Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of nonsevere COVID-19 patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials

Comprehensive analysis of gastrointestinal side effects in COVID-19 patients undergoing combined pharmacological treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several drugs were repositioned and combined to quickly find a way to mitigate the effects of the infection. However, the adverse effects of these combinations on the gastrointestinal tract are unknown. We aimed investigate whether Hydroxychloroquine (HD), Azithromycin (AZ), and Ivermectin (IV) used in combination for the treatment of COVID-19, can lead to the development of gastrointestinal disorders. This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted using Stata and Revman software, respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023372802). A search of clinical trials in Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov conducted on November 26, 2023. The eligibility of the studies was assessed based on PICO criteria, including trials that compared different treatments and control group. The analysis of the quality of the evidence was carried out according to the GRADE. Six trials involving 1,686 COVID-19 patients were included. No trials on the association of HD or AZ with IV met the inclusion criteria, only studies on the association between HD and AZ were included. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and increased transaminases were related. The symptoms of vomiting and nausea were evaluated through a network meta-analysis, while the symptom of abdominal pain was evaluated through a meta-analysis. No significant associations with these symptoms were observed for HD, AZ, or their combination, compared to control. Low heterogeneity and absence of inconsistency in indirect and direct comparisons were noted. Limitations included small sample sizes, varied drug dosages, and potential publication bias during the pandemic peak. This review unveils that there are no associations between gastrointestinal adverse effects and the combined treatment of HD with AZ in the management of COVID-19, as compared to either the use of a control group or the administration of the drugs individually, on the other hand, highlighting the very low or low certainty of evidence for the evaluated outcomes. To accurately conclude the absence of side effects, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.

Ivermectin role in COVID-19 treatment (IRICT): single-center, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to hydroxychloroquine and placebo in hospitalized moderate to severe COVID-19 patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was an adaptive, randomized, double-blinded, controlled, single-center trial. The study was a series of 3-arm comparisons between two different investigational therapeutic agents (ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine) and a placebo. There was interim monitoring to allow early stopping for futility, efficacy, or safety.

RESULTS

Ivermectin decreased survival time from 29 to 18.3 days (HR, 9.8, 95%CI, 3.7-26.2), while it did not shorten the recovery time (HR, 1.02, 95%CI, 0.69-1.5). Subgroup analysis showed an association between ivermectin-related mortality and baseline oxygen saturation level. Moreover, stratified groups showed higher risk among patients on high flow O2. Hydroxychloroquine delayed recovery from 10.1 to 12.5 days (HR, 0.62, 95%CI, 0.4-0.95) and non-significantly decreased survival time from 29 to 26.8 days (HR, 1.47, 95%CI, 0.73-2.9). However, 3 months mortality rates were increased with hydroxychloroquine (RR, 2.05, 95%CI, 1.33-3.16). Neither ivermectin nor hydroxychloroquine increased adverse events and demonstrated safety profile compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The study recommends against using either ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with any degree of severity. Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is: NCT04746365.

Safety of Short-Term Treatments with Oral Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with and without COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have recently become the focus of global attention as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current systematic review aims to assess their safety in short treatments (≤14 days), whether used alone or in combination with other drugs. Following the PRISMA and SWiM recommendations, a search was conducted using four health databases for all relevant English-, Chinese-, and Spanish-language studies from inception through 30 July 2021. Patients treated for any condition and with any comparator were included. The outcomes of interest were early drug adverse effects and their frequency. A total of 254 articles met the inclusion criteria, including case and case-control reports as well as cross-sectional, cohort, and randomised studies. The results were summarised either qualitatively in table or narrative form or, when possible (99 studies), quantitatively in terms of adverse event frequencies. Quality evaluation was conducted using the CARE, STROBE, and JADAD tools. This systematic review showed that safety depended on drug indication. In COVID-19 patients, cardiac adverse effects, such as corrected QT interval prolongation, were relatively frequent (0–27.3% and up to 33% if combined with azithromycin), though the risk of torsade de pointes was low. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients, COVID-19 patients experienced a higher frequency of cardiac adverse effects regardless of the regimen used. Dermatological adverse effects affected 0–10% of patients with autoimmune diseases and COVID-19. A broad spectrum of neuropsychiatric adverse effects affected patients treated with CQ for malaria with variable frequencies and some cases were reported in COVID-19 patients. Gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred regardless of drug indication affecting 0–50% of patients. In conclusion, CQ and HCQ are two safe drugs widely used in the treatment of malaria and autoimmune diseases. However, recent findings on their cardiac and neuropsychiatric adverse effects should be considered if these drugs were to be proposed as antivirals again.

Guidelines on the treatment with integrated traditional Chinese medicine and western medicine for severe coronavirus disease 2019

Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by numerous complications, complex disease, and high mortality, making its treatment a top priority in the treatment of COVID-19. Integrated traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and western medicine played an important role in the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of COVID-19 during the epidemic. However, currently there are no evidence-based guidelines for the integrated treatment of severe COVID-19 with TCM and western medicine. Therefore, it is important to develop an evidence-based guideline on the treatment of severe COVID-19 with integrated TCM and western medicine, in order to provide clinical guidance and decision basis for healthcare professionals, public health personnel, and scientific researchers involved in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of COVID-19 patients. We developed and completed the guideline by referring to the standardization process of the "WHO handbook for guideline development", the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT).

A hitchhiker's guide through the COVID-19 galaxy

Numerous reviews have summarized the epidemiology, pathophysiology and the various therapeutic aspects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but a practical guide on "how to treat whom with what and when" based on an understanding of the immunological background of the disease stages remains missing. This review attempts to combine the current knowledge about the immunopathology of COVID-19 with published evidence of available and emerging treatment options. We recognize that the information about COVID-19 and its treatment is rapidly changing, but hope that this guide offers those on the frontline of this pandemic an understanding of the host response in COVID-19 patients and supports their ongoing efforts to select the best treatments tailored to their patient's clinical status.

Keeping Meta-Analyses Hygienic During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Despite the massive distribution of different vaccines globally, the current pandemic has revealed the crucial need for an efficient treatment against COVID-19. Meta-analyses have historically been extremely useful to determine treatment efficacy but recent debates about the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients resulted in contradictory meta-analytical results. Different factors during the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted key features of conducting a good meta-analysis. Some meta-analyses did not evaluate or treat substantial heterogeneity (I² > 75%); others did not include additional analysis for publication bias; none checked for evidence of p–hacking in the primary studies nor used recent methods (i.e., p-curve or p-uniform) to estimate the average population-size effect. These inconsistencies may contribute to contradictory results in the research evaluating COVID-19 treatments. A prominent example of this is the use of hydroxychloroquine, where some studies reported a large positive effect, whereas others indicated no significant effect or even increased mortality when hydroxychloroquine was used with the antibiotic azithromycin. In this paper, we first recall the benefits and fundamental steps of good quality meta-analysis. Then, we examine various meta-analyses on hydroxychloroquine treatments for COVID-19 patients that led to contradictory results and causes for this discrepancy. We then highlight recent tools that contribute to evaluate publication bias and p-hacking (i.e., p-curve, p-uniform) and conclude by making technical recommendations that meta-analyses should follow even during extreme global events such as a pandemic.

In Silico Target Analysis of Treatment for COVID-19 Using Huang-Lian-Shang-Qing-Wan, a Traditional Chinese Medicine Formula

Due to the significantly negative impact of the coronavirus (CoV) disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the health of the community and the economy, it remains urgent and necessary to develop a safe and effective treatment method for COVID-19. Huang-Lian-Shang-Qing-Wan (HLSQW) is a herbal formula of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) that has been applied extensively for treating “wind-heat-associated” symptoms in the upper parts of the body. The objective of the present in silico study was to investigate the potential effects of HLSQW in the context of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 infection. We analyzed the possible interactions between bioactive compounds within HLSQW on targets that may confer antiviral activity using network pharmacology and pharmacophore-based screening. HLSQW was found to potentially target a number of pathways and the expression of various genes to regulate cell physiology and, consequently, the anti-viral effects against SARS-CoV-2. Bioactive compounds contained within HLSQW may exert combined effects to reduce the production of proinflammatory factors, which may trigger the “cytokine storm” in patients with severe COVID-19. Results from molecular modeling suggested that the bioactive HLSQW components puerarin, baicalin, and daidzin exhibit high binding affinity to the active site of 3-chymotrypsin-like cysteine protease (3CLpro) to form stable ligand-protein complexes, thereby suppressing SARS-CoV-2 replication. In addition, our results also demonstrated protective effects of the HLSQW extract against cell injury induced by the proinflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6, against reactive oxygen species production and nuclear factor-κB activity in normal human lung cells in vitro. To conclude, HLSQW is a potential TCM remedy that warrants further study with the aim of developing an effective treatment for COVID-19 in the future.

[COVID-19: Critical appraisal of the evidence]

We present the summary of a critical appraisal document of the available evidence on COVID-19, developed with a clinical practice guide format following GRADE methodology. The document tries to provide answers to a series of structured clinical questions, with an explicit definition of the population, intervention/exposure, comparison and outcome, and a rating of the clinical relevance of the outcome measures. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to answer the questions, grouped into six chapters: epidemiology, clinical practice, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and vaccination. We assessed the risk of bias of the selected studies with standard instruments (RoB-2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS and Newcastle-Ottawa). We constructed evidence tables and, when necessary and possible, meta-analysis of the of the most relevant outcome measures. We followed the GRADE system to synthesize the evidence, assessing its quality, and, when appropriate, giving recommendations, rated according to the quality of the evidence, the values and preferences, the balance between benefits, risks and costs, equity and feasibility.

COVID-19: Critical appraisal of the evidence

We present the summary of a critical appraisal document of the available evidence on COVID-19, developed with a clinical practice guide format following GRADE methodology. The document tries to provide answers to a series of structured clinical questions, with an explicit definition of the population, intervention / exposure, comparison and outcome, and a rating of the clinical relevance of the outcome measures. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to answer the questions, grouped into six chapters: epidemiology, clinical practice, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and vaccination. We assessed the risk of bias of the selected studies with standard instruments (RoB-2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS and Newcastle-Ottawa). We constructed evidence tables and, when necessary and possible, meta-analysis of the of the most relevant outcome measures. We followed the GRADE system to synthesise the evidence, assessing its quality, and, when appropriate, giving recommendations, rated according to the quality of the evidence, the values and preferences, the balance between benefits, risks and costs, equity and feasibility.

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

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