Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Susceptibility to COVID-19

Impacts of host factors on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 progression

SARS-CoV-2, identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, is the third coronavirus responsible for a global epidemic, following SARS-CoV (2002) and MERS-CoV (2012). Given the recent emergence of COVID-19, comprehensive immunological data are still limited. The susceptibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection are influenced by various host factors, including hormonal changes, genetic variations, inflammatory biomarkers, and behavioral attitudes. Identifying genetic factors contributing to infection severity may accelerate therapeutic development, including drug repurposing, natural extracts, and post-vaccine interventions (Initiative and Covid, 2021). This review discusses the human protein machinery involved in (a) SARS-CoV-2 host receptors, (b) the human immune response, and (c) the impact of demographic and genetic differences on individual risk for COVID-19. This review aims to clarify host factors implicated in SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and progression, highlighting potential therapeutic targets and supportive treatment strategies.

Effect of nanocapsules containing docosahexaenoic acid in mice with chronic inflammation

BACKGROUND

Omega 3 fatty acids, such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) have been widely consumed as supplements to control chronic inflammation. Nanocapsules containing DHA (MLNC-DHA-a1) were developed and showed excellent stability. Thus, our objective was to evaluate the effect of MLNC-DHA-a1 nanocapsules on biomarkers of chronic inflammation.

METHODS

Cells viability was determined by flow cytometry. The uptake of MLNC-DHA-a1 nanocapsules by macrophages and their polarization were determined. In vivo, LDLr(-,-) mice were fed a Western diet to promote chronic inflammation and were treated with MLNC-DHA-a1 nanocapsules, intravenously injected via the caudal vein once a week for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

MLNC-DHA-a1 nanocapsules decreased the concentration of TNFα (p = 0.02) in RAW 264.7 cells compared to the non-treated group (NT), with no changes in IL-10 (p = 0.29). The nanocapsules also exhibited an increase in the M2 (F4/80+ CD206) phenotype (p < 0.01) in BMDM cells. In vivo, no difference in body weight was observed among the groups, suggesting that the intervention was well tolerated. However, compared to the CONT group, MLNC-DHA-a1 nanocapsules led to an increase in IL-6 (90.45 ×13.31 pg/mL), IL-1β (2.76 ×1.34 pg/mL) and IL-10 (149.88 ×2.51 pg/mL) levels in plasma.

CONCLUSION

MLNC-DHA-a1 nanocapsules showed the potential to promote in vitro macrophage polarization and were well-tolerated in vivo. However, they also increased systemic pro-inflammatory cytokines. Therefore, considering that this immune response presents a limitation for clinical trials, further studies are needed to identify the specific compound in MLNC-DHA-a1 that triggered the immune response. Addressing this issue is essential, as MLNC-DHA-a1 tissue target nanocapsules could contribute to reducing chronic inflammation.

Prevalence of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Prescribed for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

OBJECTIVE

Our systematic review aimed to investigate the proportion of participants with osteoarthritis who were prescribed nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by their health care provider.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for observational studies reporting NSAID prescribing to participants with diagnosed osteoarthritis of any region. Risk of bias was assessed using a tool designed for observational studies measuring prevalence. Random and fixed-effects meta-analysis was used. Meta-regression investigated study-level factors associated with prescribing. The overall evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included, published between 1989 and 2022, with 6,494,509 participants. The mean age of participants was 64.7 years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 62.4, 67.0; n = 34 studies). Most studies were from Europe and Central Asia (n = 23 studies), and North America (n = 12 studies). Most studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (75%). Heterogeneity was eliminated when removing studies with a high risk of bias, to give a pooled estimate of NSAIDs prescribing to participants with osteoarthritis of 43.8% (95% CI 36.8, 51.1; moderate quality of evidence). Meta-regression determined that prescribing was associated with year (decreased prescribing over time; P = 0.05) and geographic region (P = 0.03; higher in Europe and Central Asia and in South Asia than in North America) but not with clinical setting.

CONCLUSION

Data from over 6.4 million participants with osteoarthritis between 1989 and 2022 indicate that NSAID prescribing has decreased over time and that prescribing differs between geographic locations.

Ibuprofen, other NSAIDs and COVID-19: a narrative review

At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (March 2020), there was speculation that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen, used to manage some of the symptoms of COVID-19, could increase the susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and negatively impact clinical outcomes. In the absence of any robust mechanistic and clinical evidence, this speculation led to confusion about the safety of ibuprofen, contributing to the so-called 'infodemic' surrounding COVID-19. A wealth of evidence has been generated in subsequent years, and this narrative review aims to consider the body of in vitro and in vivo research, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the use of NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, in COVID-19. Overall, the direction of evidence supports that NSAIDs do not increase susceptibility to infection, nor worsen disease outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Neither do they impact the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines. There is no basis to limit the use of NSAIDs, and doing so may deprive patients of effective self-care measures to control symptoms.

A shared genetic contribution to osteoarthritis and COVID-19 outcomes: a large-scale genome-wide cross-trait analysis

Background

Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) are exposed to an increased risk of adverse outcomes of COVID-19, and they tend to experience disruption in access to healthcare services and exercise facilities. However, a deep understanding of this comorbidity phenomenon and the underlying genetic architecture of the two diseases is still unclear. In this study, we aimed to untangle the relationship between OA and COVID-19 outcomes by conducting a large-scale genome-wide cross-trait analysis.

Methods

Genetic correlation and causal relationships between OA and COVID-19 outcomes (critical COVID-19, COVID-19 hospitalization, and COVID-19 infection) were estimated by linkage disequilibrium score regression and Mendelian Randomization approaches. We further applied Multi-Trait Analysis of GWAS and colocalization analysis to identify putative functional genes associated with both OA and COVID-19 outcomes.

Results

Significant positive genetic correlations between OA susceptibility and both critical COVID-19 (rg=0.266, P=0.0097) and COVID-19 hospitalization (rg=0.361, P=0.0006) were detected. However, there was no evidence to support causal genetic relationships between OA and critical COVID-19 (OR=1.17[1.00-1.36], P=0.049) or OA and COVID-19 hospitalization OR=1.08[0.97-1.20], P=0.143). These results were robustly consistent after the removal of obesity-related single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Moreover, we identified a strong association signal located near the FYCO1 gene (lead SNPs: rs71325101 for critical COVID-19, Pmeta=1.02×10-34; rs13079478 for COVID-19 hospitalization, Pmeta=1.09×10-25).

Conclusion

Our findings further confirmed the comorbidity of OA and COVID-19 severity, but indicate a non-causal impact of OA on COVID-19 outcomes. The study offers an instructive perspective that OA patients did not generate negative COVID-19 outcomes during the pandemic in a causal way. Further clinical guidance can be formulated to enhance the quality of self-management in vulnerable OA patients.

Risk of COVID-19 Among Unvaccinated and Vaccinated Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A General Population Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at higher risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection and its severe outcomes before and after COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

Using a UK primary care database, we conducted 2 cohort studies to compare the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 between patients with RA and the general population according to their COVID-19 vaccination status. We used exposure score overlap weighting to balance baseline characteristics between 2 comparison cohorts.

RESULTS

Among unvaccinated individuals, the weighted incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (9.21 versus 8.16 of 1,000 person-months), hospitalization (3.46 versus 2.14 of 1,000 person-months), and death (1.19 versus 0.62 of 1,000 person-months) were higher among patients with RA than the general population over 3 months of follow-up; the corresponding adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.10 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.00-1.24), 1.62 (95% CI 1.34-1.96), and 1.88 (95% CI 1.37-2.60), respectively. Among vaccinated individuals, the weighted rates of breakthrough infection (4.17 versus 3.96 of 1,000 person-months; HR 1.10 [95% CI 1.00-1.20]) and hospitalization (0.42 versus 0.32 of 1,000 person-months; HR 1.29 [95% CI 0.96-1.75]) were higher among patients with RA than the general population over 9 months of follow-up; however, no apparent difference in the risk of these outcomes was observed over 3 and 6 months of follow-up between 2 comparison cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Patients with RA are still at higher risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalization than the general population after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. These findings support booster COVID-19 vaccinations and adherence of other preventive strategies among patients with RA.

Pediatric Pericarditis: Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While there have now been a variety of large reviews on adult pericarditis, this detailed review specifically focuses on the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of pediatric pericarditis. We have tried to highlight most pediatric studies conducted on this topic, with special inclusion of important adult studies that have shaped our understanding of and management for acute and recurrent pericarditis.

RECENT FINDINGS

We find that the etiology of pediatric pericarditis differs from adult patients with pericarditis and has evolved over the years. Also, with the current COVID-19 pandemic, it is important for pediatric clinicians to be aware of pericardial involvement both due to the infection and from vaccination. Oftentimes, pericarditis maybe the only cardiac involvement in children with COVID-19, and so caregivers should maintain a high index of suspicion when they encounter children with pericarditis.  Large-scale contemporary epidemiological data regarding incidence and prevalence of both acute and recurrent pericarditis is lacking in pediatrics, and future studies should focus on highlighting this important research gap. Most of the current management strategies for pediatric pericarditis are from experiences gathered from adult data. Pediatric multicenter trials are warranted to understand the best management strategy for those with acute and recurrent pericarditis.

CASE VIGNETTE

A 6-year-old child with a past history of pericarditis almost 2 months ago comes in with a 2-day history of chest pain and fever. Per mother, he stopped his steroids about 2 weeks ago, and for the last 2 days has had a temperature of 102F and has been complaining of sharp mid-sternal chest pain that gets worse when he lies down and is relieved when he sits up and leans forward. On examination, he is tachycardic (heart rate 160 bpm), with normal blood pressure for age. He appears to be in pain (5/10), and on auscultation has a pericardial friction rub. His lab studies are notable for elevated white blood cell count and inflammatory markers (CRP and ESR). His electrocardiogram reveals sinus tachycardia and diffuse ST-elevation in all precordial leads. His echocardiogram demonstrates normal biventricular function and a trace pericardial effusion. His cardiac MRI confirms recurrent pericarditis. He is started on indomethacin and colchicine. He has complete resolution of his symptoms by day 3 of admission and is discharged with close follow-up.

Risk of COVID-19 among unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a general population study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its related severe sequelae between patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the general population according to COVID-19 vaccination status.

METHODS

We performed cohort studies using data from The Health Improvement Network to compare the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe sequelae between patients with SLE and the general population. Individuals aged 18-90 years with no previously documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. We estimated the incidence rates and HRs of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe sequelae between patients with SLE and the general population according to COVID-19 vaccination status using exposure score overlap weighted Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

We identified 3245 patients with SLE and 1 755 034 non-SLE individuals from the unvaccinated cohort. The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and combined severe outcomes per 1000 person-months were 10.95, 3.21, 1.16 and 3.86 among patients with SLE, and 8.50, 1.77, 0.53 and 2.18 among general population, respectively. The corresponding adjusted HRs were 1.28 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.59), 1.82 (95% CI: 1.21 to 2.74), 2.16 (95% CI: 1.00 to 4.79) and 1.78 (95% CI: 1.21 to 2.61). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between vaccinated patients with SLE and vaccinated general population over 9 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

While unvaccinated patients with SLE were at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its severe sequelae than the general population, no such difference was observed among vaccinated population. The findings indicate that COVID-19 vaccination provides an adequate protection to most patients with SLE from COVID-19 breakthrough infection and its severe sequelae.

Comparative effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Both BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines have shown high efficacy against COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials. However, their comparative effectiveness against COVID-19 is unclear in the real world. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19 in the UK general population.

METHODS

We emulated a target trial using IQVIA Medical Research Database (IMRD), an electronic primary care database from the UK (2021). We included 1,311,075 participants, consisting of 637,549 men and 673,526 women age≥18 years, who received vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 between January 1 and August 31, 2021. The outcomes consisted of confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation for COVID-19 and death from COVID-19 in the IMRD. We performed a cox-proportional hazard model to compare the risk of each outcome variable between the two vaccines adjusting for potential confounders with time-stratified overlap weighting of propensity score (PS).

RESULTS

During a mean of 6.7 months of follow-up, 20,070 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in individuals who received BNT162b2 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 3.65 per 1000 person-months), and 31,611 SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in those who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 5.25 per 1000 person-months). The time-stratified PS weighted rate difference of SARS-CoV-2 infection for BNT162b2 group vs. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group was -1.60 per 1000 person-months (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.76 to -1.43 per 1000 person-months), and the hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.71). The results were similar across the stratum of sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years), and study periods (i.e., alpha-variant predominance period and delta-variant predominance period). The PS weighted incidence of hospitalisation for COVID-19 was also lower in the BNT162b2 vaccine group than that in the ChAdOx1 vaccine group (RD: -0.09, 95%CI: -0.13 to -0.05 per 1000 person-months; HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.57 to 0.74). No significant difference in the risk of death from COVID-19 was observed between the two comparison groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study, the BNT162b2 vaccine appears to be more efficacious than the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 but not death from COVID-19.

Home as the new frontier for the treatment of COVID-19: the case for anti-inflammatory agents

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is characterised by a broad spectrum of symptom severity that requires varying amounts of care according to the different stages of the disease. Intervening at the onset of mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms in the outpatient setting would provide the opportunity to prevent progression to a more severe illness and long-term complications. As early disease symptoms variably reflect an underlying excessive inflammatory response to the viral infection, the use of anti-inflammatory drugs, especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in the initial outpatient stage of COVID-19 seems to be a valuable therapeutic strategy. A few observational studies have tested NSAIDs (especially relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors), often as part of multipharmacological protocols, for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19. The findings from these studies are promising and point to a crucial role of NSAIDs for the at-home management of people with initial COVID-19 symptoms.

Sex differences among users of NSAIDs and opioids during COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Sex-based inequalities in healthcare have been exposed and amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, few studies have reported sex differences in medication utilization and no studies have examined sex differences in prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids utilization.

AIM

To compare the utilization patterns of prescribed NSAIDs and opioids between males and females in Manitoba, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

A cohort of incident and prevalent users of prescribed NSAIDs and opioids was created. Interrupted times series analysis using autoregressive models were used to evaluate the quarterly change in the prevalent and incident users before and after COVID-19 restrictions were applied (first quarter of 2020).

RESULTS

COVID-19 restrictions were associated with a significant decrease in the utilization of prescribed NSAIDs and opioids in all users, followed by a revert to the pre-pandemic trends. Among female prevalent and incident NSAIDs users, there was a significant change in trend after COVID-19 restrictions were introduced (β₃ = 0.087 and 0.078, P = 0.023 and 0.028, respectively). However, there was non-significant change in trend among male prevalent and incident NSAIDs and opioids users during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

In this study, a significant sharp decline in the use of prescribed NSAIDs and opioids was shown in both sexes at the onset of the pandemic. However, a significant upward trend is observed in female NSAIDs users as restrictions began to be lifted.

Home as the new frontier for the treatment of COVID-19: the case for anti-inflammatory agents

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is characterised by a broad spectrum of symptom severity that requires varying amounts of care according to the different stages of the disease. Intervening at the onset of mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms in the outpatient setting would provide the opportunity to prevent progression to a more severe illness and long-term complications. As early disease symptoms variably reflect an underlying excessive inflammatory response to the viral infection, the use of anti-inflammatory drugs, especially non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in the initial outpatient stage of COVID-19 seems to be a valuable therapeutic strategy. A few observational studies have tested NSAIDs (especially relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors), often as part of multipharmacological protocols, for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19. The findings from these studies are promising and point to a crucial role of NSAIDs for the at-home management of people with initial COVID-19 symptoms.

Risk of COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalisation in Patients with Osteoarthritis or Back Pain Treated with Ibuprofen Compared to Other NSAIDs or Paracetamol: A Network Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate whether ibuprofen use, compared with other non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2i) or paracetamol, increases the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis or hospitalisation.

DESIGN

A prevalent user and active comparator cohort study.

SETTING

Two US claims databases (Open Claims and PharMetrics Plus) mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model.

PARTICIPANTS

Insured patients with a history of osteoarthritis or back pain and receiving ibuprofen, other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol between 1 November, 2019 and 31 January, 2020 (study enrolment window 1) or between 1 February, 2020 and 31 October, 2020 (study enrolment window 2).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Large-scale propensity score matching and empirical calibration were used to minimise confounding. Incidence and hazard ratios of COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalisation according to drug/s use were estimated and pooled in the same study period across data sources using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Index treatment episode was the primary risk evaluation window, censored at the time of discontinuation.

RESULTS

A total of 633,562 and 1,063,960 participants were included in periods 1 and 2, respectively, for the ibuprofen versus ns-NSAIDs comparison, 311,669 and 524,470 for ibuprofen versus COX-2i, and 492,002 and 878,598 for ibuprofen versus paracetamol. Meta-analyses of empirically calibrated hazard ratios revealed no significantly differential risk of COVID-19 outcomes in users of ibuprofen versus any of the other studied analgesic classes: hazard ratios were 1.13 (0.96-1.33) for the ibuprofen-ns-NSAIDs comparison, 1.03 (0.83-1.28) for the ibuprofen-COX-2i comparison and 1.13 (0.74-1.73) for ibuprofen-paracetamol comparison on COVID-19 diagnosis in the February 2020-October 2020 window. Similar hazard ratios were found on COVID-19 hospitalisation and across both study periods.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with osteoarthritis or back pain, we found no differential risks of incident COVID-19 diagnosis or COVID-19 hospitalisation for ibuprofen users compared with other ns-NSAIDs, COX-2i or paracetamol. Our findings support regulatory recommendations that NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, should be prescribed as indicated in the same way as before the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for those who rely on ibuprofen or NSAIDs to manage chronic arthritis or musculoskeletal pain symptoms.

Gout and Excess Risk of Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Vaccinated Individuals: A General Population Study

OBJECTIVE

Gout patients often have multiple comorbidities, making them susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes. This study was undertaken to examine the association between gout and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, especially in patients who have received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

METHODS

We conducted 2 cohort studies using The Health Improvement Network in the UK. Individuals with gout and those without gout from the general population were followed up from December 8, 2020 to October 31, 2021. We estimated the rate difference (RD) and hazard ratio (HR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes (i.e., hospitalization and death within 30 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection) for individuals with gout versus those without gout using a Cox proportional hazards model according to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status. We adjusted for potential confounders by using overlap weighting of exposure scores.

RESULTS

Among the vaccinated cohort, 1,955 cases of breakthrough COVID-19 infection occurred in 54,576 individuals with gout (4.68 cases per 1,000 person-months), and 52,468 cases occurred in 1,336,377 individuals without gout (3.76 cases per 1,000 person-months). The partially adjusted RD of breakthrough infection was 0.91 cases per 1,000 person-months (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.62-1.20 cases per 1,000 person-months), and the partially adjusted HR was 1.24 (95% CI 1.19-1.30). Gout was also associated with an increased risk of hospitalization (adjusted HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.10-1.53]) and death (adjusted HR 1.36 [95% CI 0.87-2.13]). Women with gout had an increased risk of hospitalization (adjusted HR 1.55 [95% CI 1.15-2.10]) and death (adjusted HR 2.46 [95% CI 1.12-5.41]). Similar associations with gout were observed in the unvaccinated cohort.

CONCLUSION

These general population data suggest that individuals with gout, especially women, have higher risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, even when vaccinated.

Adsorption of Diclofenac Sodium by Aged Degradable and Non-Degradable Microplastics: Environmental Effects, Adsorption Mechanisms

Microplastics (MPs) are novel pollutants, which can carry toxic contaminants and are released in biota and accumulate. The adsorption behavior of MPs and aged MPs has attracted extensive attention. In this paper, the aging process of polystyrene (PS) and poly (butyleneadipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT) plastics under ultraviolet (UV) irradiation at a high temperature and their adsorption properties for the contaminant diclofenac sodium (DCF) before and after aging was investigated. There are many factors affecting the adsorption capacity of MPs. In this experiment, three aspects of MPs, organic pollutants, and environmental factors are explored. The Freundlich model as well as the pseudosecondary kinetic model is more applicable to the process of DCF adsorption by MPs. The main effects of adsorption of organic pollutants by MPs are electrostatic interactions, hydrogen-halogen bonds, and hydrophobic interactions. The adsorption capacity of the UV-aged MPs on DCF is significantly enhanced, and the order of adsorption capacity is Q(A-PBAT) (27.65 mg/g) > Q (A-PS) (23.91 mg/g) > Q (PBAT) (9.30 mg/g) > Q (PS) (9.21 mg/g). The results show that more active sites are generated on the surface of MPs after aging, which can enhance their adsorption capacity for organic pollutants. This adsorption mechanism will increase their role as contaminant carriers in the aquatic food chain.

The association of prior paracetamol intake with outcome of very old intensive care patients with COVID-19: results from an international prospective multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

In the early COVID-19 pandemic concerns about the correct choice of analgesics in patients with COVID-19 were raised. Little data was available on potential usefulness or harmfulness of prescription free analgesics, such as paracetamol. This international multicentre study addresses that lack of evidence regarding the usefulness or potential harm of paracetamol intake prior to ICU admission in a setting of COVID-19 disease within a large, prospectively enrolled cohort of critically ill and frail intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

This prospective international observation study (The COVIP study) recruited ICU patients ≥ 70 years admitted with COVID-19. Data on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, prior paracetamol intake within 10 days before admission, ICU therapy, limitations of care and survival during the ICU stay, at 30 days, and 3 months. Paracetamol intake was analysed for associations with ICU-, 30-day- and 3-month-mortality using Kaplan Meier analysis. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses were used to stratify 30-day-mortality in subgroups for patient-specific characteristics using logistic regression.

RESULTS

44% of the 2,646 patients with data recorded regarding paracetamol intake within 10 days prior to ICU admission took paracetamol. There was no difference in age between patients with and without paracetamol intake. Patients taking paracetamol suffered from more co-morbidities, namely diabetes mellitus (43% versus 34%, p < 0.001), arterial hypertension (70% versus 65%, p = 0.006) and had a higher score on Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; IQR 2-5 versus IQR 2-4, p < 0.001). Patients under prior paracetamol treatment were less often subjected to intubation and vasopressor use, compared to patients without paracetamol intake (65 versus 71%, p < 0.001; 63 versus 69%, p = 0.007). Paracetamol intake was not associated with ICU-, 30-day- and 3-month-mortality, remaining true after multivariate adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSION

Paracetamol intake prior to ICU admission was not associated with short-term and 3-month mortality in old, critically ill intensive care patients suffering from COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This prospective international multicentre study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier "NCT04321265" on March 25, 2020.

Effect of the Duration of NSAID Use on COVID-19

Background and Objectives: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to control pain and fever. However, their effect on COVID-19 infected patients has not been fully studied. In this study, we investigated the effect of the duration of NSAIDs use on COVID-19 infection and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: In South Korea, 25,739 eligible patients who received COVID-19 testing between 1 January and 31 July 2020, were included in this retrospective observational cohort analysis. Based on the date of the first COVID-19 test for each patient, NSAID prescription dates were used to separate patients into two groups (short-term group: <2 weeks; long-term group: 8−12 weeks). COVID-19 infectivity and clinical outcomes were analyzed. We used the propensity score-matching (PSM) method. Results: Of the 580 patients who had taken NSAIDs before the date of COVID-19 test, 534 and 46 patients were grouped in the short- and long-term NSAID-use groups, respectively. We did not find a statistically significant increased risk of COVID-19 infection (adjustment for age and sex, p = 0.413; adjustment for age, sex, region of residence, comorbidity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and current use of medication, p = 0.259) or change in clinical outcomes, including conventional oxygen therapy, admission of intensive care unit, artificial ventilation, or death, between the two groups in which the PSM method was applied. Conclusions: The duration of NSAIDs use did not have a statistically significant effect on COVID-19 infectivity or clinical outcomes. However, further studies looking at clinical presentation and laboratory test results in a large number of people should be performed.

The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in COVID-19

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, anecdotal reports emerged suggesting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase susceptibility to infection and adversely impact clinical outcomes. This narrative literature review (March 2020–July 2021) attempted to clarify the relationship between NSAID use and COVID-19 outcomes related to disease susceptibility or severity. Twenty-four relevant publications (covering 25 studies) reporting original research data were identified; all were observational cohort studies, and eight were described as retrospective. Overall, these studies are consistent in showing that NSAIDs neither increase the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection nor worsen outcomes in patients with COVID-19. This is reflected in current recommendations from major public health authorities across the world, which support NSAID use for analgesic or antipyretic treatment during COVID-19. Thus, there is no basis on which to restrict or prohibit use of these drugs by consumers or patients to manage their health conditions and symptoms during the pandemic.

NSAID use and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a 38-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to reduce pain, fever, and inflammation but have been associated with complications in community-acquired pneumonia. Observations shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 suggested that ibuprofen was associated with an increased risk of adverse events in COVID-19 patients, but subsequent observational studies failed to demonstrate increased risk and in one case showed reduced risk associated with NSAID use.

METHODS

A 38-center retrospective cohort study was performed that leveraged the harmonized, high-granularity electronic health record data of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative. A propensity-matched cohort of 19,746 COVID-19 inpatients was constructed by matching cases (treated with NSAIDs at the time of admission) and 19,746 controls (not treated) from 857,061 patients with COVID-19 available for analysis. The primary outcome of interest was COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, which was classified as: moderate, severe, or mortality/hospice. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), invasive ventilation, and all-cause mortality at any time following COVID-19 diagnosis.

RESULTS

Logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased COVID-19 severity (OR: 0.57 95% CI: 0.53-0.61). Analysis of secondary outcomes using logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.51 95% CI: 0.47-0.56), invasive ventilation (OR: 0.59 95% CI: 0.55-0.64), AKI (OR: 0.67 95% CI: 0.63-0.72), or ECMO (OR: 0.51 95% CI: 0.36-0.7). In contrast, the odds ratios indicate reduced risk of these outcomes, but our quantitative bias analysis showed E-values of between 1.9 and 3.3 for these associations, indicating that comparatively weak or moderate confounder associations could explain away the observed associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Recording of NSAID use may have been incomplete. Our study demonstrates that NSAID use is not associated with increased COVID-19 severity, all-cause mortality, invasive ventilation, AKI, or ECMO in COVID-19 inpatients. A conservative interpretation in light of the quantitative bias analysis is that there is no evidence that NSAID use is associated with risk of increased severity or the other measured outcomes. Our results confirm and extend analogous findings in previous observational studies using a large cohort of patients drawn from 38 centers in a nationally representative multicenter database.

Chronic use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen and relationship with mortality among United States Veterans after testing positive for COVID-19

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen are among the most-frequently used medications. Although these medications have different mechanisms of action, they have similar indications and treatment duration has been positively correlated with cardiovascular risk although the degree of risk varies by medication. Our objective was to study treatment effects of chronic use of individual NSAID medications and acetaminophen on all-cause mortality among patients who tested positive for COVID-19 while accounting for adherence. We used the VA national datasets in this retrospective cohort study to differentiate between sporadic and chronic medication use: sporadic users filled an NSAID within the last year, but not recently or regularly. Using established and possible risk factors for severe COVID-19, we used propensity scores analysis to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. Then, we used multivariate logistic regression incorporating inverse propensity score weighting to assess mortality. The cohort consisted of 28,856 patients. Chronic use of aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, meloxicam, celecoxib, diclofenac or acetaminophen was not associated with significant differences in mortality at 30 days (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.95-1.00; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.00; OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.00; OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.01; and OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02, respectively) nor at 60 days (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-1.00; OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.01; OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.01; and OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02, respectively). Although the study design cannot determine causality, the study should assure patients as it finds no association between mortality and chronic use of these medications compared with sporadic NSAID use among those infected with COVID-19.

Increased Risk of COVID-19 in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A General Population-Based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of acquiring infections owing to immunologic dysfunction and use of potent immunomodulatory medications; however, few data are available on their risk of COVID-19. We estimated the rate of COVID-19 among RA participants and compared it with that of the general population.

METHODS

Using the Health Improvement Network, we identified RA patients before February 2020 and followed them to September 2020. We calculated the rate of COVID-19 among participants with RA and compared it with that of the general population using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for potential confounders using overlap weighting of exposure score. We repeated the same analysis among participants with osteoarthritis, a nonautoimmune rheumatic disease, as a negative control exposure.

RESULTS

We identified 225 cases of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 among 17,268 RA patients, and 14,234 cases among 1,616,600 participants in the general population (1.4 versus 0.9/1,000 person-months), with the adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj ) being 1.19 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.04-1.36). Confirmed COVID-19 cases developed in 46 RA participants and in 2,249 in the general population (0.3 versus 0.1/1,000 person-months), with the HRadj being 1.42 (95% CI 1.01-1.95). No statistically significant difference was observed for suspected and confirmed (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]) or confirmed (HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.92-1.27]) COVID-19 rates between participants with osteoarthritis and the general population.

CONCLUSION

RA, but not osteoarthritis, was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19. Our findings provide timely evidence to support recommendations that booster vaccines and priority access to anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatments should be encouraged for RA patients.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not).

Findings

Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2  = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2  = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2  = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2  = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2  = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2  = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2  = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death.

Interpretation

Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings.

Funding

There was no funding source for this study.

En quoi la Covid-19 concerne la prise en charge des rhumatismes inflammatoires ? Place de la vaccination selon les cas

La pandémie de Covid-19 a clairement impacté la prise en charge des rhumatismes inflammatoires chroniques (RIC) en termes de rupture de suivi et de rupture de traitement en raison du risque d’infection sévère liée à la maladie et aux traitements immuno-modulateurs. Des traitements permettent maintenant de prévenir ces formes sévères incluant des vaccins et des anticorps monoclonaux spécifiques dirigés contre la protéine « Spike » du virus SARS-CoV2. Parmi les traitements utilisés dans les RIC, les corticoïdes et le rituximab apparaissent clairement comme associés à une forme sévère de la Covid. La réponse humorale vaccinale après vaccination avec des vaccins à ARN messager (ARNm) apparaît diminuée sous méthotrexate, abatacept et surtout rituximab. Des schémas vaccinaux spécifiques ont déjà été proposés pour les patients sous rituximab et devraient s’affiner au fur et à mesure des connaissances car ces vaccins devraient s’inscrire maintenant dans le calendrier vaccinal de nos patients. Pour ceux qui ne développent pas d’anticorps après un schéma vaccinal complet, l’association d’anticorps casirivimab et imdévimab peut être administrée mensuellement en préventif ou en post-exposition.

NSAID use and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: A 38-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to reduce pain, fever, and inflammation but have been associated with complications in community-acquired pneumonia. Observations shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 suggested that ibuprofen was associated with an increased risk of adverse events in COVID-19 patients, but subsequent observational studies failed to demonstrate increased risk and in one case showed reduced risk associated with NSAID use.

METHODS

A 38-center retrospective cohort study was performed that leveraged the harmonized, high-granularity electronic health record data of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative. A propensity-matched cohort of COVID-19 inpatients was constructed by matching cases (treated with NSAIDs) and controls (not treated) from 857,061 patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome of interest was COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, which was classified as: moderate, severe, or mortality/hospice. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), invasive ventilation, and all-cause mortality at any time following COVID-19 diagnosis.

RESULTS

Logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased COVID-19 severity (OR: 0.57 95% CI: 0.53-0.61). Analysis of secondary outcomes using logistic regression showed that NSAID use was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.51 95% CI: 0.47-0.56), invasive ventilation (OR: 0.59 95% CI: 0.55-0.64), AKI (OR: 0.67 95% CI: 0.63-0.72), or ECMO (OR: 0.51 95% CI: 0.36-0.7). In contrast, the odds ratios indicate reduced risk of these outcomes, but our quantitative bias analysis showed E-values of between 1.9 and 3.3 for these associations, indicating that comparatively weak or moderate confounder associations could explain away the observed associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Recording of NSAID use may have been incomplete. Our study demonstrates that NSAID use is not associated with increased COVID-19 severity, all-cause mortality, invasive ventilation, AKI, or ECMO in COVID-19 inpatients. A conservative interpretation in light of the quantitative bias analysis is that there is no evidence that NSAID use is associated with risk of increased severity or the other measured outcomes. Our findings are the largest EHR-based analysis of the effect of NSAIDs on outcome in COVID-19 patients to date. Our results confirm and extend analogous findings in previous observational studies using a large cohort of patients drawn from 38 centers in a nationally representative multicenter database.

Risk and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR recommendations

OBJECTIVES

Perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on risk and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

Literature was searched up to 31 May 2021, including (randomised) controlled trials and observational studies with patients with RMD. Pending quality assessment, data extraction was performed and risk of bias (RoB) was assessed. Quality assessment required provision of (1) an appropriate COVID-19 case definition, and (2a) a base incidence (for incidence data) or (2b) a comparator, >10 cases with the outcome and risk estimates minimally adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities (for risk factor data).

RESULTS

Of 5165 records, 208 were included, of which 90 passed quality assessment and data were extracted for incidence (n=42), risk factor (n=42) or vaccination (n=14). Most studies had unclear/high RoB. Generally, patients with RMDs do not face more risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 (n=26 studies) or worse prognosis of COVID-19 (n=14) than individuals without RMDs. No consistent differences in risk of developing (severe) COVID-19 were found between different RMDs (n=19). Disease activity is associated with worse COVID-19 prognosis (n=2), possibly explaining the increased risk seen for glucocorticoid use (n=13). Rituximab is associated with worse COVID-19 prognosis (n=7) and possibly Janus kinase inhibitors (n=3). Vaccination is generally immunogenic, though antibody responses are lower than in controls. Vaccine immunogenicity is negatively associated with older age, rituximab and mycophenolate.

CONCLUSION

This SLR informed the July 2021 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of RMDs in the context of SARS-CoV-2.

Santos C, Baião RA, Costa J, Ferreira JJ, Caldeira D. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Severity Associated With Exposure to Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were thought to increase the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus entrance into cells. Hence, it was suggested in the media that NSAIDs could lead to a higher risk of infection and/or disease severity. To determine the existence or absence of this association, we aimed to systematically evaluate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality and the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with previous exposure to NSAIDs. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE were searched in February 2021 for controlled studies. The results were calculated through random-effect meta-analyses and reported in terms of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 test. Eleven studies were included, comprising a total of 683 715 patients. NSAID exposure did not increase the risk of having a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.85-1.11, I2 = 24%; 5 studies). The exposure to NSAIDs did not increase the risk of severe/critical COVID-19 disease (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.80-1.05; I2 = 0%; 5 studies) nor all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19 (OR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.75-0.99; I2 = 14%, 4 studies). Our data did not suggest that exposure to NSAIDs increases the risk of having SARS-CoV-2 infection or increases the severity of COVID-19 disease. Also, the fragility of the studies included precludes definite conclusions and highlights the need for further robust data.

Begünstigen nichtsteroidale Antiphlogistika COVID-19?

Seit Beginn der gegenwärtigen SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie wird immer wieder diskutiert, ob die Einnahme nichtsteroidaler Antiphlogistika (NSAIDs) für eine Infektion mit dem Virus prädisponiert oder deren Verlauf ungünstig beeinflusst. Ein britisches Forscherteam ging dieser Frage nun im Rahmen einer retrospektiven, populationsbasierten Kohortenstudie nach.

NSAIDs and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been discouraged for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, fearing that they could increase the risk of infection or the severity of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

Original studies providing information on exposure to NSAIDs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were retrieved and were included in a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis with Cochrane Revue Manager (REVMAN 5.4), using inverse variance odds ratio (OR) with random- or fixed-effects models.

Results

Of 92,853 papers mentioning COVID-19, 266 mentioned NSAIDs and 61 mentioned ibuprofen; 19 papers had analysable data. Three papers described NSAID exposure and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, five papers described the risk of hospital admission in positive patients, 10 papers described death, and six papers described severe composite outcomes. Five papers studied exposure to ibuprofen and death. Using random-effects models, there was no excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–1.05). In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, exposure to NSAIDs was not associated with excess risk of hospital admission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80–1.17), death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80–0.98), or severe outcomes (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90–1.44). With ibuprofen, there was no increased risk of death (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78–1.13). Using a fixed-effect model did not modify the results, nor did the sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

The theoretical risks of NSAIDs or ibuprofen in SARS-CoV-2 infection are not confirmed by observational data.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-021-01089-5.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and glucocorticoids in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by a wide spectrum of symptom severity, which is manifested at different phases of infection and demands different levels of care. Viral load, host innate-immune response to SARS-CoV-2, and comorbidities have a direct impact on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients and determine the diverse disease trajectories. The initial SARS-CoV-2 penetrance and replication in the host causes death of infected cells, determining the viral response. SARS-CoV-2 replication in the host triggers the activation of host antiviral immune mechanisms, determining the inflammatory response. While a healthy immune response is essential to eliminate infected cells and prevent spread of the virus, a dysfunctional immune response can result in a cytokine storm and hyperinflammation, contributing to disease progression. Current therapies for COVID-19 target the virus and/or the host immune system and may be complicated in their efficacy by comorbidities. Here we review the evidence for use of two classes of anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of COVID-19. We consider the clinical evidence regarding the timing and efficacy of their use, their potential limitations, current recommendations and the prospect of future studies by these and related therapies.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease.

METHODS

This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations.

RESULTS

Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no significant differences in severity between exposure groups. After adjusting for explanatory variables, NSAID use was not associated with worse in-hospital mortality (matched OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·84-1·07; p=0·35), critical care admission (1·01, 0·87-1·17; p=0·89), requirement for invasive ventilation (0·96, 0·80-1·17; p=0·69), requirement for non-invasive ventilation (1·12, 0·96-1·32; p=0·14), requirement for oxygen (1·00, 0·89-1·12; p=0·97), or occurrence of acute kidney injury (1·08, 0·92-1·26; p=0·33).

INTERPRETATION

NSAID use is not associated with higher mortality or increased severity of COVID-19. Policy makers should consider reviewing issued advice around NSAID prescribing and COVID-19 severity.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council.

A comprehensive guide to the pharmacologic regulation of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the SARS-CoV-2 entry receptor

The recent emergence of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) as a global pandemic has prompted scientists to address an urgent need for defining mechanisms of disease pathology and treatment. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent for COVID-19, employs angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as its primary target for cell surface attachment and likely entry into the host cell. Thus, understanding factors that may regulate the expression and function of ACE2 in the healthy and diseased body is critical for clinical intervention. Over 66% of all adults in the United States are currently using a prescription drug and while earlier findings have focused on possible upregulation of ACE2 expression through the use of renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, mounting evidence suggests that various other widely administered drugs used in the treatment of hypertension, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemias, coagulation disorders, and pulmonary disease may also present a varied risk for COVID-19. Specifically, we summarize mechanisms on how heparin, statins, steroids and phytochemicals, besides their established therapeutic effects, may also interfere with SARS-CoV-2 viral entry into cells. We also describe evidence on the effect of several vitamins, phytochemicals, and naturally occurring compounds on ACE2 expression and activity in various tissues and disease models. This comprehensive review aims to provide a timely compendium on the potential impact of commonly prescribed drugs and pharmacologically active compounds on COVID-19 pathology and risk through regulation of ACE2 and RAS signaling.

Tackling Immune Pathogenesis of COVID-19 through Molecular Pharmaceutics

An increasing number of clinical studies worldwide are investigating the repurposing of antiviral, immune-modulatory, and anti-inflammatory agents to face the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Nevertheless, few effective therapies exist to prevent or treat COVID-19, which demands increased drug discovery and repurposing efforts. In fact, many currently tested drugs show unknown efficacy and unpredictable drug interactions, such that interventions are needed to guarantee access to effective and safe medicines. Anti-inflammatory therapy has proven to be effective in preventing further injury in COVID-19 patients, but the benefit comes at a cost, as targeting inflammatory pathways can imply an increased risk of infection. Thus, optimization of the risk/benefit ratio is required in the anti-inflammatory strategy against COVID-19, which accounts for drug formulations and delivery towards regionalization and personalization of treatment approaches. In this perspective, we discuss how better knowledge of endogenous immunomodulatory pathways may optimize the clinical use of novel and repurposed drugs against COVID-19 in inpatient, outpatient, and home settings through innovative drug discovery, appropriate drug delivery systems and dedicated molecular pharmaceutics.

Clinical Management of Hypertension, Inflammation and Thrombosis in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Impact on Survival and Concerns

The most severe clinical manifestations of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), are due to an unbalanced immune response and a pro-thrombotic hemostatic disturbance, with arterial hypertension or diabetes as acknowledged risk factors. While waiting for a specific treatment, the clinical management of hospitalized patients is still a matter of debate, and the effectiveness of treatments to manage clinical manifestations and comorbidities has been questioned. In this study, we aim to assess the impact of the clinical management of arterial hypertension, inflammation and thrombosis on the survival of COVID-19 patients. The Spanish cohorts included in this observational retrospective study are from HM Hospitales (2035 patients) and from Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (72 patients). Kaplan Meier survival curves, Cox regression and propensity score matching analyses were employed, considering demographic variables, comorbidities and treatment arms (when opportune) as covariates. The management of arterial hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers is not detrimental, as was initially reported, and neither was the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). On the contrary, our analysis shows that the use on itself of corticosteroids is not beneficial. Importantly, the management of COVID-19 patients with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as an anticoagulant significantly improves the survival of hospitalized patients. These results delineate the current treatment options under debate, supporting the effectiveness of thrombosis prophylaxis on COVID-19 patients as a first-line treatment without the need for compromising the treatment of comorbidities, while suggesting cautiousness when administering corticosteroids.