Safety and effectiveness of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19: An open-label randomised trial

Synthesis, Physicochemical Characterization using a Facile Validated HPLC Quantitation Analysis Method of 4-Chloro-phenylcarbamoyl-methyl Ciprofloxacin and Its Biological Investigations

A novel derivative of ciprofloxacin (Cpx) was synthesized and characterized using various analytical techniques, including FT-IR spectroscopy, UV-Vis spectroscopy, TEM and SEM analysis, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, and HPLC analysis. The newly prepared Cpx derivative (Cpx-Drv) exhibited significantly enhanced antibacterial properties compared to Cpx itself. In particular, Cpx-Drv demonstrated a 51% increase in antibacterial activity against S. aureus and a 30% improvement against B. subtilis. It displayed potent inhibitory effects on topoisomerases II (DNA gyrase and topoisomerase IV) as potential molecular targets, with IC50 values of 6.754 and 1.913 µg/mL, respectively, in contrast to Cpx, which had IC50 values of 2.125 and 0.821 µg/mL, respectively. Docking studies further supported these findings, showing that Cpx-Drv exhibited stronger binding interactions with the gyrase enzyme (PDB ID: 2XCT) compared to the parent Cpx, with binding affinities of -10.3349 and -7.7506 kcal/mole, respectively.

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.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (January 2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine and the Control Group (standard of care or placebo); heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% versus 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.19). Also, the rate of serious adverse effects was similar between both Groups, Hydroxychloroquine and Control (3.7% versus 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.96).

CONCLUSION

Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients.

PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION

(www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under number CRD42020197070.

Care for adults with COVID-19: living guidelines from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

INTRODUCTION

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up-to-date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID-19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care.

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE

The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

Identification of Suitable Drug Combinations for Treating COVID-19 Using a Novel Machine Learning Approach: The RAIN Method

Simple Summary

This study follows an improved approach to systematic reviews, called the Systematic Review and Artificial Intelligence Network Meta-Analysis (RAIN), registered within PROSPERO (CRD42021256797), in which, the PRISMA criterion is still considered. Drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 were searched in the databases of ScienceDirect, Web of Science (WoS), ProQuest, Embase, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. In addition, using artificial intelligence and the measurement of the p-value between human genes affected by COVID-19 and drugs that have been suggested by clinical experts, and reported within the identified research papers, suitable drug combinations are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. During the systematic review process, 39 studies were selected. Our analysis shows that most of the reported drugs, such as azithromycin and hydroxyl-chloroquine on their own, do not have much of an effect on the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Based on the result of the new artificial intelligence, on the other hand, at a significance level of less than 0.05, the combination of the two drugs therapeutic corticosteroid + camostat with a significance level of 0.02, remdesivir + azithromycin with a significance level of 0.03, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat with a significance level 0.02 are considered far more effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and are therefore recommended.

Abstract

COVID-19 affects several human genes, each with its own p-value. The combination of drugs associated with these genes with small p-values may lead to an estimation of the combined p-value between COVID-19 and some drug combinations, thereby increasing the effectiveness of these combinations in defeating the disease. Based on human genes, we introduced a new machine learning method that offers an effective drug combination with low combined p-values between them and COVID-19. This study follows an improved approach to systematic reviews, called the Systematic Review and Artificial Intelligence Network Meta-Analysis (RAIN), registered within PROSPERO (CRD42021256797), in which, the PRISMA criterion is still considered. Drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 were searched in the databases of ScienceDirect, Web of Science (WoS), ProQuest, Embase, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. In addition, using artificial intelligence and the measurement of the p-value between human genes affected by COVID-19 and drugs that have been suggested by clinical experts, and reported within the identified research papers, suitable drug combinations are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. During the systematic review process, 39 studies were selected. Our analysis shows that most of the reported drugs, such as azithromycin and hydroxyl-chloroquine on their own, do not have much of an effect on the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Based on the result of the new artificial intelligence, on the other hand, at a significance level of less than 0.05, the combination of the two drugs therapeutic corticosteroid + camostat with a significance level of 0.02, remdesivir + azithromycin with a significance level of 0.03, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat with a significance level 0.02 are considered far more effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and are therefore recommended. Additionally, at a significance level of less than 0.01, the combination of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat + azithromycin + tocilizumab + oseltamivir with a significance level of 0.006, and the combination of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat + chloroquine + favipiravir + tocilizumab7 with corticosteroid + camostat + oseltamivir + remdesivir + tocilizumab at a significant level of 0.009 are effective in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and are also recommended. The results of this study provide sets of effective drug combinations for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. In addition, the new artificial intelligence used in the RAIN method could provide a forward-looking approach to clinical trial studies, which could also be used effectively in the treatment of diseases such as cancer.

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.

Azithromycin through the Lens of the COVID-19 Treatment

Azithromycin has become famous in the last two years, not for its main antimicrobial effect, but for its potential use as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19 infection. Initially, there were some promising results that supported its use, but it has become clear that scientific results are insufficient to support such a positive assessment. In this review we will present all the literature data concerning the activity of azithromycin as an antimicrobial, an anti-inflammatory, or an antivirus agent. Our aim is to conclude whether its selection should remain as a valuable antivirus agent or if its use simply has an indirect therapeutic contribution due to its antimicrobial and/or immunomodulatory activity, and therefore, if its further use for COVID-19 treatment should be interrupted. This halt will prevent further antibiotic resistance expansion and will keep azithromycin as a valuable anti-infective therapeutic agent.

Environmentally azithromycin pharmaceutical wastewater management and synergetic biocompatible approaches of loaded azithromycin@hematite nanoparticles

Pharmaceutical wastewater contamination via azithromycin antibiotic and the continuous emergence of some strains of bacteria, cancer, and the Covid-19 virus. Azithromycin wastewater treatment using the biosynthesized Hematite nanoparticles (α-HNPs) and the biocompatible activities of the resulted nanosystem were reported. Biofabrication of α-HNPs using Echinacea purpurea liquid extract as a previously reported approach was implemented. An evaluation of the adsorption technique via the biofabricated α-HNPs for the removal of the Azr drug contaminant from the pharmaceutical wastewater was conducted. Adsorption isotherm, kinetics, and thermodynamic parameters of the Azr on the α-HNPs surface have been investigated as a batch mode of equilibrium experiments. Antibacterial, anticancer, and antiviral activities were conducted as Azr@α-HNPs. The optimum conditions for the adsorption study were conducted as solution pH = 10, 150 mg dose of α-HNPs, and Azr concentration 400 mg/L at 293 K. The most fitted isothermal model was described according to the Langmuir model at adsorption capacity 114.05 mg/g in a pseudo-second-order kinetic mechanistic at R2 0.9999. Thermodynamic study manifested that the adsorption behavior is a spontaneous endothermic chemisorption process. Subsequently, studying the biocompatible applications of the Azr@α-HNPs. Azr@α-HNPs antibacterial activity revealed a synergistic effect in the case of Gram-positive more than Gram-negative bacteria. IC50 of Azr@α-HNPs cytotoxicity against MCF7, HepG2, and HCT116 cell lines was investigated and it was found to be 78.1, 81.7, and 93.4 µg/mL respectively. As the first investigation of the antiviral use of Azr@α-HNPs against SARS-CoV-2, it was achieved a safety therapeutic index equal to 25.4 revealing a promising antiviral activity. An admirable impact of the use of the biosynthesized α-HNPs and its removal nanosystem product Azr@α-HNPs was manifested and it may be used soon as a platform of the drug delivery nanosystem for the biomedical applications.

Efficacy of a Persian herbal medicine compound on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a randomized clinical trial

Background

The global attention to the capacities of traditional medicine for alleviating the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 has been growing. The present trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Persian herbal medicine formula among patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The present trial was conducted in Afzalipour hospital, Kerman, Iran, from June to September 2020. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly divided into intervention (Persian herbal medicine formula + routine treatment) or control (only routine treatment) groups. The intervention group received both capsule number 1 and 2 every 8 hours for 7 days. Capsule number 1 contained extract of the Glycyrrhiza glabra, Punica granatum, and Rheum palmatum, and the second capsule was filled by Nigella sativa powder. Participants were followed up to 7 days. The primary outcome was the number of hospitalization days, while cough, fever, and respiratory rate, days on oxygen (O₂) therapy, and mortality rate were considered as the secondary outcomes.

Results

Eighty-two patients were enrolled to the study, while 79 cases completed the trial and their data were analyzed (mean age: 59.1 ± 17.1 years). Based on the results, the Persian medicine formula decreased the mean hospitalization days, so that the mean difference of length of hospitalization as primary outcome was 2.95 ± 0.43 days. A significant clinical improvement was observed regarding dyspnea, need for O₂) therapy, and respiratory rate in the intervention group. No adverse effects were reported.

Conclusion

The present study supported the use of the Persian medicine formula as an adjuvant therapy for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Study registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (www.irct.ir): IRCT20200330046899N1.

Study registration

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (www.irct.ir): IRCT20200330046899N1.

Management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections with focus on patients with chronic lung diseases (as of 10 January 2022) : Updated statement of the Austrian Society of Pneumology (ASP)

The Austrian Society of Pneumology (ASP) launched a first statement on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in May 2020, at a time when in Austria 285 people had died from this disease and vaccinations were not available. Lockdown and social distancing were the only available measures to prevent more infections and the breakdown of the health system. Meanwhile, in Austria over 13,000 patients have died in association with a SARS-CoV‑2 infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was among the most common causes of death; however, SARS-CoV‑2 has been mutating all the time and currently, most patients have been affected by the delta variant where the vaccination is very effective but the omicron variant is rapidly rising and becoming predominant. Particularly in children and young adults, where the vaccination rate is low, the omicron variant is expected to spread very fast. This poses a particular threat to unvaccinated people who are at elevated risk of severe COVID-19 disease but also to people with an active vaccination. There are few publications that comprehensively addressed the special issues with SARS-CoV‑2 infection in patients with chronic lung diseases. These were the reasons for this updated statement. Pulmonologists care for many patients with an elevated risk of death in case of COVID-19 but also for patients that might be at an elevated risk of vaccination reactions or vaccination failure. In addition, lung function tests, bronchoscopy, respiratory physiotherapy and training therapy may put both patients and health professionals at an increased risk of infection. The working circles of the ASP have provided statements concerning these risks and how to avoid risks for the patients.

Bacterial Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in COVID-19 Patients: Data from the Second and Third Waves of the Pandemic

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for COVID-19-related severe respiratory failure. As a matter of fact, ICU admission and invasive ventilation increased the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), which is associated with high mortality rate and a considerable burden on length of ICU stay and healthcare costs. The objective of this review was to evaluate data about VAP in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU that developed VAP, including their etiology (limiting to bacteria), clinical characteristics, and outcomes. The analysis was limited to the most recent waves of the epidemic. The main conclusions of this review are the following: (i) P. aeruginosa, Enterobacterales, and S. aureus are more frequently involved as etiology of VAP; (ii) obesity is an important risk factor for the development of VAP; and (iii) data are still scarce and increasing efforts should be put in place to optimize the clinical management and preventative strategies for this complex and life-threatening disease.

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.

Azithromycin in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Azithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.

RESULTS

The initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.

ESCMID COVID-19 living guidelines: drug treatment and clinical management

SCOPE

In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19.

SCOPE

The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised.

Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients : Key pharmacologic recommendations from a national German living guideline using an Evidence to Decision Framework (last updated 17.05.2021)

PURPOSE

This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation.

RESULTS

The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care.

CONCLUSION

For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

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.

Azithromycin for Treatment of Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: a randomised, multicentre, open-label clinical trial (DAWn-AZITHRO)

Background and objectives

Azithromycin was rapidly adopted as a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early in the pandemic. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy in patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

Methods

In a series of randomised, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicentre clinical trials (Direct Antivirals Working against the novel coronavirus (DAWn)), several treatments were compared with standard of care. In 15 Belgian hospitals, patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 were allocated 2:1 to receive standard of care plus azithromycin or standard of care alone. The primary outcome was time to live discharge or sustained clinical improvement, defined as a two-point improvement on the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale sustained for at least 3 days.

Results

Patients were included between April 22 and December 17, 2020. When 15-day follow-up data were available for 160 patients (56% of preset cohort), an interim analysis was performed at request of the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board. Subsequently, DAWn-AZITHRO was stopped for futility. In total, 121 patients were allocated to the treatment arm and 64 patients to the standard-of-care arm. We found no effect of azithromycin on the primary outcome with a hazard ratio of 1.044 (95% CI 0.772–1.413; p=0.7798). None of the predefined subgroups showed significant interaction as covariates in the Fine–Gray regression analysis. No benefit of azithromycin was found on any of the short- and longer-term secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

Time to clinical improvement is not influenced by azithromycin in patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Previous randomised controlled studies with azithromycin in hospitalised COVID-19 patients assessed end-points at fixed timepoints. Complementary to this, DAWn-AZITHRO assessed time to sustained improvement. No benefit of azithromycin was shown.https://bit.ly/3FapyC7

Liver Injury in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: Possible Role of Therapy

Patients with COVID-19 show a high prevalence of liver injury. The pattern of this liver damage is still not fully understood. Different etiopathogenetic factors may concur; from a direct cytopathic effect, once the virus binds to the ACE-2 receptors, to the immune-mediated collateral damage, due to cytokine storm. The presence of pre-existing chronic liver disease is a contributing factor for acute organ damage during SARS-CoV2 infection. Last but not least, treatments probably play a role, also, in determining hepatotoxicity: many of the drugs we have used or are still using to treat COVID-19, combined with non-invasive ventilation, are known to sometimes determine acute liver injury. Although liver damage associated with COVID-19 is often transient and can resolve without any special treatment, it is important to understand the underlying mechanisms, particularly to better treat its more severe forms.

The impact of therapeutics on mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analyses informing the European Respiratory Society living guideline

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high mortality rate. There are an increasing number of published randomised controlled trials for anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and other treatments. The European Respiratory Society Living Guidelines for the Management of Hospitalised Adults with COVID-19 were published recently, providing recommendations on appropriate pharmacotherapy.Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes questions for key interventions were identified by an international panel and systematic reviews were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The importance of end-points were rated, and mortality was identified as the key "critical" outcome for all interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies and provide effect estimates for the impact of treatments on mortality.Corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β have been reviewed.Our results found further evidence in support of the use of corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, and anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. These data support the need to identify additional therapies with beneficial effects on mortality.

A critical analysis about the supposed role of azithromycin in the treatment of covid-19

After over one year, the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) has still affected millions of people. For this reason, global efforts to promote better treatment of covid-19 have been undertaken focused on the repurposing of existing medications.In Brazil, azithromycin, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, has been used in association with other drugs as an immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and anti-viral agent, regardless of bacterial co-infection. Indeed, data from experimental studies have demonstrated the capacity of this drug in reducing the production of infection-induced pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-8, IL-6, and TNF-alpha. However, observational studies revealed conflicting results regarding its effect, whereas well-conducted clinical trials have not shown a considerable effect of this agent on the improvement of clinical outcomes. This narrative review addressed the possible role of this antibiotic in the management of covid-19, based on data from clinical and preclinical studies.

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

Chloroquine or its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) combined with or without azithromycin (AZ) have been widely investigated in observational studies as a treatment option for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The network meta-analysis aims to summarize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if AZ or HCQ is associated with improved clinical outcomes. PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to March 7, 2021. We included published RCTs that investigated the efficacy of AZ, HCQ, or its combination among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and the use of mechanical ventilation. The pooled odds ratio was calculated using a random-effect model. A total of 10 RCTs were analyzed. Participant's mean age ranged from 40.4 to 66.5 years. There was no significant effect on mortality associated with AZ plus HCQ (odds ratio [OR] = 0.562 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.168-1.887]), AZ alone (OR = 0.965 [95% CI: 0.865-1.077]), or HCQ alone (OR = 1.122 [95% CI: 0.995-1.266]; p = 0.06). Similarly, based on pooled effect sizes derived from direct and indirect evidence, none of the treatments had a significant benefit in decreasing the use of mechanical ventilation. No heterogeneity was identified (Cochran's Q = 1.68; p = 0.95; τ2  = 0; I2  = 0% [95% CI: 0%-0%]). Evidence from RCTs suggests that AZ with or without HCQ was not associated with a significant effect on the mortality or mechanical ventilation rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. More research is needed to explore therapeutics agents that can effectively reduce the mortality or severity of COVID-19.

Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): A safety perspective

The goal of this review is to report a balanced perspective of current evidence for efficacy of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) against the historical safety of these treatments as of May 2021. We preselected therapies of interest for COVID-19 based on national guidelines and modified over time. We searched PubMed and Medline for these specific COVID-19 treatments and data related to their efficacy. We also searched for prior randomized controlled trials of each therapy to assess adverse effects, and we obtained the Food and Drug Administration Approval label for this information. Several drugs have been approved for the treatment of COVID-19, and many more are under study. This includes dexamethasone, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, lopinvir/ritonavir, interferon or interleukin inhibitors, convalescent plasma and several vitamins and minerals. The strongest evidence for benefit is mortality benefit with dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and hypoxemia, although there is a signal of harm if this is started too early. There are several other promising therapies, like interleukin inhibitors and ivermectin. Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, lopinvir/ritonavir, and convalescent plasma do not have enough evidence of benefit to outweigh the known risks of these drugs.

The immunomodulatory effects of macrolide antibiotics in respiratory disease

Macrolide antibiotics are well known for their antibacterial properties, but extensive research in the context of inflammatory lung disease has revealed that they also have powerful immunomodulatory properties. It has been demonstrated that these drugs are therapeutically beneficial in various lung diseases, with evidence they significantly reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD, asthma, bronchiectasis and cystic fibrosis. The efficacy demonstrated in patients infected with macrolide tolerant organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa supports the concept that their efficacy is at least partly related to immunomodulatory rather than antibacterial effects. Inconsistent data and an incomplete understanding of their mechanisms of action hampers the use of macrolide antibiotics as immunomodulatory therapies. Macrolides recently demonstrated no clinically relevant immunomodulatory effects in the context of COVID-19 infection. This review provides an overview of macrolide antibiotics and discusses their immunomodulatory effects and mechanisms of action in the context of inflammatory lung disease.

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.

Predictors of hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 in Tehran, Iran

Objective:

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. Timely and effective predictors of survival and death rates are crucial for improving the management of COVID-19 patients. In this study, we evaluated the predictors of mortality based on the demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, and vital signs of 500 patients with COVID-19 admitted at Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, the biggest hospital in Tehran, Iran.

Methods:

Five hundred hospitalized laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in this study. Subsequently, electronic medical records, including patient demographics, clinical manifestation, comorbidities, and laboratory test results were collected and analyzed. They were divided into two groups: expired and discharged. Demographics, clinical, and laboratory data were compared among the two groups. The related factors with death in the patients were determined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression approaches.

Results:

Among the 500 hospitalized patients, most patients were male (66.4% versus 33.6%). The expired group had more patients ⩾70 years of age compared with the discharged group (32.9% versus 16.3%, respectively). Almost 66% of the expired patients were hospitalized for ⩾5 days which was higher than the discharge group (26.9%). Patients with a history of opium use in the expired group were significantly higher compared to the discharged group (14.8% versus 8.6%, p = 0.04) as well as a history of cancer (15.5% versus 4.7%, p < 0.001). Out of the 500 patients with COVID-19, four patients (2.6%) were HIV positive, all of whom expired. Dyspnea (76.4%), fever (56.6%), myalgia (59.9%), and dry cough (67%) were the most common chief complaints of hospitalized patients. Age ⩾70 years (adjusted odds ratio = 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–6.04), being female (adjusted odds ratio = 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–3.41), days of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio = 5.73; 95% confidence interval, 3.49–9.41), and having cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 3.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–7.39) were identified as independent predictors of mortality among COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion:

Discharged and expired COVID-19 patients had distinct clinical and laboratory characteristics, which were separated by principal component analysis. The mortality risk factors for severe patients identified in this study using a multivariate logistic regression model included elderly age (⩾70 years), being female, days of hospitalization, and having cancer.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.

Efficacy and Safety of Azithromycin for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The lack of effective medications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to a trend of drug repurposing such as the case of azithromycin which shows immunomodulatory and anti-viral effect. Several clinical trials have shown conflicting results. It is currently unclear whether the available evidence is in favor or against the use of azithromycin in COVID-19 patients. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of azithromycin in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Four independent reviewers selected relevant studies from PubMed, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, and ProQuest published prior to March 2021. The protocol used in this study has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020224967).

RESULTS

We included 17 studies and found that the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.19), need of respiratory support (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.73), hospitalization rate (standardized mean difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.27), and intensive care unit transfer (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.79-1.86) of azithromycin-treated group did not differ significantly (p>0.05) from those of the control group. Azithromycin treatment did not significantly increase the risk of getting secondary infection (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.83-1.82), hypoglycemia (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.38-1.40), gastrointestinal problems (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.73-1.45) or electrocardiogram abnormalities (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.42). The overall quality of evidence ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSION

Azithromycin did not result in a superior clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients, although it was well-tolerated and safe to use.

Vaccines for COVID-19: A Review of Feasibility and Effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Many potential vaccines for COVID-19 are being studied, and several studies have reported the results of these vaccines. We aimed to review the current evidence of the feasibility and effectiveness of Vaccines for COVID-19.

METHODS

A search was carried out utilizing the keywords in the online databases, including Scopus,Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. We included both human and non-human studies because of the vaccine novelty, which could limit our ability to include sufficient human studies.

RESULTS

The review of studies showed that several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are under development; different platforms are being used, including eight vaccines are adenovirus-based vectors, six vaccines are RNA-based formulations, one vaccine is DNA-based formulations, and other vaccines are using other platforms, including lipid nano particles.

CONCLUSION

It is crucial to gather as much clinically relevant evidence as possible regarding the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles of these vaccines and adhere wisely to CDC protocols and guidelines of vaccine production.

Efficacy of clarithromycin in patients with mild COVID-19 pneumonia not receiving oxygen administration: protocol for an exploratory, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (CAME COVID-19 study)

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged worldwide. Although several medications have been approved for treating moderate-to-severe COVID-19, very few treatment strategy has been established for patients with mild COVID-19 who do not require oxygen administration. Clarithromycin is a macrolide antimicrobial agent that has been widely used for bacterial respiratory infectious diseases. Clarithromycin also acts an immunomodulating drug and suppresses cytokine storms in viral respiratory diseases, including influenza. In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy of clarithromycin in patients with mild COVID-19.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an exploratory, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. This study was initiated in May 2021 and will end in July 2022. Patients with mild COVID-19 pneumonia who do not require oxygen administration will be enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to group A (administration of clarithromycin 800 mg/day), group B (administration of clarithromycin 400 mg/day) or group C (standard treatment without clarithromycin). The planned number of enrolled patients is 60 (20 patients × three groups). The primary endpoint is the number of days required to improve the clinical symptoms as measured by the severity score. Secondary endpoints include days for recovery of the body temperature, proportion of patients with oxygen administration, inflammatory cytokines, viral load, serum immunoglobulins, peripheral blood lymphocytes, blood biomarkers and pneumonia infiltrations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Clinical Research Review Board of Nagasaki University in accordance with the Clinical Trials Act in Japan. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the Clinical Trials Act and other current legal regulations in Japan. Written informed consent will be obtained from all the participants. The results of this study will be reported as journal publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs071210011.

Current Treatments and Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is the third rising epidemic in the 21st century that quickly turned into a worldwide pandemic. Many clinical studies have been achieved to investigate treatments to confrontation of COVID-19. Therefore, we conducted a systematic reviewto describe the recent treatment strategies to treat COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Science direct, Up to date, and Web of Science using the keywords of Coronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Novel Coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, Treatment, Medicine, Therapy, Intervention, Drug, Medications, and Cure.

RESULTS

We included 58 studies including 38 articles (eleven reviews, ten editorial documents, three case reports, one mix method, one cohort study,) and 19 published clinical trials. Review of studies showed that Lopinavir/Ritonavir (n=16), Remdesivir (n=13), Convalescent plasma (n=11), Chloroquine (n=11), Ribavirin (n=9), Hydroxychloroquine sulfate (n=8), Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) (n=8), and Arbidol (n=7), were the most frequently used therapies used to treat COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of definitive treatment protocols, recently proposed approaches appear to be an effective therapy for accelerating the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Some of these treatments may have been in the early stages of testing. However, future preclinical and clinical trials are warranted to validate findings.

Pharmacological interventions for COVID-19: a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials

Introduction: Currently, there is no approved therapeutic entity for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and clinicians are primarily relying on drug repurposing. However, findings across studies are widely disparate, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Since clinicians need accurate evidence to treat COVID-19, this manuscript systematically analyzed the published and ongoing studies evaluating the pharmacological interventions for COVID-19.Areas Covered: A systematic search of observational studies and Clinical Trials on the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 was performed by using various databases from inception to 2 December 2020.Expert Opinion: A total of 460 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 were research studies, 386 were ongoing trials, and 37 were completed trials. Anti-virals, steroids, anti-malarial, plasma exchange, and monoclonal antibodies were the most common treatment modalities used alone or in combination in these studies. However, tocilizumab, plasma exchange, and steroids have shown significant improvements in patient's clinical and radiological status. Tocilizumab reported minimum hospital stay of 2 days along with maximum recovery and patient's stability rate. Existing literature demonstrate promising results of tocilizumab, plasma exchange, and steroids among COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, these studies are accompanied by several methodological disparities which should be considered while interpreting the results.

Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the use of spin strategies and the level of spin for RCTs with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, and to explore potential predictors for reporting quality and the severity of spin.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed was searched to find RCTs that tested interventions for COVID-19, and the reporting quality and spin in the abstracts were assessed. Linear regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors.

RESULTS

Forty RCT abstracts were included in our assessment of reporting quality, and a higher word count in the abstract was significantly correlated with higher reporting scores (95% CI 0.044 to 0.658, P=0.026). Multiple spin strategies were identified. Our multivariate analyses showed that geographical origin was associated with severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies (95% CI -0.760 to -0.099, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs of interventions for COVID-19 is far from satisfactory. A relatively high proportion of the abstracts contained spin, and the findings reported in the results and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

The Role of Macrolides for the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia and Pneumonia by the Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): A Position Paper by Four Medical Societies from Greece

In light of the accumulating evidence for survival benefit coming from the use of macrolides for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), a group of experts from the field of internal medicine and infectious diseases frame a position statement on the use of macrolides for the management of bacterial CAP and for infection by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). The statement is framed taking into consideration existing publications and own research experience. The main content of this statement is that the combination of one β-lactam and a macrolide should be the first treatment of choice for patients with severe bacterial CAP. Severity is assessed as scoring 2 or more points on the CURB65 scoring system of severity or as pneumonia severity index III to V or C-reactive protein more than 150 mg/l; the suggested macrolide is either azithromycin or clarithromycin. The experts also suggest that in COVID-19 pneumonia, the combination of one β-lactam and a macrolide should be reserved only when there is strong suspicion of bacterial co-infection.

Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 different variants and related morbidity and mortality: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (SARS-CoV-2) started its devastating trajectory into a global pandemic in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Ever since, several variants of SARS-CoV-2 have been identified. In the present review, we aimed to characterize the different variants of SARS-CoV-2 and explore the related morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

A systematic review including the current evidence related to different variants of SARS-CoV-2 and the related morbidity and mortality was conducted through a systematic search utilizing the keywords in the online databases including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct; we retrieved all related papers and reports published in English from December 2019 to September 2020.

RESULTS

A review of identified articles has shown three main genomic variants, including type A, type B, and type C. we also identified three clades including S, V, and G. Studies have demonstrated that the C14408T and A23403G alterations in the Nsp12 and S proteins are the most prominent alterations in the world, leading to life-threatening mutations.The spike D614G amino acid change has become the most common variant since December 2019. From missense mutations found from Gujarat SARS-CoV-2 genomes, C28854T, deleterious mutation in the nucleocapsid (N) gene was significantly associated with patients' mortality. The other significant deleterious variant (G25563T) is found in patients located in Orf3a and has a potential role in viral pathogenesis.

CONCLUSION

Overall, researchers identified several SARS-CoV-2 variants changing clinical manifestations and increasing the transmissibility, morbidity, and mortality of COVID-19. This should be considered in current practice and interventions to combat the pandemic and prevent related morbidity and mortality.

Antibacterial agents used in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

There have been speculations regarding rise in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) globally owing to indiscriminate antibiotic usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. To curb the menace through decisive policies, it is essential to assess the antibiotics, particularly the antibacterial agents. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients. A thorough systematic search was undertaken in databases like PubMed, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, World Health Organization (WHO) database and clinicaltrials.gov by two independent reviewers for articles in English published from January 1, 2019 to October 31, 2020. Studies were included if they assessed confirmed COVID-19 cases and mentioned the use of antibiotics. The primary outcome was the proportion of COVID-19 patients subjected to specific antibacterial agents. An attempt to stratify the data based on study settings and disease severity was also performed. Of the total 6012 studies screened, 40 were eligible for qualitative review and 19 for meta-analysis. Specific antibacterial agents were mentioned in 23 studies (57.5%). In the random effect meta-analysis, pooled prevalence of azithromycin use was 24.5% (95% CI 22.9-26.2%) followed by cephalosporins as 26.6% (95% CI 24.9-28.4). None of the studies clearly specified indications for antibiotic use. Ten studies (25%) mentioned empirical use of antibiotics. Bacterial co-infections/secondary infections were documented in four studies with mean prevalence of infection of 1.9% (95% CI 1.2-2.8%). There is lack of data on use of specific antibacterial agents, indications for their use based on severity of infections and microbiological evidence of bacterial co-infections.

Efficacy and safety of azithromycin in Covid-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Azithromycin (AZM) is commonly used in Covid‐19 patients based on low‐quality evidence, increasing the risk of developing adverse events and antimicrobial resistance. The current systematic review and meta‐analysis investigated the safety and efficacy of AZM in treating Covid‐19 patients using published randomized controlled trials. Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, MEDLINE, bioRxiv and medRxiv were searched for relevant studies. The random‐effects model was used to pool estimates using the Paule–Mandel estimate for heterogeneity. The odds ratio and raw difference in medians were used for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. The analysis included seven studies with 8822 patients (median age, 55.8 years; 61% males). The risk of bias was assessed as ‘low’ for five of the seven mortality results and as ‘some concerns’ and ‘high’ in one trial each. There were 657/3100 (21.2%) and 1244/5654 (22%) deaths among patients randomized to AZM and standard of care, respectively. The use of AZM was not associated with mortality in Covid‐19 patients (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.88–1.05, p = 0.317 based on the random‐effect meta‐analysis). The use of AZM was not associated with need for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.49–1.87, p = 0.85) and length of stay (Δ = 1.11, 95% CI −2.08 to 4.31, p = 0.49). The results show that using AZM as routine therapy in Covid‐19 patients is not justified due to lack of efficacy and potential risk of bacterial resistance that is not met by an increased clinical benefit.

Genetic susceptibility of COVID-19: a systematic review of current evidence

INTRODUCTION

While COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread worldwide, researchers have linked patterns of traits to poor disease outcomes. Risk factors for COVID-19 include asthma, elderly age, being pregnant, having any underlying diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and experiencing lifelong systemic racism. Recently, connections to certain genes have also been found, although the susceptibility has not yet been established. We aimed to investigate the available evidence for the genetic susceptibility to COVID-19.

METHODS

This study was a systematic review of current evidence to investigate the genetic susceptibility of COVID-19. By systematic search and utilizing the keywords in the online databases including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct, we retrieved all the related papers and reports published in English from December 2019 to September 2020.

RESULTS

According to the findings, COVID-19 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for cell entry. Previous studies have shown that people with ACE2 polymorphism who have type 2 transmembrane serine proteases (TMPRSS2) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, two studies have shown that males are more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 than females. Besides, research has also shown that patients possessing HLA-B*15:03 genotype may become immune to the infection.

CONCLUSION

Combing through the genome, several genes related to immune system's response were related to the severity and susceptibility to the COVID-19. In conclusion, a correlation was found between the ACE2 levels and the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, or lopinavir/ritonavir: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are drugs that were used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) during the early pandemic period. It is well‐known that these agents can prolong the QTc interval and potentially induce Torsades de Pointes (TdP). We aim to assess the prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation and arrhythmic events in COVID‐19 patients treated with these drugs.

Methods

We searched electronic databases from inception to September 30, 2020 for studies reporting peak QTc ≥500 ms, peak QTc change ≥60 ms, peak QTc interval, peak change of QTc interval, ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, or atrioventricular block (AVB). All meta‐analyses were conducted using a random‐effects model.

Results

Forty‐seven studies (three case series, 35 cohorts, and nine randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 13 087 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of peak QTc ≥500 ms was 9% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3%–18%) and 8% (95%CI, 3%–14%) in patients who received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin, respectively. Likewise, the use of hydroxychloroquine (risk ratio [RR], 2.68; 95%CI, 1.56–4.60) and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (RR, 3.28; 95%CI, 1.16–9.30) was associated with an increased risk of QTc prolongation compared to no treatment. Ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, and AVB were reported in <1% of patients across treatment groups. The only two studies that reported individual data of lopinavir/ritonavir found no cases of QTc prolongation.

Conclusions

COVID‐19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine with or without azithromycin had a relatively high prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation. However, the prevalence of arrhythmic events was very low, probably due to underreporting. The limited information about lopinavir/ritonavir showed that it does not prolong the QTc interval.

Publications and retracted articles of COVID-19 pharmacotherapy-related research: A systematic review

The current COVID-19 pandemic situation has stimulated an unplanned clinical research paradigm which is evident from the surge of clinical trial registrations and the increasing number of COVID-related publications. We aimed to explore the standards for research conduction, publications and retraction of articles related to COVID-19 pharmacotherapy research during the pandemic. We analysed data from the contemporary literatures on studies reporting pharmacological agents for COVID-19 using MEDLINE, PubMed, WHO database and Google Scholar between January 01, 2020 and March 20, 2021. The initial search revealed a total of 61,801 articles. Based on the inclusion criteria, a total of 124 studies related to various pharmacological agents were included in the final analysis. Most of the studies were reported from the United States (n = 30, 24%). Of the 124 studies, 50 (40%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Immunomodulatory drugs-related (n = 17, 34%) and COVID-19 vaccine-related studies (n = 14, 28%) were the main topics in the relevant RCTs. The median days for dissemination of findings in journals were 114 days (IQR 61-189). A comparative analysis revealed that RCTs were disseminated earlier (median 79 days; IQR 52-131) when compared to observational studies (median = 144 days; IQR 69-206) (p = 0.003). Six papers were retracted from high impact journals; in which the average period till publication was 33 days. Retraction of papers occurred within 10-48 days. Expedited reviews, research approval and early publications of COVID-19 related pharmaceutical studies could have an impact on the quality of publications. However, the huge number of publications in short time creates confusion for readers during the early phases of the pandemic. Retraction of papers is alarming but ensures research integrity and correctness of scientific information. These abbreviated processes could affect patient care and public awareness. It is imperative to follow rapid but rigours ethical standards for research approval and peer-review process for publications during health pandemics.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes.

METHODS

A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

A Journey From SARS-CoV-2 to COVID-19 and Beyond: A Comprehensive Insight of Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Pathogenesis, and Overview of the Progress into Its Therapeutic Management

The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), commonly known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first revealed in late 2019 in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China. It was subsequently spread globally and thereby declared as a pandemic by WHO in March 2020. The disease causes severe acute respiratory illness and is highly contagious due to the fast-onward transmission. As of the mid of November 2020, the disease has affected 220 countries with more than 16 million active cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide. Males, pregnant women, the elderly, immunosuppressed patients, and those with underlying medical conditions are more vulnerable to the disease than the general healthy population. Unfortunately, no definite treatment is available. Although remdesivir as an antiviral had been approved for use in those above 12 years of age and 40 kg weight group, it has been observed to be ineffective in large-scale SOLIDARITY trials by WHO. Moreover, dexamethasone has been found to increase the recovery rate of ventilated patients; oxygen and inhaled nitric oxide as a vasodilator have been given emergency expanded access. In addition, more than 57 clinical trials are being conducted for the development of the vaccines on various platforms. Two vaccines were found to be significantly promising in phase III results. It is concluded that till the approval of a specific treatment or development of a vaccine against this deadly disease, the preventive measures should be followed strictly to reduce the spread of the disease.

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

BACKGROUND

Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.

FINDINGS

Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98-1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87-1·03; p=0·24).

INTERPRETATION

In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

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

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

Rationale for azithromycin in COVID-19: an overview of existing evidence

Azithromycin has rapidly been adopted as a repurposed drug for the treatment of COVID-19, despite the lack of high-quality evidence. In this review, we critically appraise the current pharmacological, preclinical and clinical data of azithromycin for treating COVID-19. Interest in azithromycin has been fuelled by favourable treatment outcomes in other viral pneumonias, a documented antiviral effect on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and uncontrolled case series early in the pandemic. Its antiviral effects presumably result from interfering with receptor mediated binding, viral lysosomal escape, intracellular cell-signalling pathways and enhancing type I and III interferon expression. Its immunomodulatory effects may mitigate excessive inflammation and benefit tissue repair. Currently, in vivo reports on azithromycin in COVID-19 are conflicting and do not endorse its widespread use outside of clinical trials. They are, however, mostly retrospective and therefore inherently biased. The effect size of azithromycin may depend on when it is started. Also, extended follow-up is needed to assess benefits in the recovery phase. Safety data warrant monitoring of drug-drug interactions and subsequent cardiac adverse events, especially with hydroxychloroquine. More prospective data of large randomised controlled studies are expected and much-needed. Uniform reporting of results should be strongly encouraged to facilitate data pooling with the many ongoing initiatives.

Global Safety Database Summary of COVID-19-Related Drug Utilization-Safety Surveillance: A Sponsor's Perspective

Introduction

Evidence-based clinical data on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pharmacotherapies are scarce.

Objective

This study documented and characterized COVID-19 cases reported in individuals receiving treatment with Pfizer pharmaceutical products and cases that reported use of Pfizer pharmaceutical products for COVID-19 treatment.

Methods

This retrospective observational review leveraged the Pfizer safety database containing adverse event data collected in association with use of Pfizer products between 1 October, 2019, and 25 June, 2020; the database includes worldwide adverse event data from various sources. Selected Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Activities (MedDRA^®) Preferred Terms and subsequent clinical review were used to characterize COVID-19 cases.

Results

Over 1500 relevant cases were identified over an 8-month period. In cases that reported COVID-19, immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents, followed by anticoagulant/antithrombic agents and corticosteroids, were the most frequently reported agents. The frequent reporting of immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents among cases of COVID-19 suggests increased vulnerability to infection among treated patients, either because of immunosuppressive effects of certain agents or the nature of the underlying treated condition. In cases involving off-label pharmacotherapy use for the treatment of COVID-19-related conditions, the most frequently reported therapeutic classes included antibiotics, antimalarial agents, antivirals/antiretroviral agents, immunosuppressant/immunomodulating agents, corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and immunoglobulin/interferons. The most frequently reported pharmacotherapeutic agents were azithromycin and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, followed by lopinavir-ritonavir, ceftriaxone, and tofacitinib. The most frequently reported clinical adverse events associated with azithromycin (as sole therapy or combined with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine) include electrocardiogram QT prolonged, drug interaction, hepatitis, diarrhea, and hepatitis acute. Regarding cardiac-related events, 19% (120/645) of azithromycin cases reported events associated with QT prolongation/torsade de pointes (which included seven fatal cardiac events). The most frequently reported clinical adverse events associated with other commonly used agents are also presented.

Conclusions

This pharmacovigilance surveillance study provides a unique characterization of cases in which a broad range of pharmaceutical products was reported in relation to COVID-19.