.021), and having higher CRP values on admission (B = 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.06, p = 0.006) were associated with the administration of a higher number of antibiotics. These factors, not including the absence of rhinorrhea, were associated with a longer duration of antibiotics treatment in children aged 5-17 years. Demographic, epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory parameters were associated with the use of multiple antibiotics and a longer duration of antibiotic treatment both among children aged 1-5 years and those aged 5-17 years.

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.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other 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. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

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.

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.

Nanoscale Technologies in the Fight against COVID-19: From Innovative Nanomaterials to Computer-Aided Discovery of Potential Antiviral Plant-Derived Drugs

The last few years have increasingly emphasized the need to develop new active antiviral products obtained from artificial synthesis processes using nanomaterials, but also derived from natural matrices. At the same time, advanced computational approaches have found themselves fundamental in the repurposing of active therapeutics or for reducing the very long developing phases of new drugs discovery, which represents a real limitation, especially in the case of pandemics. The first part of the review is focused on the most innovative nanomaterials promising both in the field of therapeutic agents, as well as measures to control virus spread (i.e., innovative antiviral textiles). The second part of the review aims to show how computer-aided technologies can allow us to identify, in a rapid and therefore constantly updated way, plant-derived molecules (i.e., those included in terpenoids) potentially able to efficiently interact with SARS-CoV-2 cell penetration pathways.

Antibiotic-Induced Primary Biles Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 Endoribonuclease Nsp15 Activity in Mouse Gut

The gut microbiome profile of COVID-19 patients was found to correlate with a viral load of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 severity, and dysfunctional immune responses, suggesting that gut microbiota may be involved in anti-infection. In order to investigate the role of gut microbiota in anti-infection against SARS-CoV-2, we established a high-throughput in vitro screening system for COVID-19 therapeutics by targeting the endoribonuclease (Nsp15). We also evaluated the activity inhibition of the target by substances of intestinal origin, using a mouse model in an attempt to explore the interactions between gut microbiota and SARS-CoV-2. The results unexpectedly revealed that antibiotic treatment induced the appearance of substances with Nsp15 activity inhibition in the intestine of mice. Comprehensive analysis based on functional profiling of the fecal metagenomes and endoribonuclease assay of antibiotic-enriched bacteria and metabolites demonstrated that the Nsp15 inhibitors were the primary bile acids that accumulated in the gut as a result of antibiotic-induced deficiency of bile acid metabolizing microbes. This study provides a new perspective on the development of COVID-19 therapeutics using primary bile acids.

Antibiotic (Mis)Use in COVID-19 Patients before and after Admission to a Tertiary Hospital in Serbia

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global concern, and antibiotic use has risen throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Up to 75% of COVID-19 patients are treated with antibiotics despite little evidence for their use. A retrospective study from 6 March 2020 (the start of the pandemic in Serbia) to 31 December 2021 was conducted at the Clinic for Infectious and Tropical Diseases, University Clinical Centre of Serbia. In total, 523 patients with a microbiological diagnosis of COVID-19 were included. Patient data were analysed, including antibiotic use before and after admission. Pre-admission use of antibiotics for COVID-19 treatment was documented in more than half of patients (58.1%), of which a third (34.1%) used more than one antibiotic. Macrolides, cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones were mainly used, most frequently among patients aged between 31−45 years (75.2%). Prior antibiotic use was associated with a longer duration of illness at admission (8.8 vs. 5.7, p < 0.001), oxygen therapy upon admission (27.6% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.002), and a lower vaccination rate (60.7% vs. 50.7%, p = 0.04). When hospitalised, 72.1% of patients received antibiotics, primarily cephalosporins (71.9%). Significant efforts are needed to reduce antibiotic use in the community and improve prescribing rates by healthcare professionals.

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.

Decreased survival in children inpatients with COVID-19 and antibiotic prescription

Background

The empirical prescription of antibiotics to inpatients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is frequent despite uncommon bacterial coinfections. Current knowledge of the effect of antibiotics on the survival of hospitalized children with COVID-19 is limited.

Objective

To characterize the survival experience of children with laboratory-positive COVID-19 in whom antibiotics were prescribed at hospital admission.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Mexico, with children hospitalized due to COVID-19 from March 2020 to December 2021. Data from 1601 patients were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and the log-rank test. We computed hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to evaluate the effect of the analyzed exposures on disease outcomes.

Results

Antibiotics were prescribed to 13.2% (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$n$$\end{document}n = 211) of enrolled children and a higher mortality rate [14.9 (95% CI 10.1–19.8) vs. 8.3 (95% CI 6.8–9.8)] per 1000 person-days, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p$$\end{document}p < 0.001) was found among them. At any given cut-off, survival functions were lower in antibiotic-positive inpatients (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$p$$\end{document}p < 0.001). In the multiple model, antibiotic prescription was associated with a 50% increase in the risk of fatal outcome (HR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.01–2.22). A longer interval between illness onset and healthcare-seeking and pneumonia at hospital admission was associated with a poorer prognosis.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that antibiotic prescription in children hospitalized due to COVID-19 is associated with decreased survival. If later replicated, these findings highlight the need for rational antibiotics in these patients.

The Implementation of National Action Plan (NAP) on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in Bangladesh: Challenges and Lessons Learned from a Cross-Sectional Qualitative Study

This study explored the current situation of the National Action Plan (NAP) on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) implementation in Bangladesh and examined how different sectors (human, animal, and environment) addressed the AMR problem in policy and practice, as well as associated challenges and barriers to identifying policy lessons and practices. Informed by a rapid review of the available literature and following the World Health Organization (WHO) AMR situation analysis framework, a guideline was developed to conduct in-depth interviews with selected stakeholders from January to December 2021. Data were analysed using an adapted version of Anderson’s governance framework. Findings reveal the absence of required inter-sectoral coordination essential to a multisectoral approach. There was substantial coordination between the human health and livestock/fisheries sectors, but the environment sector was conspicuously absent. The government initiated some hospital-based awareness programs and surveillance activities, yet no national Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework was established for NAP activities. Progress of implementation was slow, constrained by the shortage of a trained health workforce and financial resources, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. To summarise, five years into the development of the NAP in Bangladesh, its implementation is not up to the level that the urgency of the situation requires. The policy and practice need to be cognisant of this fact and do the needful things to avoid a catastrophe.

Recommendations for the Outpatient Drug Treatment of Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

One of the purposes of outpatient treatment for COVID-19 patients is to prevent severe disease courses and hospitalization. There is a need for evidence-based recommendations to be applied in primary care and specialized outpatient settings.

METHODS

This guideline was developed on the basis of publications that were retrieved by a systematic search for randomized controlled trials in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE, and structured consensus generation was carried out with MAGICapp.

RESULTS

Unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for a severe disease course may be treated in the early phase of the disease with sotrovimab, remdesivir, or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Molnupiravir may also be used for such patients if no other clinically appropriate treatment options are available. Immunosuppressed persons with COVID-19 who are at high risk, and whose response to vaccination is expected to be reduced, ought to be treated with sotrovimab. It should be noted, however, that the clinical efficacy of sotrovimab against infections with the omicron subtype BA.2 is uncertain at the currently used dose, as the drug has displayed reduced activity against this subtype in vitro. COVID-19 patients at risk of a severe course may be offered budesonide inhalation, according to an off-label recommendation of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (other medical societies do not recommend either for or against this treatment). Thrombo - embolism prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin may be given to elderly patients or those with a pre-existing illness. No recommendation is made concerning fluvoxamine or colchicine. Acetylsalicylic acid, azithromycin, ivermectin, systemic steroids, and vitamin D should not be used for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Drug treatment is now available for outpatients with COVID-19 in the early phase. Nearly all of the relevant trials have been conducted in unvaccinated subjects; this needs to be kept in mind in patient selection.

Evaluation of Antibacterial and Antiviral Drug Effectiveness in COVID-19 Therapy: A Data-Driven Retrospective Approach

The clinical manifestations associated with COVID-19 disease is mainly due to a dysregulated host response related to the overexpression of inflammatory markers. Until recently, only remdesivir had gained FDA approval for COVID-19 hospitalized patients and there are currently no evidence-based therapeutic options or options for prevention of complications that have been established. Some medical treatments such as antivirals, antibacterials, antithrombotics, antipyretics, corticosteroids, interleukin inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, immunostimulants, and vitamin supplements have been utilized. However, there are limited data to support their effectiveness. Hence, this study was attempted to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of antibacterials and antivirals used for COVID-19 using a retrospective cross-sectional approach based on the medical records of adult patients in four hospitals. The number of antibacterials was calculated in defined daily dose (DDD) per 100 bed-days unit. Both mixed-logit regression and analysis of covariance were used to determine the effectiveness of the aforementioned agents in relation to COVID-19 outcome and patients' length of stay. The model was weighed accordingly and covariates (e.g., age) were considered in the model. Heart disease was found to be the most common pre-existing condition of COVID-19 hospitalized patients in this study. Azithromycin, an antibacterial in the Watch category list, was used extensively (33-65 DDD per 100 bed-days). Oseltamivir, an antiviral approved by the FDA for influenza was the most prescribed antiviral. In addition, favipiravir was found to be a significant factor in improving patients' COVID-19 outcomes and decreasing their length of stay. This study strongly suggests that COVID-19 patients' received polypharmacy for their treatment. However, most of the drugs used did not reach statistical significance in improving the patients' condition or decreasing the length of stay. Further studies to support drug use are needed.

Does the Fetus Limit Antibiotic Treatment in Pregnant Patients with COVID-19?

During pregnancy, there is a state of immune tolerance that predisposes them to viral infection, causing maternal-fetal vulnerability to the adverse effects of COVID-19. Bacterial coinfections significantly increase the mortality rate for COVID-19. However, it is known that all drugs, including antibiotics, will enter the fetal circulation in a variable degree despite the role of the placenta as a protective barrier and can cause teratogenesis or other malformations depending on the timing of exposure to the drug. Also, it is important to consider the impact of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics during pregnancy can alter both the maternal and fetal-neonatal microbiota, generating future repercussions in both. In the present study, the literature for treating bacterial coinfections in pregnant women with COVID-19 is reviewed. In turn, we present the findings in 50 pregnant women hospitalized diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 without previous treatment with antibiotics; moreover, a bacteriological culture of sample types was performed. Seven pregnant women had coinfection with Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Streptococcus agalactiae, Escherichia coli ESBL +, biotype 1 and 2, Acinetobacter jahnsonii, Enterococcus faecium, and Clostridium difficile. When performing the antibiogram, resistance to multiple drugs was found, such as macrolides, aminoglycosides, sulfa, dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors, beta-lactams, etc. The purpose of this study was to generate more scientific evidence on the better use of antibiotics in these patients. Because of this, it is important to perform an antibiogram to prevent abuse of empirical antibiotic treatment with antibiotics in pregnant women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Malin J, Fichtner F, J. Müller O, Skoetz N, Karagiannidis C. Clinical Practice Guideline: Recommendations on the In-hospital Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The mortality of COVID-19 patients who are admitted to a hospital because of the disease remains high. The implementation of evidence-based treatments can improve the quality of care.

METHODS

The new clinical practice guideline is based on publications retrieved by a systematic search in the Medline databases via PubMed and in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, followed by a structured consensus process leading to the adoption of graded recommendations.

RESULTS

Therapeutic anticoagulation can be considered in patients who do not require intensive care and have an elevated risk of thromboembolism (for example, those with D-dimer levels ≥ 2 mg/L). For patients in intensive care, therapeutic anticoagulation has no benefit. For patients with hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency, prone positioning and an early therapy attempt with CPAP/noninvasive ventilation (CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure) or high-flow oxygen therapy is recommended. Patients with IgG-seronegativity and, at most, low-flow oxygen should be treated with SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibodies (at present, casirivimab and imdevimab). Patients needing no more than low-flow oxygen should additionally be treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. All patients who need oxygen (low-flow, high-flow, noninvasive ventilation/CPAP, invasive ventilation) should be given systemic corticosteroids. Tocilizumab should be given to patients with a high oxygen requirement and progressively severe COVID-19 disease, but not in combination with JAK inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, prone positioning, and invasive ventilation are important elements of the treatment of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. A reduction of mortality has been demonstrated for the administration of monoclonal antibodies, JAK inhibitors, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, and therapeutic anticoagulation to specific groups of patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Intermediate- and Therapeutic-Dose Anticoagulation for Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear.

METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.15-2.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.