Effect of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Combination Use in COVID-19 Patients - An Umbrella Review

Background

Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin combination was used rampantly in management of COVID-19 patients in different countries. Present review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin combination compared to the control (standard care) and any adverse effect following this combination use in COVID-19 patients if any.

Material and Methods

We included all the systematic review with or without meta-analysis reporting the effect of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Azithromycin (AZM) combination use in COVID-19 patient using three databases namely PubMed, medline, CINHAL, Web of Science from July 2020 till Jan 2022.

Results

The systematic search strategy has identified 104 studies in total, after removal of duplicates only 4 systematic reviews were included in the qualitative synthesis. The various tools for assessing and reporting the data in the reviews were PRISMA, ROBINS-I, Robs2, AMSTAR, MASTER checklists. Mortality among the hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin combination group was significantly higher than among the Standard Care group. The duration of hospital stay in days was shorter in the Standard Care group in comparison with the hydroxychloroquine group or the hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination group. Of the 4 systematic reviews included, 3 had low risk of bias and one had unclear risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine combination did not shorten the duration of hospital stay.

Conclusion

Rampant use of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine alone or with Azithromycin combination caused adverse effects like QT prolongation. Finally, there is no evidence to support use of either Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin, for the treatment of COVID-19.

Real-Life Data on Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine with or Without Azithromycin in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Analysis in Brazil

BACKGROUND

Despite no evidence showing benefits of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine with or without azithromycin for COVID-19 treatment, these medications have been largely prescribed in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES

To assess outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, electrocardiographic abnormalities, hospital length-of-stay, admission to the intensive care unit, and need for dialysis and mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and to compare outcomes between those patients and their matched controls.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter cohort study that included consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients from 37 Brazilian hospitals from March to September 2020. Propensity score was used to select matching controls by age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, and in-hospital use of corticosteroid. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

From 7,850 COVID-19 patients, 673 (8.6%) received hydroxychloroquine and 67 (0.9%) chloroquine. The median age in the study group was 60 years (46 - 71) and 59.1% were women. During hospitalization, 3.2% of patients presented side effects and 2.2% required therapy discontinuation. Electrocardiographic abnormalities were more prevalent in the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine group (13.2% vs. 8.2%, p=0.01), and the long corrected QT interval was the main difference (3.6% vs. 0.4%, p<0.001). The median hospital length of stay was longer in the HCQ/CQ + AZT group than in controls (9.0 [5.0, 18.0] vs. 8.0 [4.0, 14.0] days). There was no statistical differences between groups in intensive care unit admission (35.1% vs. 32.0%; p=0.282), invasive mechanical ventilation support (27.0% vs. 22.3%; p=0.074) or mortality (18.9% vs. 18.0%; p=0.682).

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had a longer hospital length of stay, when compared to matched controls. Intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, dialysis and in-hospital mortality were similar.

Trends in COVID-19-Related Medication Use in US Nursing Homes, 2018-2022

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about how COVID-19 treatment patterns have evolved over time in nursing homes (NHs) despite the devastating effects of COVID-19 in this setting. The aim was to describe changes in COVID-19-related medication use over time among NH residents in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This study used electronic health records (EHR) from 11 different US NH corporations between January 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022.

METHODS

The use of medications approved for COVID-19-related conditions or known to be used off-label for COVID-19 during the study period is identified. We described trends in the use of each drug and combined use per 1000 NH residents over calendar time [quarters (Q)].

RESULTS

A total of 59,022 unique residents with the use of an eligible medication were identified. Hydroxychloroquine use sharply increased from 9.8 in 2020Q1 to 30.2 orders per 1000 individuals in 2020Q2. Dexamethasone use increased sharply from 14.8 in 2020Q2 to a peak of 121.9 orders per 1000 individuals in 2020Q4. Azithromycin use increased from 44.1 in 2019Q3 to a peak of 99.9 orders per 1000 individuals in 2020Q4, with a drop in 2020Q3 of 51.3 per 1000 individuals in 2020Q3. Concurrent use of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine increased sharply from 0.3 in 2020Q1 to 10.6 orders per 1000 residents in 2020Q2 and then drastically decreased to 0.6 per 1000 residents in 2020Q3. Concurrent use of dexamethasone and azithromycin rose considerably from 0.7 in 2020Q2 to 28.2 orders per 1000 residents in 2020Q4.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

As in other settings, COVID-19-related medication use in NHs appears to have changed in response to the shifting evidence base and availability of medications during the pandemic. Providers should continue to diligently modify their prescribing as new evidence accrues.

Low Rate of Bacterial Coinfections and Antibiotic Overprescribing During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study from Oman

Objectives

The recommended treatment for COVID-19 includes antiviral drugs, corticosteroids, immunomodulatory drugs, low molecular weight heparin, as well as antibiotics. Although COVID-19 is a viral disease, many studies indicate that antibiotics are prescribed frequently, mainly to treat suspected bacterial coinfection. At the same time, the prevalence of bacterial coinfections during COVID-19 is rather low indicating the significant antibiotic overuse in these patients. It is well known that this can trigger antibiotic bacterial resistance, and once it emerges the reversal of resistance is a complex and long-lasting process. The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of bacterial coinfections during the COVID-19 and to analyze the antibiotic treatment justification during this pandemic in Oman.

Methods

This retrospective analysis was conducted using the Royal Hospital COVID-19 Registry Database. The study analyzed demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as laboratory parameters and antibiotic treatment of hospitalized patients.

Results

During the study period, 584 patients were enrolled in the analysis. Coinfection was rare as it was confirmed in 0.9% of patients. Superinfections were present in 15.2% of patients. Gram-negative bacteria were isolated in 95 (69.9%) samples, gram-positive bacteria in 25 (18.4%) samples, while Candida spp. was found in 16 (11.8%) samples. On admission, empirical antibiotic treatment was started in 543 (93.0%) patients.

Conclusions

During COVID-19, coinfections are rarely seen and the overuse of antibiotics is not justified. The incidence of superinfections is the same as in other patients in healthcare settings caused by the same resistant microorganisms, which implies the use of even more.

Antimicrobial consumption and drug utilization patterns among COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVES

To understand differences in antimicrobial use between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. To compare two metrics commonly used for antimicrobial use: Defined Daily Dose (DDD) and Days of Therapy (DOT). To analyse the order in which antimicrobials were prescribed to COVID-19 patients using process mining techniques.

METHODS

We analysed data regarding all ICU admissions from 1 January 2018 to 14 September 2020, in 17 Brazilian hospitals. Our main outcome was the antimicrobial use estimated by the DDD and DOT (Days of Therapy). We compared clinical characteristics and antimicrobial consumption between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. We used process mining to evaluate the order in which the antimicrobial schemes were prescribed to each COVID-19 patient.

RESULTS

We analysed 68 405 patients admitted before the pandemic, 12 319 non-COVID-19 patients and 3240 COVID-19 patients. Comparing those admitted during the pandemic, the COVID-19 patients required advanced respiratory support more often (42% versus 12%). They also had longer ICU length of stay (6 versus 3 days), higher ICU mortality (18% versus 5.4%) and greater use of antimicrobials (70% versus 39%). Most of the COVID-19 treatments started with penicillins with ß-lactamase inhibitors (30%), third-generation cephalosporins (22%), or macrolides in combination with penicillins (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial prescription increased in Brazilian ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during the first months of the epidemic. We identified greater use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials by COVID-19 patients. Overall, the DDD metric overestimated antimicrobial use compared with the DOT metric.

Antibiotics with Antiviral and Anti-Inflammatory Potential Against Covid-19: A Review

In Covid-19 cases, elderly patients in long-term care facilities, children younger than five years with moderate symptoms, and patients admitted to ICU or with comorbidities are at a high risk of coinfection, as suggested by the evidence. Thus, in these patients, antibiotic therapy based on empirical evidence is necessary. Finding appropriate antimicrobial agents, especially with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, is a promising approach to target the virus and its complications, hyper-inflammation, and microorganisms resulting in co-infection. Moreover, indiscriminate use of antibiotics can be accompanied by Clostridioides difficile colitis, the emergence of resistant microorganisms, and adverse drug reactions, particularly kidney damage and QT prolongation. Therefore, rational administration of efficient antibiotics is an important issue. The main objective of the present review is to provide a summary of antibiotics with possible antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and anti-immunomodulatory effects to guide scientists for further research. Besides, the findings can help health professionals in the rational prescription of antibiotics in Covid-19 patients with a high risk of co-infection.

Monoclonal Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Results from a Real-Life Study before the Omicron Surge

Despite the lightning-fast advances in the management of SARS-CoV after 2 years of pandemic, COVID-19 continues to pose a challenge for fragile patients, who could benefit from early administration of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to reduce the risk of severe disease progression. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the effectiveness of mAbs against SARS-CoV-2 among patients at risk for severe disease progression, namely elderly and those with comorbidities, before the omicron variant surge. Patients were treated with either casirivimab/imdevimab, sotrovimab, or bamlanivimab/etesevimab. The rates and risk factors for clinical worsening, hospitalization, ICU admission and death (unfavorable outcomes) were evaluated. A stratified analysis according to the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG was also performed. Among 185 included patients, we showed low rates of unfavorable outcomes (9.2%), which were more frequent in patients with chronic kidney disease (aOR: 10.44, 95% CI: 1.73−63.03; p < 0.05) and basal D-dimer serum concentrations > 600 ng/mL (aOR 21.74, 95% CI: 1.18−397.70; p < 0.05). Patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 serology at baseline showed higher C-reactive protein values compared with patients with positive serology (p < 0.05) and a trend toward a higher admission rate to SICU and ICU compared with patients with positive serology. Our results thus showed, in a real-life setting, the efficacy of mAbs against SARS-CoV-2 before an Omicron surge when the available mabs become not effective.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.

Combination therapy with remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies protects nonhuman primates against advanced Sudan virus disease

A major challenge in managing acute viral infections is ameliorating disease when treatment is delayed. Previously, we reported the success of a 2-pronged mAb and antiviral remdesivir therapeutic approach to treat advanced illness in rhesus monkeys infected with Marburg virus (MARV). Here, we explored the benefit of a similar combination therapy for Sudan ebolavirus (Sudan virus; SUDV) infection. Importantly, no licensed anti-SUDV therapeutics currently exist, and infection of rhesus macaques with SUDV results in a rapid disease course similar to MARV with a mean time to death of 8.3 days. When initiation of therapy with either remdesivir or a pan-ebolavirus mAb cocktail (MBP431) was delayed until 6 days after inoculation, only 20% of macaques survived. In contrast, when remdesivir and MBP431 treatment were combined beginning 6 days after inoculation, significant protection (80%) was achieved. Our results suggest that combination therapy may be a viable treatment for patients with advanced filovirus disease that warrants further clinical testing in future outbreaks.

Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the behavior of self-medication has increased. The dissemination of misleading information regarding the efficacy of certain drugs or substances for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been the major contributing factor for this phenomenon. Alongside with the increase in self-medication behavior, the inherent risks to this act such as drug-drug interactions, adverse events, drug toxicity, and masking of symptoms have also increased. Self-medication in the context of COVID-19 has led to drug misuse leading in some cases to the development of fatal adverse drug reactions. It is important that during this ongoing pandemic drugs with potential clinical efficacy against COVID-19 are adequately analyzed regarding their efficacy, safety, and monitoring. The aim of this review is to describe the available evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and monitoring of the drugs and substances that have been shown to be frequently used for self-medication in patients with COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ivermectin, azithromycin, vitamins, aspirin, and chlorine dioxide) to adequately characterize their risks, safe use, monitoring strategies, and to reinforce the concept that these substances should not be used for self-medication and require a medical prescription.

Plain Language Summary

Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19 Dissemination of information about potential COVID-19 treatments has led individuals to self-medicate and expose themselves to risks such as drug-drug interactions, side effects, antibiotic resistance, and misdiagnosis. There is a need to review the medical literature to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the drugs and substances commonly used by the population for the treatment and prevention of SARS CoV-2 infection. In this review, we included drugs that are frequently used for self-medication and commonly advertised such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide, azithromycin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others. A brief introduction of the drug and its mechanism of action, followed by a summary of the efficacy in COVID-19 and safety, will be described for each drug in order to promote their responsible use.

Molecular Insights of SARS-CoV-2 Antivirals Administration: A Balance between Safety Profiles and Impact on Cardiovascular Phenotypes

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a complex clinical challenge, caused by a novel coronavirus, partially similar to previously known coronaviruses but with a different pattern of contagiousness, complications, and mortality. Since its global spread, several therapeutic agents have been developed to address the heterogeneous disease treatment, in terms of severity, hospital or outpatient management, and pre-existing clinical conditions. To better understand the rationale of new or old repurposed medications, the structure and host-virus interaction molecular bases are presented. The recommended agents by EDSA guidelines comprise of corticosteroids, JAK-targeting monoclonal antibodies, IL-6 inhibitors, and antivirals, some of them showing narrow indications due to the lack of large population trials and statistical power. The aim of this review is to present FDA-approved or authorized for emergency use antivirals, namely remdesivir, molnupinavir, and the combination nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and their impact on the cardiovascular system. We reviewed the literature for metanalyses, randomized clinical trials, and case reports and found positive associations between remdesivir and ritonavir administration at therapeutic doses and changes in cardiac conduction, relatable to their previously known pro-arrhythmogenic effects and important ritonavir interactions with cardioactive medications including antiplatelets, anti-arrhythmic agents, and lipid-lowering drugs, possibly interfering with pre-existing therapeutic regimens. Nonetheless, safety profiles of antivirals are largely questioned and addressed by health agencies, in consideration of COVID-19 cardiac and pro-thrombotic complications generally experienced by predisposed subjects. Our advice is to continuously adhere to the strict indications of FDA documents, monitor the possible side effects of antivirals, and increase physicians' awareness on the co-administration of antivirals and cardiovascular-relevant medications. This review dissects the global and local tendency to structure patient-based treatment plans, for a glance towards practical application of precision medicine.