Reply to Gautret et al: hydroxychloroquine sulfate and azithromycin for COVID-19: what is the evidence and what are the risks?

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on community antibiotic consumption in the EU/European Economic Area: a changepoint analysis

OBJECTIVES

A decrease in community antibiotic consumption in Europe has been observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The magnitude of this decrease, how fast after the outbreak it occurred, whether it was sustained during the pandemic and whether the seasonal variation in antibiotic consumption was affected, have not yet been evaluated in detail.

METHODS

Data on community antibiotic consumption were available from the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption Network for 28 EU/European Economic Area (EEA) countries between 2010 and 2021. Antibiotic consumption was expressed as DDDs per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID). The impact of the pandemic on antibiotic consumption was investigated using descriptive statistics and non-linear mixed changepoint models for quarterly and yearly data.

RESULTS

The decrease in overall antibiotic consumption between 2019 and 2020 (-3.4 DID; -18.6%) was mainly due to a decrease in the consumption of penicillins [Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) code J01C] (-1.9 DID; -23.0%), other β-lactam antibacterials (J01D) (-0.6 DID; -25.8%) and macrolides, lincosamides and streptogramins (J01F) (-0.5 DID; -17.4%) and was sustained during 2021. The changepoint analysis of yearly data (28 countries) estimated a decrease of 3.3 DID in overall antibiotic consumption (J01) between 2019 and 2020. The analysis of quarterly data (16 countries) estimated a decrease in overall antibiotic consumption (J01) of 4.0 DID and a decrease in seasonal variation of 1.2 DID between the first and second quarters of 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

The changepoint analysis indicated a significant, sudden and steep decrease in community antibiotic consumption in the EU/EEA immediately after the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in Europe, as well as a decrease in its seasonal variation.

Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals - a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection

BACKGROUND

The practice of clinical research is strictly regulated by law. During submission and review processes, compliance of such research with the laws enforced in the country where it was conducted is not always correctly filled in by the authors or verified by the editors. Here, we report a case of a single institution for which one may find hundreds of publications with seemingly relevant ethical concerns, along with 10 months of follow-up through contacts with the editors of these articles. We thus argue for a stricter control of ethical authorization by scientific editors and we call on publishers to cooperate to this end.

METHODS

We present an investigation of the ethics and legal aspects of 456 studies published by the IHU-MI (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection) in Marseille, France.

RESULTS

We identified a wide range of issues with the stated research authorization and ethics of the published studies with respect to the Institutional Review Board and the approval presented. Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, samples, and countries of investigation were different. Thirty-nine (39) did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings. We thus contacted the journals that published these articles and provide their responses to our concerns. It should be noted that, since our investigation and reporting to journals, PLOS has issued expressions of concerns for several publications we analyze here.

CONCLUSION

This case presents an investigation of the veracity of ethical approval, and more than 10 months of follow-up by independent researchers. We call for stricter control and cooperation in handling of these cases, including editorial requirement to upload ethical approval documents, guidelines from COPE to address such ethical concerns, and transparent editorial policies and timelines to answer such concerns. All supplementary materials are available.

Estimating the effect of COVID-19 on trial design characteristics: a registered report

There have been reports of poor-quality research during the COVID-19 pandemic. This registered report assessed design characteristics of registered clinical trials for COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 trials to empirically explore the design of clinical research during a pandemic and how it compares to research conducted in non-pandemic times. We did a retrospective cohort study with a 1 : 1 ratio of interventional COVID-19 registrations to non-COVID-19 registrations, with four trial design outcomes: use of control arm, randomization, blinding and prospective registration. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of investigating COVID-19 versus not COVID-19 and estimate direct and total effects of investigating COVID-19 for each outcome. The primary analysis showed a positive direct and total effect of COVID-19 on the use of control arms and randomization. It showed a negative direct effect of COVID-19 on blinding but no evidence of a total effect. There was no evidence of an effect on prospective registration. Taken together with secondary and sensitivity analyses, our findings are inconclusive but point towards a higher prevalence of key design characteristics in COVID-19 trials versus controls. The findings do not support much existing COVID-19 research quality literature, which generally suggests that COVID-19 led to a reduction in quality. Limitations included some data quality issues, minor deviations from the pre-registered plan and the fact that trial registrations were analysed which may not accurately reflect study design and conduct. Following in-principle acceptance, the approved stage 1 version of this manuscript was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5YAEB. This pre-registration was performed prior to data analysis.

Outpatient purchasing patterns of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in the USA and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time series analysis from 2016 to 2021

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin received widespread attention after initial studies suggested that they were effective against COVID-19. However, several of these studies were later discredited.

OBJECTIVES

We explored the impact of scientific articles, public announcements and social media posts on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchases in the USA and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, population-based time series analysis of retail hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchases in the USA and Canada from February 2016 through to December 2021, using IQVIA's Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database. We fitted the purchasing rates with interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. We used Google Trends to identify the most influential interventions to include in the models.

RESULTS

There were significant pulse increases in hydroxychloroquine purchases in March 2020 in both the USA (P < 0.0001) and Canada (P < 0.0001). For ivermectin, there were no significant changes in April 2020 in either the USA (P = 0.41) or Canada (P = 0.16); however, significant pulse increases occurred from December 2020 to January 2021 in both the USA (P = 0.0006) and Canada (P < 0.0001), as well as significant ramp increases from April to August 2021 in both the USA (P < 0.0001) and Canada (P = 0.02). The increases in ivermectin purchases were larger in the USA than in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchasing rates aligned with controversial scientific articles and social media posts. This highlights the importance of scientific integrity and disseminating accurate epidemiologic information during pandemics.

A review of clinical efficacy data supporting emergency use authorization for COVID-19 therapeutics and lessons for future pandemics

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) allows the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expedite the availability of therapeutics in the context of a public health emergency. To date, an evidentiary standard for clinical efficacy to support an EUA has not yet been established. This review examines the clinical data submitted in support of EUA for antiviral and anti-inflammatory therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through December of 2021 and the resilience of the authorization as new clinical data arose subsequent to the authorization. In the vast majority of cases, EUA was supported by at least one well-powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) where statistically significant efficacy was demonstrated. This included branded medications already approved for use outside of the context of COVID-19. When used, the standard of a single RCT seemed to provide adequate evidence of clinical efficacy, such that subsequent clinical studies generally supported or expanded the EUA of the therapeutic in question. The lone generic agent that was granted EUA (chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine) was not supported by a well-controlled RCT, and the EUA was withdrawn within 3 months time. This highlighted not only the ambiguity of the EUA standard, but also the need to provide avenues through which high quality clinical evidence for the efficacy of a generic medication could be obtained. Therefore, maintaining the clinical trial networks assembled during the COVID-19 pandemic could be a critical component of our preparation for future pandemics. Consideration could also be given to establishing a single successful RCT as regulatory guidance for obtaining an EUA.

Effect of chronic hydroxychloroquine use on COVID-19 risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus: a multicenter retrospective cohort

Objective

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of its reported anti-viral activity. This study examined the association of chronic HCQ use with the incidence and complications of COVID-19.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included adults with rheumatoid arthritis and/or systemic lupus erythematosus who visited rheumatology clinics in three tertiary hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between January 2019 and December 2020. Patients were categorized into two groups based on HCQ use. Data were obtained from the electronic health record and by interviews with patients. The primary study objective was the incidence of COVID-19 and its complications from March 2020 to February 2021.

Results

Almost 11% of the study cohort was positive for COVID-19, and the incidence of COVID-19 was similar between HCQ users (11.11%) and nonusers (10.86%). Disease complication rates were similar in the study arms, and they mainly included fever, dry cough, fatigue, and breathing difficulty.

Conclusions

This study revealed no significant association between chronic HCQ use and the incidence of COVID-19, and disease complications were similar in the study arms.

Social Media and COVID-19—Perceptions and Public Deceptions of Ivermectin, Colchicine and Hydroxychloroquine: Lessons for Future Pandemics

The capacity for social media to influence the utilization of re-purposed medicines to manage COVID-19, despite limited availability of safety and efficacy data, is a cause for concern within health care systems. This study sought to ascertain links between social media reports and utilization for three re-purposed medicines: hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin and colchicine. A combined retrospective analysis of social media posts for these three re-purposed medicines was undertaken, along with utilization and clinical trials data, in South Africa, between January 2020 and June 2021. In total, 77,257 posts were collected across key social media platforms, of which 6884 were relevant. Ivermectin had the highest number of posts (55%) followed by HCQ (44%). The spike in ivermectin use was closely correlated to social media posts. Similarly, regarding chloroquine (as HCQ is not available in South Africa), social media interest was enhanced by local politicians. Sentiment analysis revealed that posts regarding the effectiveness of these repurposed medicines were positive. This was different for colchicine, which contributed only a small number of mentions (1%). Of concern is that the majority of reporters in social media (85%) were unidentifiable. This study provides evidence of social media as a driver of re-purposed medicines. Healthcare professionals have a key role in providing evidence-based advice especially with unidentifiable posts.

Utilization of drugs with reports on potential efficacy or harm on COVID-19 before, during, and after the first pandemic wave

PURPOSE

Conflicting information on potential benefits of drugs as well as reports on hypothetical harm of commonly used drugs in COVID-19 treatment have challenged clinicians and healthcare systems. We analyzed the change in ambulatory drug utilization before, during, and after the first wave of the pandemic in 2020.

METHODS

We explored dispensing data of nearly 19 000 pharmacies at the expense of the statutory health insurance funds covering 88% of Germany's population. We analyzed utilization of publicly discussed drugs with conflicting information. Drug utilization as number of packages dispensed per week from January to June 2020, reflecting 314 million claims, was compared with 2019.

RESULTS

Utilization of hydroxychloroquine increased +110% during March 2020 and then slightly decreased until week April 13-19. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and simvastatin/atorvastatin increased, +78% and +74%, respectively, and subsequently decreased below 2019 levels. Utilization of azithromycin and all systemic antibiotics decreased continuously from March 2-8 until June to levels considerably lower compared to 2019 (June 22-28: azithromycin: -55%, all systemic antibiotics: -27%). Pneumococcal vaccines utilization initially increased +373%, followed by supply shortages. Paracetamol utilization showed an initial increase of +111%, mainly caused by an increase of over-the-counter dispensings.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from the pandemic itself, the data suggest that dissemination of misinformation and unsound speculations as well as supply shortages influenced drug prescribing, utilization, and purchasing behavior. The findings can inform post-pandemic policy to prevent unfounded over- and underprescribing and off-label use as well as drug shortages during a public health crisis.

COVID-19 and earlier pandemics, sepsis, and vaccines: A historical perspective

Humanity has regularly faced the threat of epidemics and pandemics over the course of history. Successful attempts to protect populations were initially made with the development of new vaccines, such as those against plague and cholera, under the leadership of the bacteriologist Waldemar Haffkine. Vaccines have led to a complete eradication of smallpox and bovine plague and a major reduction in other infectious diseases including diphtheria, typhoid fever, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type B meningitis. While a few coronaviruses have been identified that seasonally infect humans causing mild symptoms, the emergence of a new zoonotic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly triggered the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a global pandemic responsible for widespread mortality. The severe phenotypes of COVID-19 resemble a previous infectious threat that was initially designated as hospital fever and puerperal fever, presently known as sepsis. A SARS-CoV-2 infection has frequently been considered as a form of viral sepsis (owing to common features with bacterial sepsis) but is also associated with an array of specific and unique symptoms. Rapid progress in anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development, in particular, the design of efficient messenger RNA (mRNA) and recombinant adenovirus vaccines, is crucial for curbing the pandemic.

Therapeutic Effectiveness and Safety of Repurposing Drugs for the Treatment of COVID-19: Position Standing in 2021

COVID-19, transmitted by SARS-CoV-2, is one of the most serious pandemic situations in the history of mankind, and has already infected a huge population across the globe. This horrendously contagious viral outbreak was first identified in China and within a very short time it affected the world's health, transport, economic, and academic sectors. Despite the recent approval of a few anti-COVID-19 vaccines, their unavailability and insufficiency along with the lack of other potential therapeutic options are continuing to worsen the situation, with valuable lives continuing to be lost. In this situation, researchers across the globe are focusing on repurposing prospective drugs and prophylaxis such as favipiravir, remdesivir, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, azithromycin, doxycycline, ACEIs/ARBs, rivaroxaban, and protease inhibitors, which were preliminarily based on in vitro and in vivo pharmacological and toxicological study reports followed by clinical applications. Based on available preliminary data derived from limited clinical trials, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and USFDA also recommended a few drugs to be repurposed i.e., hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and favipiravir. However, World Health Organization later recommended against the use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19 infections. Combining basic knowledge of viral pathogenesis and pharmacodynamics of drug molecules as well as in silico approaches, many drug candidates have been investigated in clinical trials, some of which have been proven to be partially effective against COVID-19, and many of the other drugs are currently under extensive screening. The repurposing of prospective drug candidates from different stages of evaluation can be a handy wellspring in COVID-19 management and treatment along with approved anti-COVID-19 vaccines. This review article combined the information from completed clinical trials, case series, cohort studies, meta-analyses, and retrospective studies to focus on the current status of repurposing drugs in 2021.

Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic

In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/ .

The Rise and Fall of Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine in COVID-19

On March 11th, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the unprecedented outbreak of "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2) to be a pandemic. Thus far, COVID-19 has infected over 58,229,138 individuals and caused 1,382,106 deaths worldwide. This has led to the re-purposing of available drugs under "off-label" use-drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Both drugs have since been evaluated for their ability to treat COVID-19. Here, we summarize recent evidence regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. All data is current as of November 23, 2020.

Addressing the global surge of COVID-19 cases: Insights from diagnostics, improved treatment strategies, vaccine development and application

BACKGROUND AND AIM

As the rage of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread globally, much effort is being directed to contain it through various efforts - genomic studies, drug discoveries, clinical trials, vaccine development, and the innovation of diagnostic techniques. However, some pertinent areas involving accurate and sensitive diagnostics, immunoglobulin specificity, evolution of mutant strains of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the drug combination strategy to combat it still require more attention.

METHODS

This review critically examines the COVID-19 response and containment operations. It also addresses some standing challenges involving the areas of diagnostics, vaccine development and prospect, and treatment strategies in relation to antiviral drug treatment and immunotherapy. Designated set of keywords such as "SARS-CoV-2;" "coronavirus;" "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus;" "repurposed;" "vaccination;" "containment;" "laboratory diagnostic;" "immunotherapy;" "antiviral;" "antiparasitic;" "antibiotic;" "antiprotozoal;" "antibody;" "anti-inflammatory;" "antitumor;" "corticosteroid;" "hypertensive drug;" "statin;" "supplement;" and "biological" along with "COVID-19" were inserted on electronic databases to retrieve articles and clinical trial information relevant to the study objectives. The search databases included ClinicalTrials.gov, NIH.gov, PubMed, Scinapse, CINAHL, Medline, Google Scholar, Academic Search Premier, SAGE, EBSCO Host, and Scopus.

RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS

The difficulties associated with SARS-CoV-2 rapid mutations are unceasingly evolving and re-evolving. These pose serious concerns and downplay the efficacy and effectiveness of the current pipeline antiviral drugs and vaccines. Entities encompassing immunotherapy, antiviral drug therapies, viral genomics, protein-protein interaction, and improved diagnostics as well as drug combination strategy against the emerging genetic variability of SARS-CoV-2 were critically appraised. This study suggests that robust collaborations in the development of more sensitive, rapid and accurate diagnostics, development of immunoglobulin specific agents and improved anti-viral treatment focus against multiple mutant genes of SARS-CoV-2 should be aggressively pursued for the overall benefits of COVID-19 patients.

Repurposing Quinoline and Artemisinin Antimalarials as Therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2: Rationale and Implications

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has infected more than 116 million individuals globally and resulted in over 2.5 million deaths since the first report in December 2019. For most of this time, healthcare professionals have had few tools at their disposal. In December 2020, several vaccines that were shown to be highly effective have been granted emergency use authorization (EUA). Despite these remarkable breakthroughs, challenges include vaccine roll-out and implementation, in addition to deeply entrenched antivaccination viewpoints. While vaccines will prevent disease occurrence, infected individuals still need treatment options, and repurposing drugs circumvents the lengthy and costly process of drug development. SARS-CoV-2, like many other enveloped viruses, require the action of host proteases for entry. In addition, this novel virus employs a unique method of cell exit of deacidified lysosomes and exocytosis. Thus, inhibitors of lysosomes or other players in this pathway are good candidates to target SARS-CoV-2. Chemical compounds in the quinoline class are known to be lysomotropic and perturb pH levels. A large number of quinolines are FDA-approved for treatment of inflammatory diseases and antimalarials. Artemisinins are another class of drugs that have been demonstrated to be safe for use in humans and are widely utilized as antimalarials. In this Review, we discuss the use of antimalarial drugs in the class of quinolines and artemisinins, which have been shown to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and in vivo, and provide a rationale in employing quinolines as treatment of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical settings.

Concerns About the Special Article on Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in High-Risk Outpatients With COVID-19

In May 2020, the Journal published an opinion piece by a member of the Editorial Board, in which the author reviewed several papers and argued that using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZ) early to treat symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in high-risk patients should be broadly applied. As members of the Journal's Editorial Board, we are strongly supportive of open debate in science, which is essential even on highly contentious issues. However, we must also be thorough in our examination of the facts and open to changing our minds when new information arises. In this commentary, we document several important errors in the manuscript, review the literature presented, and demonstrate why it is not of sufficient quality to support scale up of HCQ + AZ, and then discuss the literature that has been generated since the publication, which also does not support use of this therapy. Unfortunately, the current scientific evidence does not support HCQ + AZ as an effective treatment for COVID-19, if it ever did, and even suggests many risks. Continuing to push the view that it is an essential treatment in the face of this evidence is irresponsible and harmful to the many people already suffering from infection.

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Therapeutic approaches against coronaviruses acute respiratory syndrome

Coronaviruses represent global health threat. In this century, they have already caused two epidemics and one serious pandemic. Although, at present, there are no approved drugs and therapies for the treatment and prevention of human coronaviruses, several agents, FDA-approved, and preclinical, have shown in vitro and/or in vivo antiviral activity. An in-depth analysis of the current situation leads to the identification of several potential drugs that could have an impact on the fight against coronaviruses infections. In this review, we discuss the virology of human coronaviruses highlighting the main biological targets and summarize the current state-of-the-art of possible therapeutic options to inhibit coronaviruses infections. We mostly focus on FDA-approved and preclinical drugs targeting viral conserved elements.

Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19 on primary health care - A retrospective observational study in elderly patients

Between March and April 2020, 84 elderly patients with suspected COVID-19 living in two nursing homes of Yepes, Toledo (Spain) were treated early with antihistamines (dexchlorpheniramine, cetirizine or loratadine), adding azithromycin in the 25 symptomatic cases. The outcomes are retrospectively reported. The primary endpoint is the fatality rate of COVID-19. The secondary endpoints are the hospital and ICU admission rates. Endpoints were compared with the official Spanish rates for the elderly. The mean age of our population was 85 and 48% were over 80 years old. No hospital admissions, deaths, nor adverse drug effects were reported in our patient population. By the end of June, 100% of the residents had positive serology for COVID-19. Although clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of both drugs in the treatment of COVID-19, this analysis suggests that primary care diagnosis and treatment with antihistamines, plus azithromycin in selected cases, may treat COVID-19 and prevent progression to severe disease in elderly patients.

Epistemic and Political Confrontations Around the Public Policies to Fight COVID-19 Pandemic: What can Science Education learn from this episode?

Our purpose in this article is to discuss the roles for HPSS in Science Education considering the crisis of COVID-19, as well as to think what Science Education could look like beyond the pandemic. Considering the context of a pandemic as a starting point, we defend in this article the thesis that contours of public controversy involving COVID-19 bring elements that allow us to argue that Science Education needs to embrace perspectives that highlight politics as co-constitutive of science, and not in a subsidiary role to it. To defend this thesis, we begin with a theoretical framework based on arguments of science studies and from exemplary cases from history of science. Then, we analyze some of the public controversies surrounding COVID-19, in its most central aspects, trying to interpret how intertwining between science and politics took place. Brazilian case is analyzed in more details. Finally, based on educational scholarship and considering the previous discussions, we propose some implications for Science Education research and practices, both concerning the role of HPSS in its teaching and discussing critically boundaries of this research field.

Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19: Lack of Efficacy and the Social Construction of Plausibility

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 SARS- Cov2 has taken the world by surprise. Among the first promising repurposing agents proposed for treatment and prophylaxis, 2 antimalarial agents came into limelight: chloroquine and its less toxic derivative, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Intense research and public debates have followed.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

As HCQ is still used and studied, future research may bring novel evidence, modifying the state-of-the-art. Despite the lack of a single randomized control trial (RCT) with positive results, there are currently (as for the search on 30th of August 2020) more than 250 RCT registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with HCQ in COVID patients, and more than 150 of them are "still recruiting" or "not yet recruiting" patients.

DATA SOURCES

Our study combines a therapeutic evaluation of RCT data with a sociological analysis of related controversies, examining scientific and public arena discourses.

RESULTS

Although any hope of a positive effect was brought exclusively by some and not all of the observational studies, none of the 7 RCT published until now have found any benefit. From a sociological perspective, the HCQ controversy is a useful case study for understanding the construction of plausibility in a cultural context polarized into competing versions of reality, with different epistemologies and ideologies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the first RCTs have been published, and they are disappointing; beneficial effects of HCQ could not be proven either for negative conversion on polymerase chain reactions of COVID patients or for postexposure prophylaxis. The question to be asked is: how many studies do we need until HCQ is abandoned? Argumentative time work, appealing to temporal properties of HCQ including its historical use, accumulation of evidence, alternative therapeutic scenarios, and sensationalist tempo for rhetorical purpose, plays a significant role in its continuing legitimation.

Potential Anti-COVID-19 Therapeutics that Block the Early Stage of the Viral Life Cycle: Structures, Mechanisms, and Clinical Trials

The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is being caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease continues to present significant challenges to the health care systems around the world. This is primarily because of the lack of vaccines to protect against the infection and the lack of highly effective therapeutics to prevent and/or treat the illness. Nevertheless, researchers have swiftly responded to the pandemic by advancing old and new potential therapeutics into clinical trials. In this review, we summarize potential anti-COVID-19 therapeutics that block the early stage of the viral life cycle. The review presents the structures, mechanisms, and reported results of clinical trials of potential therapeutics that have been listed in clinicaltrials.gov. Given the fact that some of these therapeutics are multi-acting molecules, other relevant mechanisms will also be described. The reviewed therapeutics include small molecules and macromolecules of sulfated polysaccharides, polypeptides, and monoclonal antibodies. The potential therapeutics target viral and/or host proteins or processes that facilitate the early stage of the viral infection. Frequent targets are the viral spike protein, the host angiotensin converting enzyme 2, the host transmembrane protease serine 2, and clathrin-mediated endocytosis process. Overall, the review aims at presenting update-to-date details, so as to enhance awareness of potential therapeutics, and thus, to catalyze their appropriate use in combating the pandemic.