Randomized controlled open label trial on the use of favipiravir combined with inhaled interferon beta-1b in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia

Clinical Course and Factors Associated With Hospital Admission and Mortality among Sars-Cov 2 Patients within Nairobi Metropolitan Area

This study aims to investigate the clinical course and factors associated with hospital admission and mortality among SARS-CoV-2 patients within the Nairobi Metropolitan Area. The study utilizes a multicenter retrospective cohort design, collecting clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters of hospitalized patients from March 2020 to May 2022. Data analysis includes percentages, frequencies, chi-square tests, Kaplan-Meier analysis, pairwise comparisons, and multivariate regression models. Ethical considerations are observed throughout the research process. The study findings highlight significant associations between comorbidities, such as hypertension, and increased mortality risk due to COVID-19. Symptoms including fever, cough, dyspnea, chest pain, sore throat, and loss of smell/taste are also identified as predictors of mortality. Abnormal laboratory parameters, such as oxygen saturation, procalcitonin, glucose levels, serum creatinine, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, are associated with mortality. However, demographic factors and certain vital signs do not exhibit significant associations. Recommendations based on this study suggest increased monitoring and management of comorbidities, early identification and management of symptoms, regular monitoring of laboratory parameters, continued research and collaboration, and implementation of preventive measures. Overall, a multidisciplinary approach involving healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public is crucial to improve COVID-19 outcomes and reduce mortality rates. Adaptation of strategies based on emerging evidence and resource allocation is essential for effective management of the pandemic.

Favipiravir for treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical antiviral efficacy of favipiravir in early COVID-19 (PLATCOV): an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial

In early symptomatic COVID-19 treatment, high dose oral favipiravir did not accelerate viral clearance.

BACKGROUND

Favipiravir, an anti-influenza drug, has in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical trial evidence to date is inconclusive. Favipiravir has been recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in some countries.

METHODS

In a multicentre open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial, low-risk adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to one of ten treatment arms including high dose oral favipiravir (3.6g on day 0 followed by 1.6g daily to complete 7 days treatment) or no study drug. The primary outcome was the rate of viral clearance (derived under a linear mixed-effects model from the daily log10 viral densities in standardised duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates taken daily over 8 days [18 swabs per patient]), assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of the allocated intervention. This ongoing adaptive platform trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907) on 13/09/2021.

RESULTS

In the final analysis, the mITT population contained data from 114 patients randomised to favipiravir and 126 patients randomised concurrently to no study drug. Under the linear mixed-effects model fitted to all oropharyngeal viral density estimates in the first 8 days from randomisation (4,318 swabs), there was no difference in the rate of viral clearance between patients given favipiravir and patients receiving no study drug; a -1% (95% credible interval: -14 to 14%) difference. High dose favipiravir was well-tolerated.

INTERPRETATION

Favipiravir does not accelerate viral clearance in early symptomatic COVID-19. The viral clearance rate estimated from quantitative measurements of oropharyngeal eluate viral densities assesses the antiviral efficacy of drugs in vivo with comparatively few studied patients.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

The Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Favipiravir Treatment with Telemedicine Monitoring in Preventing Disease Progression in Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Patients; A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Favipiravir has complex pharmacokinetics, and varied efficacy has been reported in treating COVID-19. Telehealth and telemonitoring are disruptive challenges used for COVID-19 care during pandemics. Objective: This study aimed to assess the outcome of favipiravir treatment to prevent clinical deterioration in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases with adjunctive telemonitoring during the COVID-19 surge. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of PCR-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 cases subjected to home isolation. Chest computed tomography (CT) was performed in all cases, and favipiravir was administrated. Results: This study involved 88 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases. In addition, 42/42 (100%) cases were Alpha variants. COVID-19 pneumonia was found in 71.5% of the cases, according to chest X-rays and chest CT on the first visit. Favipiravir started 4 days after symptoms, which was part of the standard of care. The 12.5% of the patients required supplemental oxygen and intensive care unit admission rate was 1.1%; 1.1% required mechanical ventilation, and the rate of all-cause mortality was 1.1%, with a value of 0% of severe COVID-19 deaths. All mild illness cases showed no clinical deterioration or requirement for supplemental oxygen. No significant deterioration in either obesity or diabetes mellitus was observed. Conclusions: Favipiravir treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings, coupled with telemonitoring, was both safe and effective in preventing clinical deterioration, including the need for oxygen supplementation. This approach proved valuable during surges of COVID-19 cases.

Use of anti-viral therapies in hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the United Arab Emirates: a cost-effectiveness and health-care resource use analysis

BACKGROUND

This study attempts to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the antiviral remdesivir, as recommended in the 2021 COVID treatment guidelines for the United Arab Emirates, compared to standard of care (SOC), but also favipiravir (FAVI), which was also recommended for the treatment of hospitalized COVID patients.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was built using published efficacy data for RDV, FAVI and SOC as well as local epidemiology data. The outcomes measured included hospital bed days averted, mortality, costs and cost per outcome over one year. One-way, probabilistic and scenario analyses were undertaken to reflect uncertainty in the estimates.

RESULTS

When modelled over one year, the results indicated that treatment of adults in need of supplemental oxygen with RDV + SOC could result in 11,338 fewer general ward bed days, 7,003 fewer ICU days and 5,451 fewer ICU + MIV bed days compared to SOC alone and similar results when compared with FAVI + SOC. The model results also showed that there were 374 fewer deaths associated with the use of RDV + SOC compared to SOC alone. The model also estimates substantial potential cost-savings associated with RDV + SOC treatment compared with SOC alone (USD 3,454 per patient). The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was sensitive to estimates of length of stay and the cost of hospitalization. Despite this, the model predicted cost-savings in all scenarios versus all comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

The model estimated that using RDV + SOC could result in substantial reductions in HCRU and cost savings regardless of the comparator. However, it should be noted that reliable clinical information on FAVI was limited therefore it is challenging to interpret these results. All the potential benefits modelled here for RDV + SOC can have implications not only for the health of the UAE population but for improving hospital capacity to deal with other conditions.

COVID-19 therapeutics: Clinical application of repurposed drugs and futuristic strategies for target-based drug discovery

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes the complicated disease COVID-19. Clinicians are continuously facing huge problems in the treatment of patients, as COVID-19-specific drugs are not available hence the principle of drug repurposing serves as a one-and-only hope. Globally, the repurposing of many drugs is underway; few of them are already approved by the regulatory bodies for their clinical use and most of them are in different phases of clinical trials. Here in this review, our main aim is to discuss in detail the up-to-date information on the target-based pharmacological classification of repurposed drugs, the potential mechanism of actions, and the current clinical trial status of various drugs which are under repurposing since early 2020. At last, we briefly proposed the probable pharmacological and therapeutic drug targets that may be preferred as a futuristic drug discovery approach in the development of effective medicines.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Findings

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

Interpretation

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

Funding

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

Immune responses in mildly versus critically ill COVID-19 patients

The current coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has had devastating effects on the global health and economic system. The cellular and molecular mediators of both the innate and adaptive immune systems are critical in controlling SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, dysregulated inflammatory responses and imbalanced adaptive immunity may contribute to tissue destruction and pathogenesis of the disease. Important mechanisms in severe forms of COVID-19 include overproduction of inflammatory cytokines, impairment of type I IFN response, overactivation of neutrophils and macrophages, decreased frequencies of DC cells, NK cells and ILCs, complement activation, lymphopenia, Th1 and Treg hypoactivation, Th2 and Th17 hyperactivation, as well as decreased clonal diversity and dysregulated B lymphocyte function. Given the relationship between disease severity and an imbalanced immune system, scientists have been led to manipulate the immune system as a therapeutic approach. For example, anti-cytokine, cell, and IVIG therapies have received attention in the treatment of severe COVID-19. In this review, the role of immunity in the development and progression of COVID-19 is discussed, focusing on molecular and cellular aspects of the immune system in mild vs. severe forms of the disease. Moreover, some immune- based therapeutic approaches to COVID-19 are being investigated. Understanding key processes involved in the disease progression is critical in developing therapeutic agents and optimizing related strategies.

Favipiravir in the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19: A Multicenter, Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Finding effective outpatient treatments to prevent COVID-19 progression and hospitalization is necessary and is helpful in managing limited hospital resources. Repurposing previously existing treatments is highly desirable. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy of Favipiravir in the prevention of hospitalization in symptomatic COVID-19 patients who were not eligible for hospitalization.

METHODS

This study was a triple-blind randomized controlled trial conducted between 5 December 2020 and 31 March 2021 in three outpatient centers in Isfahan, Iran. Patients in the intervention group received Favipiravir 1600 mg daily for five days, and the control group received a placebo. Our primary outcome was the proportion of hospitalized participants from day 0 to day 28. The outcome was assessed on days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 through phone calls.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were randomly allocated to Favipiravir and placebo groups. There was no significant difference between groups considering baseline characteristics. During the study period, 10.5% of patients in the Favipiravir group and 5.1% of patients in the placebo group were hospitalized, but there was no significant difference between them (p-value = 0.3). No adverse event was reported in the treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that Favipiravir did not reduce the hospitalization rate of mild to moderate COVID-19 patients in outpatient settings.

Efficacy and Safety of Favipiravir in Treating COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

This meta-analysis was conducted with the aim to assess the safety and efficacy of favipiravir in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed a thorough search of online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from their inceptions to November 30, 2022, using the following search terms: "Favipiravir" AND "COVID-19". We included randomized control trials (RCTs) that were conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of favipiravir for COVID-19. Efficacy outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included time to viral clearance in days, time to clinical improvement in days, need for supplementary oxygen, and requirement of ICU admission. For safety outcomes, we compared overall adverse events and serious adverse events that had occurred during the treatment between the patients in the treatment group and the control group. Eight studies involving 1,448 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of time to viral clearance, time to clinical improvement, and the need for supplementary oxygen and ICU admission. In terms of safety, no significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to adverse events and serious adverse events. The current study found that favipiravir did not exert any beneficial impact on reducing ICU admission, the need for oxygen therapy, and time to viral clearance. However, a slight benefit was reported with regard to the time for clinical improvement, but it was insignificant between the two study groups.

Small molecules in the treatment of COVID-19

The outbreak of COVID-19 has become a global crisis, and brought severe disruptions to societies and economies. Until now, effective therapeutics against COVID-19 are in high demand. Along with our improved understanding of the structure, function, and pathogenic process of SARS-CoV-2, many small molecules with potential anti-COVID-19 effects have been developed. So far, several antiviral strategies were explored. Besides directly inhibition of viral proteins such as RdRp and M^pro, interference of host enzymes including ACE2 and proteases, and blocking relevant immunoregulatory pathways represented by JAK/STAT, BTK, NF-κB, and NLRP3 pathways, are regarded feasible in drug development. The development of small molecules to treat COVID-19 has been achieved by several strategies, including computer-aided lead compound design and screening, natural product discovery, drug repurposing, and combination therapy. Several small molecules representative by remdesivir and paxlovid have been proved or authorized emergency use in many countries. And many candidates have entered clinical-trial stage. Nevertheless, due to the epidemiological features and variability issues of SARS-CoV-2, it is necessary to continue exploring novel strategies against COVID-19. This review discusses the current findings in the development of small molecules for COVID-19 treatment. Moreover, their detailed mechanism of action, chemical structures, and preclinical and clinical efficacies are discussed.

The effect of Favipiravir on liver enzyme among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection: A prospective cohort study

Teratogenicity and hyperuricemia are considered as the major adverse effects of favipiravir, but less is known about other possible side effects which includes drug-induced liver damage and renal injury. In the current research, assessment of favipiravir-induced liver injury was performed by evaluating liver enzymes among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. A prospective cohort study was conducted on 66 patients diagnosed with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection who were treated with favipiravir for 5 days. During this period, a baseline assessment of liver enzymes (aspartate aminotransferase - AST, alanine transaminase - ALT and alkaline phosphatase - ALP) in addition to bilirubin before initiation of therapy and after 1 day of completion of therapy were carried out. The comparison of all measured parameters among all patients before and after receiving the treatment showed that non-significant differences were obtained in their levels. It was noticed that COVID-19 patients demonstrated high AST levels in which only 16 patients out of the all-subjected cases (66 patients) had AST levels of less than 45 U/L whereas the majority of patients showed normal ALT, ALP, and bilirubin levels. It was concluded that 5 days administration of favipiravir in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients who had no previous liver diseases did not affect the liver enzymes significantly and only transient elevations were occurred.

Favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or combination therapy (FLARE): A randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial placebo-controlled trial of early antiviral therapy in COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Early antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

At the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68.

The frequency of CD4+ and CD8+ circulating T stem cell memory in type 1 diabetes

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Inflammatory pathways in COVID‐19: Mechanism and therapeutic interventions

The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) pandemic has become a global crisis. In the immunopathogenesis of COVID‐19, SARS‐CoV‐2 infection induces an excessive inflammatory response in patients, causing an inflammatory cytokine storm in severe cases. Cytokine storm leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary and other multiorgan failure, which is an important cause of COVID‐19 progression and even death. Among them, activation of inflammatory pathways is a major factor in generating cytokine storms and causing dysregulated immune responses, which is closely related to the severity of viral infection. Therefore, elucidation of the inflammatory signaling pathway of SARS‐CoV‐2 is important in providing otential therapeutic targets and treatment strategies against COVID‐19. Here, we discuss the major inflammatory pathways in the pathogenesis of COVID‐19, including induction, function, and downstream signaling, as well as existing and potential interventions targeting these cytokines or related signaling pathways. We believe that a comprehensive understanding of the regulatory pathways of COVID‐19 immune dysregulation and inflammation will help develop better clinical therapy strategies to effectively control inflammatory diseases, such as COVID‐19.

Immune-based therapeutic approaches in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a member of the Coronaviridae family. On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) has named the newly emerged rapidly-spreading epidemic as a pandemic. Besides the risk-reduction measures such as physical and social distancing and vaccination, a wide range of treatment modalities have been developed; aiming to fight the disease. The immune system is known as a double-edged sword in COVID-19 pathogenesis, with respect to its role in eliminating the pathogen and in inducing complications such as cytokine storm syndrome. Hence, immune-based therapeutic approaches have become an interesting field of COVID-19 research, including corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), interferon therapy, and more COVID-19-specific approaches such as anti-SARS-CoV-2-monoclonal antibodies. Herein, we did a comprehensive review on immune-based therapeutic approaches for COVID-19. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: Not applicable.

Antivirals and the Potential Benefits of Orally Inhaled Drug Administration in COVID-19 Treatment

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been on the agenda of humanity for more than 2 years. In the meantime, the pandemic has caused economic shutdowns, halt of daily lives and global mobility, overcrowding of the healthcare systems, panic, and worse, more than 6 million deaths. Today, there is still no specific therapy for COVID-19. Research focuses on repurposing of antiviral drugs that are licensed or currently in the research phase, with a known systemic safety profile. However, local safety profile should also be evaluated depending on the new indication, administration route and dosage form. Additionally, various vaccines have been developed. But the causative virus, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has undergone multiple variations, too. The premise that vaccines may suffice to eradicate new and all variants is unreliable, as they are based on earlier versions of the virus. Therefore, a specific medication therapy for COVID-19 is crucial and needed in order to prevent severe complications of the disease. Even though there is no specific drug that inhibits the replication of the disease-causing virus, among the current treatment options, systemic antivirals are the most medically appropriate. As SARS-CoV-2 directly targets the lungs and initiates lung damage, treating COVID-19 with inhalants can offer many advantages over the enteral/parenteral administration. Inhaled drug delivery provides higher drug concentration, specifically in the pulmonary system. This enables the reduction of systemic side effects and produces a rapid clinical response. In this article, the most frequently (systemically) used antiviral compounds are reviewed including Remdesivir, Favipiravir, Molnupiravir, Lopinavir-Ritonavir, Umifenovir, Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine and Heparin. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to provide insight into the potential inhaled use of these antiviral drugs and the current studies on inhalation therapy for COVID-19 was presented. A brief evaluation was also made on the use of inhaler devices in the treatment of COVID-19. Inhaled antivirals paired with suitable inhaler devices should be considered for COVID-19 treatment options.

Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Evasion: Interferon Pathway and Therapeutic Options

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the current COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is characterized by an important capacity to circumvent the innate immune response. The early interferon (IFN) response is necessary to establish a robust antiviral state. However, this response is weak and delayed in COVID-19 patients, along with massive pro-inflammatory cytokine production. This dysregulated innate immune response contributes to pathogenicity and in some individuals leads to a critical state. Characterizing the interplay between viral factors and host innate immunity is crucial to better understand how to manage the disease. Moreover, the constant emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants challenges the efficacy of existing vaccines. Thus, to control this virus and readjust the antiviral therapy currently used to treat COVID-19, studies should constantly be re-evaluated to further decipher the mechanisms leading to SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. Regarding the role of the IFN response in SARS-CoV-2 infection, in this review we summarize the mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 evades innate immune recognition. More specifically, we explain how this virus inhibits IFN signaling pathways (IFN-I/IFN-III) and controls interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) expression. We also discuss the development and use of IFNs and potential drugs controlling the innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2, helping to clear the infection.

Supplemental Medicines-Nutritions Used by Health Personnel in their own Covid-19 Treatment Schedule

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE. İn this study, with a view to investigate drug use behaviors of healthcare personnels who had Covid 19 infection in the first 1 year of the pandemic, it was aimed to determine the additional drugs and nutritional supplements they used in their own treatment. MATERIAL METHOD This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. The data were obtained through an online survey voluntarily completed under pandemic conditions by doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists and other health personnel who declared that they had Covid-19. RESULTS The study consisted of 405 individuals. 98% of healthcare personnels preferred to support their treatment. The medicines and herbal products that the participants started to use by their own decisions, without the advice of the physician who examined them, and the frequency of their use were vitamin C 53.3%, vitamin D 48.1%, acetylsalicylic acid 26.7%, paracetamol 23%, zinc 26.4%, multivitamin 19%, acetylcysteine 14.8%, famotidine 14.3%, subcutaneous heparin 12.6%. As for herbal products, inhaling thyme oil was noted in 11.6%, drinking thyme oil 10.1%, consuming ginger 14.3% of the participants. Non-prescription support products were found to be beneficial in 44.4%. CONCLUSION Almost all of the participants took a supplement with an intention to support the treatment. The fact that one out of two participants declared that they benefited from over-the-counter supplements reveals that further studies are needed to support the rational use of over-the-counter products in the treatment of Covid 19.

Favipiravir-based treatment for outcomes of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir for patients with mild-to-critical COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs published before October 30, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of favipiravir -based antiviral regimens (study group) with other alternative treatments or placebos (control group) in patients with COVID-19 were included.

RESULTS

Overall, the clinical improvement rate was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group at the assessment conducted after 14 days (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.12-2.98). The rate of virological eradication was significantly higher in the study group than in the control group at the assessment conducted after 28 days (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.15-3.78). No significant difference was observed in the rates of invasive mechanical ventilation requirement or ICU admission, mortality, or risk of an adverse event between the study and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Except the clinical improvement rate within 14 days and the virological eradication rate within 28 days, favipiravir-based treatment did not provide significantly additional benefit for patients with COVID-19. Therefore, more evidence is necessary.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacological treatment of COVID-19: an opinion paper

The precocity and efficacy of the vaccines developed so far against COVID-19 has been the most significant and saving advance against the pandemic. The development of vaccines has not prevented, during the whole period of the pandemic, the constant search for therapeutic medicines, both among existing drugs with different indications and in the development of new drugs. The Scientific Committee of the COVID-19 of the Illustrious College of Physicians of Madrid wanted to offer an early, simplified and critical approach to these new drugs, to new developments in immunotherapy and to what has been learned from the immune response modulators already known and which have proven effective against the virus, in order to help understand the current situation.

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

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

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

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

Therapeutic dilemmas in addressing SARS-CoV-2 infection: Favipiravir versus Remdesivir

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents an unmet clinical need, due to a high mortality rate, rapid mutation rate in the virus, increased chances of reinfection, lack of effectiveness of repurposed drugs and economic damage. COVID-19 pandemic has created an urgent need for effective molecules. Clinically proven efficacy and safety profiles have made favipiravir (FVP) and remdesivir (RDV) promising therapeutic options for use against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Even though both are prodrug molecules with an antiviral role based on a similar mechanism of action, differences in pharmacological, pharmacokinetic and pharmacotoxicological mechanisms have been identified. The present study aims to provide a comprehensive comparative assessment of FVP and RDV against SARS-CoV-2 infections, by centralizing medical data provided by significant literature and authorized clinical trials, focusing on the importance of a better understanding of the interactions between drug molecules and infectious agents in order to improve the global management of COVID-19 patients and to reduce the risk of antiviral resistance.

Emerging small molecule antivirals may fit neatly into COVID-19 treatment

Numerous treatments exist for COVID-19, the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus, although most are not well established; among these are several small molecule antiviral agents. Intravenous remdesivir is an established treatment worldwide for inpatients and in some countries is also available for use in non-hospitalised high risk patients to prevent progression to severe disease and hospitalization. Oral molnupiravir and oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are also available in several countries to prevent progression to severe disease and hospitalization for high-risk outpatients. Many other antiviral small molecules that may have therapeutic potential are under investigation in clinical trials. This article provides a summary of key molecular targets, pharmacology and preliminary data on the efficacy and safety of small molecule antiviral agents being investigated for the treatment of COVID-19.

Exploiting natural antiviral immunity for the control of pandemics: Lessons from Covid-19

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the disruptive global consequences in terms of mortality and social and economic crises, have taught lessons that may help define strategies to better face future pandemics. Innate and intrinsic immunity form the front-line natural antiviral defense. They involve both tissue-resident and circulating cells, which can produce anti-viral molecules shortly after viral infection. Prototypes of these factors are type I interferons (IFN), antiviral cytokines with a long record of clinical use. During the last two years, there has been an impressive progress in understanding the mechanisms of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and the cellular and soluble antiviral responses occurring early after viral exposure. However, this information was not sufficiently translated into therapeutic approaches. Insufficient type I IFN activity probably accounts for disease progression in many patients. This results from both the multiple interfering mechanisms developed by SARS-CoV-2 to decrease type I IFN response and various pre-existing human deficits of type I IFN activity, inherited or auto-immune. Emerging data suggest that IFN-I-mediated boosting of patients' immunity, achieved directly through the exogenous administration of IFN-β early post viral infection, or indirectly following inoculation of heterologous vaccines (e.g., Bacillus Calmette Guerin), might play a role against SARS-CoV-2. We review how recent insights on the viral and human determinants of critical COVID-19 pneumonia can foster clinical studies of IFN therapy. We also discuss how early therapeutic use of IFN-β and prophylactic campaigns with live attenuated vaccines might prevent a first wave of new pandemic viruses.

Overview of Clinical Outcome and Therapeutic Effectiveness of Favipiravir in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to Intensive Care Unit, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background

Prior to the availability of the current COVID-19 vaccine, the need to control the pandemic worldwide was focused on management of the disease using previously approved antivirals, including Favipiravir which inhibits viral replication through the RNA dependent RNA polymerase enzyme. Favipiravir’s efficacy against different viral infections has made it a potential treatment for COVID-19. We are aiming in this study to assess the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treating critically ill patients admitted with COVID-19 to Intensive Care Units (ICUs).

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study was conducted in five tertiary hospitals in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The studied sample was randomized from a huge pool of data collected primarily for critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to (ICUs) during the period between April 2020 to March 2021. Two groups of patients matched 1: 1 for age and body mass index (BMI) was enrolled in the study; one group received Favipiravir and another comparison group received other antimicrobial medications, not including Favipiravir.

Results

A total data of 538 COVID-19 patients were analyzed, 269 (50.%) received Favipiravir and 269 (50%) the control group received different treatments. More than two-thirds 201 (74.7%) were Saudi citizens, the majority 177 (65.8%) were males and the mean age and (BMI) were; (57.23 ± 15.16) years and (31.61 ± 7.33) kg/m2 respectively. The most frequent symptoms of presentation were shortness of breath (SOB), fever, and cough, and the most frequent comorbidity was diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease.

In the supplemental therapy, corticosteroid, tocilizumab and chloroquine were statistically significant (P = 0.001) when combined in the FVP group more than in the comparison group. Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was more frequent among Favipiravir group, while the overall mortality rate among the Favipiravir group was not statistically significant (p-value 0.4).

Conclusion

According to the study’s results revealing FVP is not superior to other antivirals, patients who received Favipiravir presented with more severe symptoms, more comorbidities, more complications, and is not effective in controlling the cytokine storm which negatively impact the efficacy of Favipiravir.

FVP therapy had no influence on ICU and hospital length of stay in comparison with the control group as well as in the overall mortality rate among the FVP group was not statistically significant. further research is needed to understand how FVP along with other treatments can improve the length of stay among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Inhaled interferons beta and SARS-COV2 infection: a preliminary therapeutic perspective

Introduction

SARS-COV2 infection represents a therapeutic challenge due to the limited number of effective therapies available and due to the fact that it is not clear which host response in terms of inflammation pattern is the most predictive for an optimal (and rapid) recovery. Interferon β pathway is impaired in SARS-COV2 infection and this is associated with a bigger disease burden. Exogenous inhaled interferon might be beneficial in this setting.

Areas covered

Nebulized interferon-β is currently investigated as a potential therapy for SARS-COV2 because the available data from a phase II study demonstrate that this medication is able to accelerate the recovery from disease.

Expert opinion

Further clinical studies are needed in order to better document the efficacy of this therapy especially in severe forms of COVID-19, the optimal duration of therapy and if such a medication is appropriate for domiciliary use. Also combined regimens with antivirals or with compounds which are able to enhance the endogenous production of interferon might be of promise.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon-β-containing regimens in the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) was to investigate the efficacy of interferon (IFN)-β-containing regimens in treating patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 17 July 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of IFN-β-containing regimens (study group) to other antiviral treatment options or placebo (control group) in treating patients with COVID-19 were included.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included. No significant difference in the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was observed between the study and control groups (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.44-1.24; I² = 51%). The study groups had a lower rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than the control groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95; I² = 0%). Furthermore, INF-β was not associated with an increased risk of any adverse event (AE) or serious AE when compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

IFN-β does not appear to provide an increased survival benefit in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 but may help reduce the risk of ICU admission. Moreover, IFN-β is a safe agent for use in the treatment of COVID-19.

Elevated blood favipiravir levels are inversely associated with ferritin levels and induce the elevation of uric acid levels in COVID-19 treatment: A retrospective single-center study

Introduction

Measurement of blood Favipiravir (FPV) levels and accumulation of data in COVID-19 patients are critical for assessing FPV efficacy and safety. We performed a retrospective study based on measurements of blood levels of FPV and related factors in COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital. Furthermore, we also investigated the association between blood FPV levels and uric acid level alterations before and after FPV administration.

Methods

We enrolled 27 COVID-19 patients who had received FPV treatment at Hokushin General Hospital from April 1 to December 31, 2020. Age, gender, COVID-19 severity, presence of comorbidities, and laboratory data for each subject were investigated to identify factors that correlate with blood FPV levels. Uric acid levels were measured before and after FPV administration and a difference between the levels (i.e., a change of uric acid level) was evaluated.

Results

When a significant univariate variable was input by the stepwise method and a combination of variables that maintained statistical superiority was searched, serum ferritin was the only factor that independently affected blood FPV level. Furthermore, in the high-FPV group (20 μg/mL or more), a significant increase in uric acid levels was observed after FPV administration. The increment value was significantly larger than that in the low-FPV group (less than 20 μg/mL).

Conclusions

Ferritin level was an important independent factor inversely affecting blood FPV level. Furthermore, a high blood FPV level induced the elevation of uric acid levels in COVID-19 treatment.

Efficacy of Interferon-β in Moderate-to-Severe Hospitalised Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background and Objective

Interferon-β, as with several other anti-viral agents, has been investigated as a treatment option for COVID-19 as a repurposed drug. The present study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of interferon-β to determine its efficacy among moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients.

Methods

A systematic literature search was done using relevant terms for ‘COVID-19’ and ‘interferon-β’. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of interferon-β in COVID-19 were included. Data were extracted for outcome measures, namely mortality, time to clinical improvement and length of hospital stay. Random effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan V.5.4.1 to calculate overall effect estimate as odds ratio/hazard ratio for categorical variables and mean difference for continuous variable.

Result

Eight RCTs were eligible for qualitative synthesis and seven for meta-analysis. The overall effect estimate (odds ratio [OR] 0.59; 95 % CI 0.91, 1.12) and (mean difference [MD] − 1.41; 95 % CI − 2.84, 0.02) indicated no statistically significant difference between effect of IFN-β and that of control on mortality and length of hospital stay, respectively. However, the overall effect estimate (hazard ratio [HR] 1.95; 95 % CI 1.36, 2.79) denoted a favourable effect of INF-β on reducing the time to clinical improvement in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

Addition of interferon-β to standard of care resulted in significant reduction in time to clinical improvement but no significant benefit in terms of reduction in mortality and length of hospital stay in moderate-to-severe cases of COVID-19.

Clinical efficacy of antiviral agents against coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Despite aggressive efforts on containment measures for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic around the world, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is continuously spreading. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an effective antiviral agent. To date, considerable research has been conducted to develop different approaches to COVID-19 therapy. In addition to early observational studies, which could be limited by study design, small sample size, non-randomized design, or different timings of treatment, an increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of antiviral agents are being carried out. This study reviews the updated findings of RCTs regarding the clinical efficacy of eight antiviral agents against COVID-19, including remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, baloxavir, umifenovir, darunavir/cobicistat, and their combinations. Treatment with remdesivir could accelerate clinical improvement; however, it lacked additional survival benefits. Moreover, 5-day regimen of remdesivir might show adequate effectiveness in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Favipiravir was only marginally effective regarding clinical improvement and virological assessment based on the results of small RCTs. The present evidence suggests that sofosbuvir/daclatasvir may improve survival and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, the sample sizes for analysis were relatively small, and all studies were exclusively conducted in Iran. Further larger RCTs in other countries are warranted to support these findings. In contrast, the present findings of limited RCTs did not indicate the use of lopinavir/ritonavir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, baloxavir, umifenovir, and darunavir/cobicistat in the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update of the systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

OBJECTIVE

To update the EULAR 2020 systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

As part of a EULAR taskforce, a systematic literature search update was conducted from 11 December 2020 to 14 July 2021. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage of disease. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with validated tools.

RESULTS

Of the 26 959 records, 520 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were mainly at high or unclear RoB. New randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab clarified its benefit in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, mainly if associated with glucocorticoids. There are emergent data on the usefulness of baricitinib and tofacitinib in severe COVID-19. Other therapeutic strategies such as the use of convalescent plasma and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies showed efficacy in subjects not mounting normal anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses.

CONCLUSION

This new SLR confirms that some immunomodulators (tocilizumab and JAK inhibitors) have a role for treating severe and critical COVID-19. Although better evidence is available compared with the previous SLR, the need of RCT with combination therapy (glucocorticoids+anti-cytokines) versus monotherapy with glucocorticoids still remains alongside the need for standardisation of inclusion criteria and outcomes to ultimately improve the care and prognosis of affected people. This SLR informed the 2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

India and management of COVID-19: A case study on published guidelines

In the face of the ongoing pandemic, the primary care physicians in India are dealing not only with an increased number of patients but are also facing difficulties in the management of complex critically ill patients. To guide the management plans of primary care physicians, several guidelines have been published by the central and state health bodies. In such a situation, an updated and unifying state, national and international guidelines based on critical analysis and appraisal of evolving data is the need of the hour. In this review, we critically analysed the current existing guidelines that have been formulated within India in light of recent evidence.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Drugs in the Extended Use against COVID-19: What We Know So Far

Human beings around the globe have been suffering from a devastating novel pandemic and public health emergency, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), for more than one and a half years due to the deadly and highly pathogenic severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection worldwide. Notably, no effective treatment strategy has been approved for the complete recovery of COVID-19 patients, though several vaccines have been rolled out around the world upon emergency use authorization. After the emergence of the COVID-19 outbreak globally, plenty of clinical investigations commenced to screen the safety and efficacy of several previously approved drugs to be repurposed against the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen. This concise review aims at exploring the current status of the clinical efficacy and safety profile of several antiviral medications for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and other respiratory complications caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. The paper covers all kinds of human studies (January 2020 to June 2021) except case reports/series to highlight the clear conclusion based on the current clinical evidence. Among the promising repositioned antivirals, remdesivir has been recommended in critical conditions to mitigate the fatality rate and improve clinical conditions. In addition, boosting the immune system is believed to be beneficial in treating COVID-19 patients, so interferon type I might exert immunomodulation through its antiviral effects by stimulating interferon-stimulated gene (ISG). However, more extensive clinical studies covering all ethnic groups globally are warranted based on current data to better understand the clinical efficacy of the currently proposed repurposed drugs against COVID-19.

Current status of therapeutic alternatives for COVID-19: A narrative review

Since December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has exploded and led to a global crisis. Currently, the global case numbers topped 200 million, and toll of dead exceeded 4 million around the world. The pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is driven by two processes. During the first stage of the infection that lasts around 5-7 days, replication of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. In the second stage, the disease may progress due to an exaggerated inflammatory response leading to tissue damage. Therefore, it is anticipated that antiviral agents would be effective during the early phase of the disease, while immunomodulator agents are likely to be more beneficial in the second stage of COVID-19. This basic concept of disease development led to explore several antiviral and immunomodulator agents for the treatment of COVID-19. Currently, remdesivir is the only available Food and Drug Administration-approved antiviral agent for the treatment of COVID-19. However, some other agents have been approved by various mechanisms, including Emergency Use Authorizations, Emergency Investigational New Drug applications, compassionate use or expanded access programs. In addition, a variety of repurposed agents that were approved for other indications are being investigated for the treatment of COVID19 in clinical trials. A myriad of publications including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are emerging continuously and are accessible as peer-reviewed, pre-print and press release formats. Considering the critical importance of RCTs in generating evidence and providing further guidance on COVID-19 treatment, we herein reviewed only RCTs and meta-analyses. The discussion includes antiviral agents (hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, favipiravir and ivermectin) and, various immunomodulatory drugs (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, baricitinib, and IL-1 inhibitors). Other investigational therapies including darunavir/cobicistat, umifenovir, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir, sofobuvir/ledipasvir, ribavirin, nitazoxanide and interferon-based regimens were not evaluated due to insufficient data on the efficacy and safety of these agents.

The role of type I interferon in the treatment of COVID-19

Although significant research has been done to find effective drugs against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), no definite effective drug exists. Thus, research has now shifted towards immunomodulatory agents other than antivirals. In this review, we aim to describe the latest findings on the role of type I interferon (IFN)‐mediated innate antiviral response against SARS‐CoV‐2 and discuss the use of IFNs as a medication for COVID‐19. A growing body of evidence has indicated a promoting active but delayed IFNs response to SARS‐CoV‐2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in infected bronchial epithelial cells. Studies have demonstrated that IFNs' administration before the viral peak and the inflammatory phase of disease could offer a highly protective effect. However, IFNs' treatment during the inflammatory and severe stages of the disease causes immunopathology and long‐lasting harm for patients. Therefore, it is critical to note the best time window for IFNs' administration. Further investigation of the clinical effectiveness of interferon for patients with mild to severe COVID‐19 and its optimal timing and route of administration can be beneficial in finding a safe and effective antiviral therapy for the COVID‐19 disease.

1‐IFNs have many antiviral actions including; the activation of cytotoxic T‐cell responses, the inhibition of the viral mRNA translation, the degradation of the viral RNA, RNA editing and modulating the synthesis of Nitric Oxide.

2‐IFNS are two‐edged immunomodulatory agents; as they can provide a protective effect if administered in the early phases of the disease before the viral peak, whereas a harming effect is observed when administered in the inflammatory phase.

3‐More human trials are needed to find the best time window for administrating type I IFN for patients with various COVID‐19 modalities.

Favipiravir versus standard of care in patients with severe COVID-19 infections: A retrospective comparative study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of Favipiravir compared to the standard therapy in treating patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were treated with favipiravir, versus comparison group that received the standard of care.

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients were included; 110 patients received favipiravir and 116 patients received standard of care. Patients who received favipiravir had longer time to recovery (14.2 ± 8.8 versus 12.8 ± 5.2, p = 0.17). Favipiravir was associated with an improved early day 14 mortality (4 [3.6%] versus 11 [9.5%]), p = 0.008), but was associated with a higher day 28 mortality (26 [23.6%] versus 11 [9.5%], p = 0.02). The overall mortality was higher in the favipiravir versus the standard of care group but difference was not statistically significant (33 [30.0%] versus 24 [20.7%], p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

The addition of favipiravir to standard of care was not associated with any improvement in clinical outcomes or mortality. Larger randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to further assess the efficacy of favipiravir.

Effectiveness of favipiravir in COVID-19: a live systematic review

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for the effectiveness of Favipiravir on the fatality and the requirement of mechanical ventilation for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. We searched available literature and reported it by using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Until June 1, 2021, we searched PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar by using the keywords “Favipiravir” and terms synonymous with COVID-19. Studies for Favipiravir treatment compared to standard of care among moderate and severe COVID-19 patients were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and ROBINS-I assessment tool for non-randomized studies. We defined the outcome measures as fatality and requirement for mechanical ventilation. A total of 2702 studies were identified and 12 clinical trials with 1636 patients were analyzed. Nine out of 12 studies were randomized controlled trials. Among the randomized studies, one study has low risk of bias, six studies have moderate risk of bias, and 2 studies have high risk of bias. Observational studies were identified as having moderate risk of bias and non-randomized study was found to have serious risk of bias. Our meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the intervention and the comparator on fatality rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.64–1.94) and mechanical ventilation requirement (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13–1.95). There is no significant difference in fatality rate and mechanical ventilation requirement between Favipiravir treatment and the standard of care in moderate and severe COVID-19 patients.

The efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67-1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.

Antiviral treatment selection for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

Therapy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) involves evolving algorithms that include drugs aimed at reducing disease progression by counteracting two different, but intertwined processes: (i) the damage caused by the virus (with antivirals); (ii) the damage caused by a dysregulated host response (with immunomodulatory agents).

AREAS COVERED

Herein, we discuss the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antiviral agents employed over the past months for the treatment of COVID-19, and the reasons to be considered for antiviral selection.

EXPERT OPINION

The available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) currently discourages the use of lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferons, which did not show improved efficacy compared to standard care or placebo. Regarding remdesivir, the current body of evidence may conditionally support its use in COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen supplementation but still not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Finally, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies have been proven efficacious in reducing the risk of severe disease development if administered early in the course of the disease to patients at risk of progression. The results of the ongoing RCT will certainly be crucial to further improve our understanding of the optimal place in therapy of antiviral agents for COVID-19.