Tocilizumab combined with favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19: A multicenter trial in a small sample size

Effect of tocilizumab plus corticosteroid on clinical outcome in patients hospitalized with severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging viral hemorrhagic fever with high fatality rates. The blockade of pro-inflammatory cytokines presents a promising therapeutic strategy.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized clinical trial at the 154th hospital, Xinyang, Henan Province. Eligible patients with severe SFTS disease were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to receive either a single intravenous infusion of tocilizumab plus usual care; or usual care only. The primary outcome was the clinical status of death/survival at day 14, while secondary outcomes included improvement from baseline in liver and kidney damage and time required for hospital discharge. The efficacy of tocilizumab plus corticosteroid was compared to those receiving corticosteroid alone. The trial is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry website (ChiCTR2300076317).

RESULTS

63 eligible patients were assigned to the tocilizumab group and 126 to the control group. The addition of tocilizumab to usual care was associated with a reduced death rate (9.5%) compared to those received only usual care (23.0%), with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.91, P = 0.029). Combination therapy of tocilizumab and corticosteroids was associated with a significantly reduced fatality (aHR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.56; P = 0.002) compared to those receiving corticosteroids alone.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant benefit of reducing fatality in severe SFTS patients was observed by using tocilizumab. A combined therapy of tocilizumab plus corticosteroids was recommended for the therapy of severe SFTS.

Harnessing immunity: Immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19

An overly exuberant immune response, characterized by a cytokine storm and uncontrolled inflammation, has been identified as a significant driver of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Consequently, deciphering the intricacies of immune dysregulation in COVID-19 is imperative to identify specific targets for intervention and modulation. With these delicate dynamics in mind, immunomodulatory therapies have emerged as a promising avenue for mitigating the challenges posed by COVID-19. Precision in manipulating immune pathways presents an opportunity to alter the host response, optimizing antiviral defenses while curbing deleterious inflammation. This review article comprehensively analyzes immunomodulatory interventions in managing COVID-19. We explore diverse approaches to mitigating the hyperactive immune response and its impact, from corticosteroids and non-steroidal drugs to targeted biologics, including anti-viral drugs, cytokine inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, cell-based therapies (i.e., CAR T, etc.). By summarizing the current evidence, we aim to provide a clear roadmap for clinicians and researchers navigating the complex landscape of immunomodulation in COVID-19 treatment.

Adverse drug reactions associated with COVID-19 management

The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak, which causes COVID-19, had a devastating impact on both people's lives and the global economy. During the course of the pandemic, the lack of specific drugs or treatments tailored for COVID-19 led to extensive repurposing of existing drugs in the pursuit of effective treatments. Some drug molecules demonstrated efficacy, while others proved ineffective. In this context, the approach of drug repurposing emerged as a novel strategy for combating COVID-19. Repurposed drugs and biologics have shown effectiveness, leading to improved clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19. Similarly, It is equally important to assess the risk-benefit ratio associated with drugs and biologics adapted for COVID-19 treatment. Herein, we primarily focus on evaluating adverse drug events linked to repurposed COVID-19 medications, repurposed biologics, and COVID-specific drug molecules.

Favipiravir for treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.

Favipiravir Analogues as Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase, Combined Quantum Chemical Modeling, Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship, and Molecular Docking Study

Our study was motivated by the urgent need to develop or improve antivirals for effective therapy targeting RNA viruses. We hypothesized that analogues of favipiravir (FVP), an inhibitor of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), could provide more effective nucleic acid recognition and binding processes while reducing side effects such as cardiotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, teratogenicity, and embryotoxicity. We proposed a set of FVP analogues together with their forms of triphosphate as new SARS-CoV-2 RdRp inhibitors. The main aim of our study was to investigate changes in the mechanism and binding capacity resulting from these modifications. Using three different approaches, QTAIM, QSPR, and MD, the differences in the reactivity, toxicity, binding efficiency, and ability to be incorporated by RdRp were assessed. Two new quantum chemical reactivity descriptors, the relative electro-donating and electro-accepting power, were defined and successfully applied. Moreover, a new quantitative method for comparing binding modes was developed based on mathematical metrics and an atypical radar plot. These methods provide deep insight into the set of desirable properties responsible for inhibiting RdRp, allowing ligands to be conveniently screened. The proposed modification of the FVP structure seems to improve its binding ability and enhance the productive mode of binding. In particular, two of the FVP analogues (the trifluoro- and cyano-) bind very strongly to the RNA template, RNA primer, cofactors, and RdRp, and thus may constitute a very good alternative to FVP.

Using Tocilizumab in Hematologic Malignant Patients with Severe COVID-19 Infection - Case Series Report

Background

Patients with hematologic malignancies usually have severe immunodeficiency and are much more likely to be severe after COVID-19 infection. Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and is recommended for treating severe conditions in the latest COVID-19 treatment guidelines. However, the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in hematologic malignancy patients have yet to be clarified. We report five hematologic malignancy patients with severe COVID-19 infection who were all successfully recovered with tocilizumab treatment.

Methods

We reported five hematologic malignant patients who developed severe COVID-19 infection and received tocilizumab at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in China from Dec 2022 to Mar 2023. We observed the effect of tocilizumab on COVID-19 infection and evaluated its safety.

Results

Five hematologic malignancy patients with severe COVID-19 infection were retrospectively enrolled. The dosage of tocilizumab was 400-480mg once; one patient used a second dose of tocilizumab on the third day of medication. After receiving tocilizumab treatment, all five patients experienced a rapid decrease in body temperature and C-reactive protein (CRP) within 24 hours and improved oxygen requirement within one to three days (one patient did not experience hypoxia). Chest CT scans after one week showed absorption of lung infection. The serum IL-6 levels of three patients showed an initial increase followed by a decrease. None of the patients experienced grade 3-4 hematologic or non-hematologic toxicity.

Conclusion

Tocilizumab can improve the outcome of severe COVID-19 infection in hematologic malignancy patients with severe immunodeficiency without severe adverse reactions.

Effectiveness of tocilizumab in non-intubated cases with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Tocilizumab, a monoclonal IL-6 receptor blocker, is an effective agent for severe-to-critical cases of COVID-19; however, its target patients for the optimum use need to be detailed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define its effect among severely ill but non-intubated cases with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medrxiv, and Biorxiv until February 13, 2022, for non-intubated cases, and included randomized-controlled trials (RCT) based on bias assessment. The primary outcomes were the requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. Random effect and fixed-effect models were used. The heterogeneity was measured using the χ2 and I2 statistics, with χ2 p ≤ 0.05 and I2 ≥ 50% indicating the presence of significant heterogeneity. We registered the study to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42021232575.

RESULTS

Among 261 articles, 11 RCTs were included. The pooled analysis of the 11 RCTs demonstrated that the rate of mortality was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group than in the control group (20.0% and 24.2%, OR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96, and heterogeneity I2 = 0%. p = 0.82.). The mechanical ventilation rate was lower in the tocilizumab group than the control group (27% vs 35.2%, OR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86, and heterogeneity I2 = 6%. p = 0.39).

CONCLUSION

Among non-intubated severe COVID-19 cases, tocilizumab reduces the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality compared to standard-of-care treatment.

Does tocilizumab have an effect on the clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients? A meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes associated with COVID-19.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted across Scopus, PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Elsevier), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Sciences to identify pertinent studies published until May 2022. The primary search terms included "tocilizumab" and "COVID-19". Following the formulation of the search strategy, all identified studies were screened, and the data extraction process was initiated. Subsequently, the Cochrane risk of bias checklist was employed to evaluate the risk of bias. The effects of tocilizumab were assessed utilizing the pooled risk ratio (RR) and the fixed effect model in STATA (version 17).

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, we analyzed 17 clinical trial studies to assess the impact of tocilizumab on mortality in patients with COVID-19. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for mortality was 0.93 (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.00; I2: 72.39%; P value: 0.001). The findings indicated that tocilizumab use was associated with a 4% increase in ICU hospitalization (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.20; I2: 0.00%; P value: 0.65). Additionally, tocilizumab administration was linked to a 2% reduction in the requirement for a ventilator (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.08; I2: 26.87%; P value: 0.16).

CONCLUSION

The administration of tocilizumab during the COVID-19 pandemic, prescribed to patients with the virus, exerted a noteworthy impact on reducing outcomes associated with COVID-19.

COVID myocarditis: a review of the literature

Myocarditis is a potentially fatal complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. COVID-19 myocarditis appears to have distinct inflammatory characteristics that distinguish it from other viral etiologies. COVID-19 myocarditis can present with symptoms ranging from dyspnea and chest pain to acute heart failure and death. It is critical to detect any cases of myocarditis, especially fulminant myocarditis, which can be characterized by signs of heart failure and arrhythmias. Serial troponins, echocardiography, and electrocardiograms should be performed as part of the initial workup for suspected myocarditis. The second step in detecting myocarditis is cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and endomyocardial biopsy. Treatment for COVID-19 myocarditis is still debatable; however, combining intravenous immunoglobulins and corticosteroids may be effective, especially in cases of fulminant myocarditis. Overall, more research is needed to determine the incidence of COVID-19 myocarditis , and the use of intravenous immunoglobulins and corticosteroids in combination requires large randomized controlled trials to determine efficacy. The purpose of this review is to summarize current evidence on the subject. This review aims to summarise current evidence on this topic.

Update on Myocarditis: From Etiology and Clinical Picture to Modern Diagnostics and Methods of Treatment

Although the frequency of myocarditis in the general population is very difficult to accurately determine due to the large number of asymptomatic cases, the incidence of this disease is increasing significantly due to better defined criteria for diagnosis and the development of modern diagnostic methods. The multitude of different etiological factors, the diversity of the clinical picture, and the variability of the diagnostic findings make this disease often demanding both for the selection of the diagnostic modality and for the proper therapeutic approach. The previously known most common viral etiology of this disease is today overshadowed by new findings based on immune-mediated processes, associated with diseases that in their natural course can lead to myocardial involvement, as well as the iatrogenic cause of myocarditis, which is due to use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer patients. Suspecting that a patient with polymorphic and non-specific clinical signs and symptoms, such as changes in ECG and echocardiography readings, has myocarditis is the starting point in the diagnostic algorithm. Cardio magnetic resonance imaging is non-invasive and is the gold standard for diagnosis and clinical follow-up of these patients. Endomyocardial biopsy as an invasive method is the diagnostic choice in life-threatening cases with suspicion of fulminant myocarditis where the diagnosis has not yet established or there is no adequate response to the applied therapeutic regimen. The treatment of myocarditis is increasingly demanding and includes conservative methods of treating heart failure, immunomodulatory and immunospressive therapy, methods of mechanical circulatory support, and heart transplantation. The goal of developing new diagnostic and therapeutic methods is to reduce mortality from this complex disease, which is still high.

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results.

Systematic review registration

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients with COVID-19 triggered hyperinflammation: the RuxCoFlam trial

Dysregulated hyperinflammatory response is key in the pathogenesis in patients with severe COVID-19 leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure. Whilst immunosuppression has been proven to be effective, potential biological targets and optimal timing of treatment are still conflicting. We sought to evaluate efficacy and safety of the Janus Kinase 1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib, employing the previously developed COVID-19 Inflammation Score (CIS) in a prospective multicenter open label phase II trial (NCT04338958). Primary objective was reversal of hyperinflammation (CIS reduction of ≥25% at day 7 in ≥20% of patients). In 184 patients with a CIS of ≥10 (median 12) ruxolitinib was commenced at an initial dose of 10 mg twice daily and applied over a median of 14 days (range, 2-31). On day 7, median CIS declined to 6 (range, 1-13); 71% of patients (CI 64-77%) achieved a ≥25% CIS reduction accompanied by a reduction of markers of inflammation. Median cumulative dose was 272.5 mg/d. Treatment was well tolerated without any grade 3-5 adverse events related to ruxolitinib. Forty-four patients (23.9%) died, all without reported association to study drug. In conclusion, ruxolitinib proved to be safe and effective in a cohort of COVID-19 patients with defined hyperinflammation.

Tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the repurposing of medicines has been pursued to find interventions effective in preventing fatal outcome of the disease. One of these drugs was tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 inhibiting monoclonal antibody, previously used to treat several immune-related disorders.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we present the results of the initial observational studies and subsequent randomized clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the treatment of COVID-19. Despite conflicting results, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the studied populations, large studies have ultimately proven that preventing IL-6 from attaching to its receptors can effectively reverse the fatal course of the disease. We also discuss the meta-analyses, which mostly supported the validity of tocilizumab therapy. We show how tocilizumab found its place in the most important recommendations on COVID-19 treatment and obtained authorization from the major regulatory authorities.

EXPERT OPINION

The criteria for optimizing tocilizumab therapy in COVID-19 still need to be established. They are also important considering the existing risks of future zoonotic spillovers and epidemics that may trigger hyperinflammation that could be efficiently blocked. The experience gained with tocilizumab shall be perceived as preparedness for future challenges.

Tocilizumab Outcomes in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the ICU and the Role of Non-Tocilizumab COVID-19-Specific Medical Therapeutics

Background: Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody proposed to manage cytokine release syndrome (CRS) associated with severe COVID-19. Previously published reports have shown that tocilizumab may improve the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. However, no precise data about the role of other medical therapeutics concurrently used for COVID-19 on this outcome have been published. Objectives: We aimed to compare the overall outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU who received tocilizumab with the outcome of matched patients who did not receive tocilizumab while controlling for other confounders, including medical therapeutics for critically ill patients admitted to ICUs. Methods: A prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study was conducted among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia between 1 March 2020, and October 31, 2020. Propensity-score matching was utilized to compare patients who received tocilizumab to patients who did not. In addition, the log-rank test was used to compare the 28 day hospital survival of patients who received tocilizumab with those who did not. Then, a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the matched groups was performed to evaluate the impact of the remaining concurrent medical therapeutics that could not be excluded via matching 28 day hospital survival rates. The primary outcome measure was patients’ overall 28 day hospital survival, and the secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay and ICU survival to hospital discharge. Results: A total of 1470 unmatched patients were included, of whom 426 received tocilizumab. The total number of propensity-matched patients was 1278. Overall, 28 day hospital survival revealed a significant difference between the unmatched non-tocilizumab group (586; 56.1%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.016), and this difference increased even more in the propensity-matched analysis between the non-tocilizumab group (466.7; 54.6%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.005). The matching model successfully matched the two groups’ common medical therapeutics used to treat COVID-19. Two medical therapeutics remained significantly different, favoring the tocilizumab group. A multivariate logistic regression was performed for the 28 day hospital survival in the propensity-matched patients. It showed that neither steroids (OR: 1.07 (95% CI: 0.75–1.53)) (p = 0.697) nor favipiravir (OR: 1.08 (95% CI: 0.61–1.9)) (p = 0.799) remained as a predictor for an increase in 28 day survival. Conclusion: The tocilizumab treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU improved the overall 28 day hospital survival, which might not be influenced by the concurrent use of other COVID-19 medical therapeutics, although further research is needed to confirm this.

An overview on the treatments and prevention against COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to plague the world. While COVID-19 is asymptomatic in most individuals, it can cause symptoms like pneumonia, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), and death in others. Although humans are currently being vaccinated with several COVID-19 candidate vaccines in many countries, however, the world still is relying on hygiene measures, social distancing, and approved drugs.

RESULT

There are many potential therapeutic agents to pharmacologically fight COVID-19: antiviral molecules, recombinant soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, corticosteroids, interferon therapies, and herbal agents. By an understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 structure and its infection mechanisms, several vaccine candidates are under development and some are currently in various phases of clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

This review describes potential therapeutic agents, including antiviral agents, biologic agents, anti-inflammatory agents, and herbal agents in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. In addition to reviewing the vaccine candidates that entered phases 4, 3, and 2/3 clinical trials, this review also discusses the various platforms that are used to develop the vaccine COVID-19.

Effectiveness of Favipiravir monotherapy in the treatment of COVID-19: Real world data analysis from Thailand

Background

Previous studies showed that Favipiravir, a selective viral ribonucleic acid dependent-ribonucleic acid polymerase inhibitor, exhibited a trend of clinical improvement within 14 days and promoted viral clearance by day 7, without reduction of mortality rate in COVID-19.

Methods

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Department of Medical Services (Thailand) formulated National Clinical Treatment Guidelines for COVID-19 and approved Favipiravir to eight medical centres. After treatment with Favipiravir monotherapy, we compared real-world data analysis to supportive treatment without antiviral agents.

Findings

We analysed 12,888 COVID-19 patients between June 1, 2021, and July 31, 2021. This group study excluded 66 asymptomatic and 4,634 COVID-19 patients treated with other antiviral agents. The 4,896 mild, 2,357 moderate, and 1,393 severe COVID-19 patients were analysed. All patients neither had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection nor received an mRNA vaccine during study period. Favipiravir monotherapy reduced the 28-day mortality risk in severe COVID-19 by relative risk (RR) = 0.72 (95% CI 0.58-0.91 P=0.006) after adjustment for aging and hypertension. However, in mild and moderate COVID-19, Favipiravir monotherapy did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality risk by RR = 0.59 (95% CI 0.06- 5.43 P=0.65) after adjustment for aging, and RR = 0.60 (95% CI 0.32-1.13 P=0.11) after adjustment for aging and obesity, respectively. In the patient with recovery, Favipiravir monotherapy exhibited a shortening time to recovery when compared to supportive treatment without antiviral agents (mean + SD by 9.6+ 7.1 vs. 12.9 +7.6 days: P<0.0001, 10.0+5.9 vs. 12.4 + 5.3 days: P<0.0001, and 11.2 +7.8 vs. 13.1+ 8.0 days: P<0.0001 in mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 respectively).

Interpretation

Real-world data analysis showed that favipiravir monotherapy was superior to supportive treatment without antiviral agents in shortening the recovery time in surviving patients and significantly reducing 28-day mortality risk in severe COVID-19.

Funding

Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand.

[Myocarditis related SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination: an expert consensus statement on its diagnosis and management]

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has revealed several cardiovascular complications, including myocarditis caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) or after messenger RNA vaccines. The high prevalence of COVID-19, vaccination programs expansion, and the appearance of new information regarding myocarditis in these contexts make it necessary to condense the knowledge acquired since the pandemic began. With this aim, the Myocarditis Working Group of the Heart Failure Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology, with the collaboration of the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products (AEMPS), has written this document. It aims to address the diagnosis and treatment of cases of myocarditis-associated SARS-CoV-2 infection or messenger RNA vaccine.

Tocilizumab-coated solid lipid nanoparticles loaded with cannabidiol as a novel drug delivery strategy for treating COVID-19: A review

Commonly used clinical strategies against coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), including the potential role of monoclonal antibodies for site-specific targeted drug delivery, are discussed here. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) tailored with tocilizumab (TCZ) and loading cannabidiol (CBD) are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19 by oral route. TCZ, as a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody and an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor agonist, can attenuate cytokine storm in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. CBD (an anti-inflammatory cannabinoid and TCZ agonist) alleviates anxiety, schizophrenia, and depression. CBD, obtained from Cannabis sativa L., is known to modulate gene expression and inflammation and also shows anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties. It has also been recognized to modulate angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2) expression in SARS-CoV-2 target tissues. It has already been proven that immunosuppressive drugs targeting the IL-6 receptor may ameliorate lethal inflammatory responses in COVID-19 patients. TCZ, as an immunosuppressive drug, is mainly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, although several attempts have been made to use it in the active hyperinflammatory phase of COVID-19, with promising outcomes. TCZ is currently administered intravenously. It this review, we discuss the potential advances on the use of SLN for oral administration of TCZ-tailored CBD-loaded SLN, as an innovative platform for managing SARS-CoV-2 and related infections.

How pragmatic are randomized trials of remdesivir and favipiravir for in-hospital treatment of COVID-19: a descriptive methodological review of trial design using the PRECIS-2 framework

OBJECTIVES

To review the pragmatism of published randomized trials of remdesivir and favipiravir based on the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) framework.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Ten eligible trials were identified from an existing comprehensive living review and were evaluated across the nine PRECIS-2 domains by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

All 10 trials had mostly pragmatic design characteristics. Four of the domains (i.e., recruitment, setting, organization, and primary analysis) were found to be pragmatic with most trials scoring four or five across the two interventions. In comparison scores for four other design domains (i.e., eligibility, follow-up, flexibility of delivery, and primary outcome) varied across the trials with some design choices being more explanatory.

CONCLUSION

In our descriptive review of randomized controlled trails for two drugs for patients infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, we found that most trials had more pragmatic than explanatory characteristics. Some design choices for some of the trials, however, were not consistent with the urgent goal of informing clinical decision making in an epidemic. PRECIS-2 should be used as a guide by trialists, to help them match their trial design choices to the intended purpose of their trial.

Thrombotic storm in coronavirus disease 2019: from underlying mechanisms to its management

Introduction. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, is associated with high mortality rates worldwide.

Hypothesis/Gap Statement. Thrombotic problems, such as coagulopathy, are common in COVID-19 patients. Despite anticoagulation, thrombosis is more common in patients in the intensive care unit and patients with more severe disease. Although the exact mechanisms of coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients are still unclear, studies showed that overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), cytokine storm, endothelial damage, formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), and also extracellular vesicles (EVs) in response to COVID-19 induced inflammation can lead to systemic coagulation and thrombosis.

Aim. The management of COVID-19 patients requires the use of basic and readily available laboratory markers, both on admission and during hospitalization. Because it is critical to understand the pathophysiology of COVID-19 induced coagulopathy and treatment strategies, in this review we attempt to explain the underlying mechanism of COVID-19 coagulopathy, its diagnosis, and the associated successful treatment strategies.

Conclusion. The exact mechanisms behind COVID-19-related coagulopathy are still unclear, but several studies revealed some mechanisms. More research is needed to determine the best anticoagulant regimen and to study other therapeutic options.

Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, and prophylaxis in individuals exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

METHODS

We searched 5 engines and 3 registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19-related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized patients (n = 8253), 5 in non-hospitalized patients (n = 2922), and 2 in prophylaxis (n = 2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.9; I² = 20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; I² = 7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; I² = 77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; I² = 0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01; I² = 33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (mean difference -0.8 log₁₀; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data are needed to determine their efficacy and safety.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib and tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A comparison using systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: This review was performed to compare the efficacy and safety among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib and those who received tocilizumab independently with placebo or the standard of care (SOC). Methods: Relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials which evaluated the effect of baricitinib or tocilizumab as compared to placebo or the SOC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the 28-day mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were compared and pooled for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. A two-staged exploratory network meta-analysis using a multivariate meta-analysis was also performed. All analyses were performed in Stata version 16.0. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the generated evidence (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022323363). Results: Treatment with baricitinib [RR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.94), p = 0.02, i2 = 64.86%] but not with tocilizumab [RR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.07), p = 0.19, i2 = 24.41%] led to a significant improvement in the 28-day mortality as compared to that with the SOC. Treatment with baricitinib or tocilizumab, both independently led to a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization [baricitinib: mean difference, -1.13 days (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.76), p < 0.001, i2 = 0.00%; tocilizumab: mean difference, -2.80 days (95% CI, -4.17 to -1.43), p < 0.001, i2 = 55.47%] and a significant improvement in the proportion of patients recovering clinically by day 28 [baricitinib: RR, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03-1.48), p = 0.02, i2 = 27.20%; tocilizumab: RR, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.78), p < 0.001, i2 = 34.59%] as compared to those with the SOC. From the safety point of view, both these drugs showed similar results. There were fewer patients who experienced any serious adverse event following treatment with barictinib and tocilizumab as compared to those following treatment with the SOC [baricitinib: RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.92), p = 0.01, i2 = 12.63%; tocilizumab: RR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-1.01), p = 0.07, i2 = 0.00%]. Conclusion: As baricitinib and tocilizumab are recommended interchangeably by various guidelines for the management of COVID-19, considering the better 28-day mortality data and other comparable efficacy and safety outcomes, baricitinib may be favored over tocilizumab considering its ease of administration, shorter half-life, and lower cost of treatment.

Comparison of Anakinra and Tocilizumab in Anticytokine Therapy in the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease-2019

Background

It is known that coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia causes cytokine storm, and treatment modalities are being developed on inhibition of proinflammatory cytokines. We aimed to investigate the effects of anticytokine therapy on clinical improvement and the differences between anticytokine treatments.

Materials and methods

A total of 90 patients with positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test were divided into three groups, group I (n = 30) was given anakinra, group II (n = 30) was given tocilizumab, and group III (n = 30) was given standard treatment. Group I was treated with anakinra for 10 days; tocilizumab, intravenously, was given in group II. Group III patients were selected from those who did not receive any anticytokine treatment other than the standard treatment. Laboratory values, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), and PaO₂/FiO₂ values were analyzed on days 1, 7, and 14.

Results

The seventh-day mortality rates were 6.7% in group II, 23.3% in group I, and 16.7% in group III. In group II, the ferritin levels on the 7th and 14th days were significantly lower (p = 0.004), and the lymphocyte levels on the seventh day were significantly higher (p = 0.018). Examining the changes between the first intubation days, in the early period (seventh day), group I was found to be 21.7%, group II was 26.9%, and group III was 47.6%.

Conclusion

We observed the positive effects of the use of tocilizumab on clinical improvement in the early period; mechanical ventilation requirement was delayed and at a lower rate. Anakinra treatment did not change mortality and PaO₂/FiO₂ rates. Mechanical ventilation requirements occurred earlier in the patients who were not receiving any anticytokine therapy. Studies with larger patient populations are needed to demonstrate the potential efficacy of anticytokine therapy.

How to cite this article

Ozkan F, Sari S. Comparison of Anakinra and Tocilizumab in Anticytokine Therapy in the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease-2019. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(10):1091-1098.

Nanomedicine to deliver biological macromolecules for treating COVID-19

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was first reported in December 2019, China and later it was found that the causative microorganism is severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). As on 3rd June 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has affected 171049741 people worldwide with 3549710 deaths. Nanomedicine such as nanoparticles, liposomes, lipid nanoparticles, virus-like nanoparticles offer tremendous hopes to treat viral infections including COVID-19. Most importantly target specific ligands can be attached on the surface of them and this makes them more target specific and the loaded drug can be delivered to cellular and molecular level. These properties of nanomedicines can be utilized to deliver drugs or vaccines to treat viral diseases including SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review discusses about SARS-CoV-2 and the potential application of nanomedicines for delivering biological macromolecules like vaccines and drugs for treating COVID-19.

Pearson's patterns correlational of clinical risks at admissions with hospitalization outcomes during initial COVID-19 outbreak

COVID-19 outbreaks have crushed our healthcare systems, which requires clinical guidance for the healthcare following the outbreaks. We conducted retrospective cohort studies with Pearson's pattern-based analysis of clinical parameters of 248 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We found that dysregulated neutrophil densities were correlated with hospitalization duration before death (p = 0.000066, r = -0.45 for % neutrophil; p = 0.0001, r = -0.47 for neutrophil count). As such, high neutrophil densities were associated with mortality (p = 4.23 × 10^-31 for % neutrophil; p = 4.14 × 10^-27 for neutrophil count). These findings were further illustrated by a representative "second week crash" pattern and validated by an independent cohort (p = 5.98 × 10^-11 for % neutrophil; p = 1.65 × 10^-7 for neutrophil count). By contrast, low aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were correlated with quick recovery (p ≤ 0.00005). Collectively, these correlational at-admission findings may provide healthcare guidance for patients with COVID-19 in the absence of targeted therapy.

The efficacy and adverse effects of favipiravir on patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of favipiravir in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020206305). Fourteen databases were searched until February 8^th, 2021. An update search for new RCTs was done on March 2^nd, 2022. Meta-analysis was done for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs.

Results

Overall, 157 studies (24 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, 21 observational studies, 2 case series, and 106 case reports) were included. On hospitalized patients, in comparison to standard of care, favipiravir showed a higher rate of viral clearance at day 5 (RR = 1.60, p = 0.02), defervescence at day 3–4 (RR = 1.99, p <0.01), chest radiological improvement (RR = 1.33, p <0.01), hospital discharge at day 10–11 (RR = 1.19, p <0.01), and shorter clinical improvement time (MD = –1.18, p = 0.05). Regarding adverse events, favipiravir groups had higher rates of hyperuricemia (RR = 9.42, p <0.01), increased alanine aminotransferase (RR = 1.35, p <0.01) but lower rates of nausea (RR = 0.42, p <0.01) and vomiting (R R= 0.19, p=0.02). There were no differences regarding mortality (RR=1.19, p=0.32), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (RR = 1.11, p = 0.25). On nonhospitalized patients, no significant differences were reported.

Conclusions

Adding favipiravir to the standard of care provides better outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Pregnant, lactating women, and patients with a history of hyperuricemia should avoid using favipiravir.

COVID-19 and myocarditis: a review of literature

Myocarditis has been discovered to be a significant complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a condition caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. COVID-19 myocarditis seems to have distinct inflammatory characteristics, which make it unique to other viral etiologies. The incidence of COVID-19 myocarditis is still not clear as a wide range of figures have been quoted in the literature; however, it seems that the risk of developing myocarditis increases with more severe infection. Furthermore, the administration of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has been associated with the development of myocarditis, particularly after the second dose. COVID-19 myocarditis has a wide variety of presentations, ranging from dyspnea and chest pain to acute heart failure and possibly death. It is important to catch any cases of myocarditis, particularly those presenting with fulminant myocarditis which can be characterized by signs of heart failure and arrythmias. Initial work up for suspected myocarditis should include serial troponins and electrocardiograms. If myocardial damage is detected in these tests, further screening should be carried out. Cardiac magnetic resonance imagining and endomyocardial biopsy are the most useful tests for myocarditis. Treatment for COVID-19 myocarditis is still controversial; however, the use of intravenous immunoglobulins and corticosteroids in combination may be effective, particularly in cases of fulminant myocarditis. Overall, the incidence of COVID-19 myocarditis requires further research, while the use of intravenous immunoglobulins and corticosteroids in conjunction requires large randomized controlled trials to determine their efficacy.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions on mortality and the average length of hospital stay of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Up to now, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined various drugs as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results were diverse and occasionally even inconsistent with each other. To this point,we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological agents in published RCTs.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was performed using PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. RCTs evaluating mortality and the average length of hospital stay to standard of care (SOC)/placebo/control were included. RCTs mainly were classified into five categories of drugs, including anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antiparasitic, antibody and antibiotics. Meta-analysis was done on 5 drugs classes and sub-group meta-analysis was done on single drugs and moderate or severe stage of disease.

EXPERT OPINION

Mortality and the average length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients were significantly reduced with anti-inflammatory drugs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 to 0.85, P<0.00001, and mean difference [MD]: -1.41, CI:-1.75 to -1.07, P<0.00001, respectively) compared to SOC/control/placebo. Furthermore, antiparasitic was associated with reduced length of hospital stay (MD: -0.65, CI: -1.26 to -0.03, P<0.05) in comparison to SOC/placebo/control. However, no effectiveness was found in other pharmacological interventions.

Evaluation of favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19 based on the real-world

BACKGROUND

The role of favipiravir (FVP) as a COVID-19 treatment is recognized but not fully elucidated. We aimed to evaluate whether FVP has definite clinical efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

International and Chinese databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating FVP for the treatment of COVID-19. A meta-analysis was performed and published literature was synthesized to evaluate the corresponding therapeutic effects.

RESULTS

We included 13 studies (1430 patients in total). Meta-analysis showed that patients with mild-to-moderate disease treated with FVP had a significantly higher viral clearance rate than those in the control group 10 and 14 days after initiation of treatment [RR: 1.13 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.28), P = 0.04; I² = 39% for day 10 and RR: 1.16 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.30), P = 0.008; I² = 38% for day 14] and a significantly shorter hospital stay [MD: -1.52 (95% CI: -2.82, -0.23), P = 0.02; I² = 0%].

CONCLUSIONS

FVP significantly promotes viral clearance and reduces the hospitalization duration in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients, which can reduce the risk of severe disease outcomes in patients. However, more importantly, the results showed no benefit of FVP in severe patients, and caution should be taken regarding the treatment options of FVP in severe patients.

Efficacy and safety of favipiravir plus interferon-beta versus lopinavir/ritonavir plus interferon-beta in moderately ill patients with COVID-19: A randomized clinical trial

Favipiravir (FVP), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV), and interferon‐beta (INF‐beta) are considered as potential treatments for COVID‐19. We examined the efficacy and safety of FVP and INF‐beta compared to LPV/RTV and INF‐beta combinations for the treatment of SARS‐CoV‐2. It was a single‐center randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients were randomized to receive FVP plus INF‐beta versus LPV/RTV plus INF‐beta. The primary endpoint was the viral clearance after seven days of randomization. ICU admission, length of stay (LOS) in hospital, in‐hospital mortality, and the incidence of adverse events were also measured. This trial was registered on the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20200506047323N3). Patients were randomly allocated to the FVP (n = 33) and LPV/RTV (n = 33) groups. The viral clearance on Day seven was not significantly different between the FVP (31.1%) and the LPV/RTV groups (16.1%). The rate of ICU admission and likewise the in‐hospital mortality in the FVP group (12.5% and 6.3%, respectively) were similar to the LPV/RTV groups (19.4% and 19.4%, respectively). The median LOS in the hospital was also not different (6.8 days [interquartile range; IQR = 5.0–11.0] in the FVP and (8.0 days [IQR = 5.5–12.5]) in LPV/RTV groups (p = 0.140). Adverse events were observed in 25.0% of FVP and 32.3% of LPV/RTV groups. The combination therapy with FVP did not exert a higher efficacy compared to the combination regimen of LPV/RTV. However, both treatment regimens demonstrated a mild profile of adverse events.

Effectiveness of tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalized adults COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since December 2019, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread worldwide, leading to a global health threat. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to March 10, 2021 for randomized controlled trials in which patients were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab plus usual care or usual care alone in hospitalized adults with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool studies. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.4.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 6579 patients were included in our meta-analysis, of which 3406 and 3173 were assigned to tocilizumab and control groups, respectively. Tocilizumab significantly reduced the 28 to 30-day mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.99, P = .04), incidence of mechanical ventilation (MV) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, P < .001), composite outcome of MV or death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P < .001), time-to-hospital discharge (hazard ratio = 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.45, P < .001), intensive care unit admission (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P = .006), serious infection (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, P = .02), and number of serious adverse events (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, P = .004).

CONCLUSION

Tocilizumab reduced short-term mortality, incidence of MV, composite outcome of death or MV, intensive care unit admission, serious infection, serious adverse events, and time-to-hospital discharge in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Further studies are required to determine the optimal dose.

Therapeutic role of immunomodulators during the COVID-19 pandemic- a narrative review

The emergency state caused by COVID-19 saw the use of immunomodulators despite the absence of robust research. To date, the results of relatively few randomized controlled trials have been published, and methodological approaches are riddled with bias and heterogeneity. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, convalescent plasma and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib have gained Emergency Use Authorizations and tentative recommendations for their use in clinical practice alone or in combination with other therapies. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are predominating the management of non-hospitalized patients, while the inpatient setting is seeing the use of convalescent plasma, baricitinib, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, sarilumab, and corticosteroids, as applicable. Available clinical data also suggest the potential clinical benefit of the early administration of blood-derived products (e.g. convalescent plasma, non-SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobins) and the blockade of factors implicated in the hyperinflammatory state of severe COVID-19 (Interleukin 1 and 6; Janus Kinase). Immune therapies seem to have a protective effect and using immunomodulators alone or in combination with viral replication inhibitors and other treatment modalities might prevent progression into severe COVID-19 disease, cytokine storm and death. Future trials should address existing gaps and reshape the landscape of COVID-19 management.

Tocilizumab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The effective treatment modalities for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. As the primary cause of mortality is a hyperinflammatory state, the interleukin-6 antagonist tocilizumab has been used in multiple clinical studies. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in reduction of mortality due to COVID-19. A systematic search of the Pubmed and Embase databases was performed to extract randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the use of tocilizumab therapy for COVID-19. An overall pooled mortality analysis was performed, and odds ratios were reported. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Nine RCTs, including 6489 patients, were selected for meta-analysis. Seven trials reported 28-day mortality, and one trial each reported 21-day and 30-day mortality. There were 846 deaths among 3358 participants in the steroid group while 943 deaths among 3131 patients randomized to the control group (random-effects odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.03, p=0.11). There was some heterogeneity among the trials as the I2 value was 15%, with a p-value of 0.31. There was a reduction in the need for ICU admission in the tocilizumab group. A higher risk of secondary infections was noted in the tocilizumab group (fixed-effects odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.95, p=0.02). This meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that the use of tocilizumab was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and had higher odds of secondary infections.  

Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

Extensive mucosal sloughing of the small intestine and colon in a patient with severe COVID-19

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) primarily cause respiratory symptoms. However, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms can also occur. The endoscopic characteristics of the GI tract in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. We herein report a 62-year-old male with severe COVID-19 who needed multidisciplinary treatment, including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Despite the improvement in his respiratory status, GI bleeding developed. Capsule endoscopy and colonoscopy revealed extensive mucosal sloughing in the lower intestinal tract. Additionally, we performed a comprehensive analysis of the mRNA expression levels of various proinflammatory cytokines in the intestinal mucosal tissues. The results suggested a significant elevation of IL-6, which could be involved in the pathophysiology of the GI involvement in COVID-19. Further investigation with more clinical data, including endoscopic findings and molecular analyses, will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of COVID-19-associated GI injury.

Perspective: repurposed drugs for COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The article aims to emphasize the necessity of proper research design, both scientifically and ethically, in order to provide good evidence for physicians to base their decisions on when prescribing drug treatment.

METHODS

Research articles and guidelines related to therapy of COVID-19 were searched from the PubMed database.

RESULTS

Only remdesivir and tocilizumab are medicines that have been approved by the US FDA's decision to approve their clinical use in moderate and severe COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Favipiravir, ivermectin and andrographolide need further well-conducted research to confirm the efficacy and safety against COVID-19 at different stages.

Convalescent plasma therapy against the emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants: Delineation of the potentialities and risks

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a catastrophic pandemic and severely impacted people's livelihoods worldwide. In addition, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has posed a severe threat to humankind. Due to the dearth of therapeutic options during the commencement of the pandemic, convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) played a significant part in the management of patients with severe form of COVID-19. Several recent studies have proposed various protective effects of CPT, such as antiviral, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and immunomodulatory actions, curtailing the devastating consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. On the contrary, several clinical studies have raised some serious concerns about the effectiveness and reliability of CPT in the management of patients with COVID-19. The protective effects of CPT in severely ill patients are yet to be proved. Moreover, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has raised concerns about the effectiveness of CPT against COVID-19. Therefore, to establish concrete evidence of the efficacy of CPT and adjudicate its inclusion in the management of COVID-19, an updated review of present literature is required, which could help in the development of an efficient therapeutic regimen to treat COVID-19 amid the emergence of new viral variants.

The Saudi Critical Care Society practice guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in the ICU: Therapy section

BACKGROUND

The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations.

RESULTS

The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety of anti-interleukin therapy in COVID-19

Objective. To evaluate safety of anti-interleukin drugs used as a pathogenetic therapy of COVID-19 as assessed by risks of infectious complications. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of publications related to safety assessment of anti-interleukin drugs recommended as pathogenetic therapy in COVID-19 patients in terms of incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of “Infections and Invasions” class and a meta-analysis of the data were performed. Results. The meta-analysis included 16 randomized and 3 non-randomized studies. The hazard ratio of serious adverse events between the comparison groups was 0.93 95% CI 0.85; 1.01, the hazard ratio of adverse event of “Infections and Invasions” class was 0.9 95% CI 0.8; 1.02, showing no differences in the incidence of those events. Conclusions. This meta-analysis did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in the relative risks of serious adverse events and adverse events of “Infections and Invasions” class for the use of antiinterleukin drugs in COVID-19 patients.

Molecular and Clinical Aspects of COVID-19 Vaccines and Other Therapeutic Interventions Apropos Emerging Variants of Concern

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has overwhelmed the healthcare and economy of the world, with emerging new variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) posing an everlasting threat to humanity. While most COVID-19 vaccines provide adequate protective immunological response against the original SARS-CoV-2 variant, there is a pressing need to understand their biological and clinical responses. Recent evidence suggests that some of the new variants of SARS-CoV-2 evade the protection conferred by the existing vaccines, which may impede the ongoing efforts to expedite the vaccination programs worldwide. These concerns have also highlighted the importance of a pan-COVID-19 vaccine, which is currently in the making. Thus, it is imperative to have a better molecular and clinical understanding of the various COVID-19 vaccines and their immunological trajectory against any emerging variant of concerns (VOCs) in particular to break this vicious cycle. Furthermore, other treatment regimens based on cellular therapies and monoclonal antibodies should be explored systematically as an alternative and readily available option considering the possibility of the emergence of more virulent SARS-CoV-2 mutants. In this review, we shed light on the various molecular mechanisms and clinical responses of COVID-19 vaccines. Importantly, we review the recent findings of their long-term immune protection and efficacy against emerging VOCs. Considering that other targeted and effective treatments will complement vaccine therapy, we provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of cell-based therapies, monoclonal antibodies, and immunomodulatory agents as alternative and readily available treatment modalities against any emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Novel coronavirus pathogen in humans and animals: an overview on its social impact, economic impact, and potential treatments

In the light of thousands of infections and deaths, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a worldwide pandemic. It has spread to about 22 million people worldwide, with a total of 0.45 million expiries, limiting the movement of most people worldwide in the last 6 months. However, COVID-19 became the foremost health, economic, and humanitarian challenge of the twenty-first century. Measures intended to curb the pandemic of COVID-19 included travel bans, lockdowns, and social distances through shelter orders, which will further stop human activities suddenly and eventually impact the world and the national economy. The viral disease is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). After SARS-CoV-2 virus and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-related CoV, COVID-19 is the third most significant lethal disease to humans. According to WHO, COVID-19 mortality exceeded that of SARS and MERS since COVID-19 was declared an international public health emergency. Genetic sequencing has recently established that COVID-19 is close to SARS-CoV and bat coronavirus which has not yet been recognized as the key cause of this pandemic outbreak, its transmission, and human pathogen mechanism. This review focuses on a brief introduction of novel coronavirus pathogens, including coronavirus in humans and animals, its taxonomic classification, symptoms, pathogenicity, social impact, economic impact, and potential treatment therapy for COVID-19.

Effectiveness of Remdesivir, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, and Favipiravir for COVID-19 Treatment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel strain that causes acute respiratory illnesses known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, there is limited information regarding the therapeutic management for this disease. Several studies have stated that antivirals drugs such as remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir may potentially inhibit the virus from spreading to the host.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the clinical effectiveness and safety of remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir on COVID-19.

METHODS

The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to July 2021 to identify eligible experimental randomized controlled trials on remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir for COVID-19 patients. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.

RESULTS

From 158 references, 15 studies were included in the review. The results showed that remdesivir has some potential benefits for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, as seen from clinical improvements such as faster recovery time, less duration of hospitalization, and fewer respiratory side effects among COVID-19 patients. However, the impact of remdesivir in reducing mortality remains uncertain. Treatment with favipiravir has shown promising improvement in the clinical status of COVID-19 patients, although the results suggested no significant differences in some clinical parameters such as length of hospitalizations and clinical recovery. A combination of favipiravir with other supportive therapy showed more favorable outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients reported no significant clinical improvement compared to standard care with notable adverse effect reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an overview of the evidence-based role of remdesivir, favipiravir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in the management of COVID-19. A thorough assessment of the benefit-risk profile in COVID-19 patients is urgently needed. The current review was based on very limited available data; therefore, further well-designed clinical trials are required.

Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect.

RESULTS

We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs.

REGISTRATION

CRD42020192095.

Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab versus standard care/placebo in patients with COVID-19; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aims

Tocilizumab has emerged as an important therapy in treating patients with coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). Our purpose was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab versus standard care/placebo in patients with COVID‐19.

Methods

We searched a variety of sources from 1 January 2020 to 5 May 2021. All randomized controlled trials that reported tocilizumab efficacy as a primary agent in COVID‐19 patients were considered. RCTs had to include mortality events, incidence of mechanical ventilation and serious adverse events. Two reviewers were independently responsible for data extraction. Assessment of bias and certainty of evidence was carried out using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE methodology. RR for mortality events was evaluated using a fixed‐effects model.

Results

A total of 6837 patients were included from 10 RCTs, of which nine were peer‐reviewed. Pooled risk ratio (RR) for all‐cause mortality in patients with tocilizumab administration was RR = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81–0.95, P = .0009). RR for incidence of mechanical ventilation at 28–30 days was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71–0.88). Serious adverse events (SAE) with tocilizumab use were associated with lower RR (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76–1.09) but the certainty of evidence was downgraded to moderate due to serious risk of bias.

Conclusion

In COVID‐19 patients with moderate to critical COVID‐19, use of tocilizumab reduces all‐cause mortality and progression to mechanical ventilation. This efficacy was not associated with higher number of serious adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of IL-6 inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of multicentre, randomized trials

PURPOSE

COVID-19 is characterized by dysregulated immune response, respiratory failure and a relevant mortality rate among hospitalized patients. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is involved in COVID-19-associated cytokine storm, and several trials investigated whether its inhibition could improve patients' outcome. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCT) to test this hypothesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent investigators searched PubMed, Scopus, ClnicalTrials.gov and medRxiv up to September 1st, 2021. Inclusion criteria were: administration of tocilizumab or sarilumab; COVID-19 adult patients with pneumonia; and being a RCT. Primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included intubation rate and incidence of adverse events. Two independent investigators extracted data from eligible trials.

RESULTS

Of the 763 studies assessed, 15 RCTs were included (9,320 patients), all were multicentre, and the majority open-label vs standard treatment. IL-6 inhibitors were associated with reduced all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up (1315/5,380 [24.4%] in the IL-6 inhibitors group versus 1080/3,814 [28.3%] in the control group, RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96; p for effect = 0.003, I2 = 0%, with 13 studies included), with reduction in 28/30-day mortality and intubation rates, and with no increase in adverse events and secondary infections.

CONCLUSION

IL-6 inhibitors reduced longest follow-up mortality and intubation in COVID-19 patients. Findings need to be confirmed in high-quality RCTs.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications.

Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Pharmacology and Adverse Events of Emergency-Use Authorized Medication in Moderate to Severe COVID-19

Some effective drugs have been approved or issued an Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, but post-market surveillance is warranted to monitor adverse events. We reviewed clinical trials and case reports in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 infection who received remdesivir, baricitinib, tocilizumab, or sarilumab. The drug-specific pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and drug interactions are summarized in this study. Remdesivir and baricitinib are small-molecule drugs that are mainly metabolized by the kidneys, while tocilizumab and sarilumab are monoclonal antibody drugs with metabolic pathways that are currently not fully understood. The most common adverse events of these drugs are alterations in liver function, but serious adverse events have rarely been attributed to them. Only a few studies have reported that remdesivir might be cardiotoxic and that baricitinib might cause thromboembolism. Biological agents such as baricitinib, tocilizumab, and sarilumab could inhibit the pathway of inflammatory processes, leading to immune dysregulation, so the risk of secondary infection should be assessed before prescribing. Further recognition of the pathogenic mechanism and risk factors of adverse events is essential for optimizing treatment strategies.