Risk of hospitalization for Covid-19 outpatients treated with various drug regimens in Brazil: Comparative analysis

Bioinformatics and systems-biology approach to identify common pathogenic mechanisms for COVID-19 and systemic lupus erythematosus

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought a heavy burden to the world, interestingly, it shares many clinical symptoms with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). It is unclear whether there is a similar pathological process between COVID-9 and SLE. In addition, we don't know how to treat SLE patients with COVID-19. In this study, we analyse the potential similar pathogenesis between SLE and COVID-19 and explore their possible drug regimens using bioinformatics and systems biology approaches.

METHODS

The common differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were extracted from the COVID-19 datasets and the SLE datasets for functional enrichment, pathway analysis and candidate drug analysis.

RESULT

Based on the two transcriptome datasets between COVID-19 and SLE, 325 common DEGs were selected. Hub genes were identified by protein-protein interaction (PPI) analysis. few found a variety of similar functional changes between COVID-19 and SLE, which may be related to the pathogenesis of COVID-19. Besides, we explored the related regulatory networks. Then, through drug target matching, we found many candidate drugs for patients with COVID-19 only or COVID-19 combined with SLE.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 and SLE patients share many common hub genes, related pathways and regulatory networks. Based on these common targets, we found many potential drugs that could be used in treating patient with COVID-19 or COVID-19 combined with SLE.

Treating diabetes with combination of phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine-a possible prevention strategy for COVID-19?

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the major risk factors for developing cardiovascular disease and the resultant devastating morbidity and mortality. The key features of T2D are hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, and impaired insulin secretion. Patients with diabetes and myocardial infarction have worse prognosis than those without T2D. Moreover, obesity and T2D are recognized risk factors in developing severe form of COVID-19 with higher mortality rate. The current lines of drug therapy are insufficient to control T2D and its serious cardiovascular complications. Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) is a cGMP specific enzyme, which is the target of erectile dysfunction drugs including sildenafil, vardenafil, and tadalafil. Cardioprotective effects of PDE5 inhibitors against ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury were reported in normal and diabetic animals. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a widely used antimalarial and anti-inflammatory drug and its hyperglycemia-controlling effect in diabetic patients is also under investigation. This review provides our perspective of a potential use of combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitor with HCQ to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and myocardial I/R injury in T2D. We previously observed that diabetic mice treated with tadalafil and HCQ had significantly reduced fasting blood glucose and lipid levels, increased plasma insulin and insulin-like growth factor-1 levels, and improved insulin sensitivity, along with smaller myocardial infarct size following I/R. The combination treatment activated Akt/mTOR cellular survival pathway, which was likely responsible for the salutary effects. Therefore, pretreatment with PDE5 inhibitor and HCQ may be a potentially useful therapy not only for controlling T2D but also reducing the rate and severity of COVID-19 infection in the vulnerable population of diabetics.

Azithromycin use and outcomes in patients with COVID-19: an observational real-world study

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies ruled out the benefits of azithromycin for treatment of patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized. However, the effects of azithromycin for treatment of patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results in the community remains a matter of debate. This study aimed to assess whether azithromycin, when used in subjects with positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, is associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization, in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes, and death.

METHODS

Two study cohorts were selected. Cohort A included subjects with positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 between February 20, 2020 and December 10, 2020; cohort B included subjects infected with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalized between February 20, 2020 and December 31, 2020. We compared the risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit access, need for mechanical ventilation, and death in azithromycin users versus nonusers. A clustered Fine-Gray analysis was employed to assess the risk of hospitalization; logistic and Cox regressions were performed to assess the risk of intensive care unit access, mechanical ventilation, and death.

RESULTS

In cohort A, among 4861 azithromycin users and 4861 propensity-matched nonusers, azithromycin use was associated with higher risk of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-1.75) compared with nonuse. In cohort B, among 997 subjects selected in both groups, azithromycin use was not significantly associated with intensive care unit access (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% CI 0.93-1.56), mechanical ventilation (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.70), 14-day mortality (HR0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.05), or 30-day mortality (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03).

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm the lack of benefits of azithromycin treatment among community patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, raising concern on potential risks associated with its inappropriate use.

Coronavirus 2019 disease: Are corticosteroids the key treatment? A retrospective case-control study in Brazil

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is the putative cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a serious disease that has severely impacted the world. Although vaccines have been developed, it will take time to inoculate the global population. Current guidelines have focused on the treatment of severe cases in hospital settings; however, a void has been created regarding appropriate measures for those in the initial stage of COVID-19 and those experiencing moderate disease severity progressing to desaturation. We assessed clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia at initial presentation treated with corticosteroids.

Methods

Data of 177 consecutive high-risk patients with COVID-19, monitored by telemedicine, were collected and analyzed. Of those, 68 patients were in the initial inflammatory phase of the disease without desaturation and received corticosteroids. The outcomes were evaluated after a follow up of 14 days. Four patients were immediately referred to the hospital because they had explicit desaturation at presentation.

Results

After 14 days, all patients in the inflammatory phase at presentation who were treated with corticosteroids before desaturation were alive and without complications. However, of the four patients with desaturation, one died at the hospital.

Conclusion

In this study, the use of corticosteroids during the initial pulmonary phase of COVID-19 before desaturation, in addition to daily monitoring of patients, prevented disease progression, decreased the risk of complications and incidence of hospitalization and death. However, additional studies with larger number of patients are needed to confirm these findings.

•

Use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients before desaturation increased survival.

•

Patients who reached desaturation needed hospitalization.

•

Approximately 25% mortality was observed in hospitalized patients.

•

The use of corticosteroids before desaturation prevented hospitalization and death.

•

Corticosteroids can be used to decrease the risk of complications of COVID-19.

Calix[6]arene functionalized lanthanide metal-organic frameworks with boosted performance in identifying an anti-epidemic pharmaceutical

A novel composite was fabricated by hybridizing terbium 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic MOF (TB-MOF) with Cx[6]. The obtained composite TB-Cx[6] possessed long-term stability and dispersion stability and was used for on-site analysis of the anti-COVID-19 disinfection product Prednis via a combing remote sampling technique.

The Severity of COVID-19 Affects the Plasma Soluble Levels of the Immune Checkpoint HLA-G Molecule

The non-classical histocompatibility antigen G (HLA-G) is an immune checkpoint molecule that has been implicated in viral disorders. We evaluated the plasma soluble HLA-G (sHLA-G) in 239 individuals, arranged in COVID-19 patients (n = 189) followed up at home or in a hospital, and in healthy controls (n = 50). Increased levels of sHLA-G were observed in COVID-19 patients irrespective of the facility care, gender, age, and the presence of comorbidities. Compared with controls, the sHLA-G levels increased as far as disease severity progressed; however, the levels decreased in critically ill patients, suggesting an immune exhaustion phenomenon. Notably, sHLA-G exhibited a positive correlation with other mediators currently observed in the acute phase of the disease, including IL-6, IL-8 and IL-10. Although sHLA-G levels may be associated with an acute biomarker of COVID-19, the increased levels alone were not associated with disease severity or mortality due to COVID-19. Whether the SARS-CoV-2 per se or the innate/adaptive immune response against the virus is responsible for the increased levels of sHLA-G are questions that need to be further addressed.

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.

Potential therapeutic effects of Ivermectin in COVID-19

COVID-19 is a critical pandemic that affected communities around the world, and there is currently no specific drug treatment for it. The virus enters the human cells via spikes and induces cytokine production and finally arrests the cell cycle. Ivermectin shows therapeutic potential for treating COVID-19 infection based on in vitro studies. Docking studies have shown a strong affinity between Ivermectin and some virulence factors of COVID-19. Notably, clinical evidence has demonstrated that Ivermectin with usual doses is effective by both the prophylactic and therapeutic approaches in all phases of the disease. Ivermectin inhibits both the adhesion and replication of the virus. Local therapy of the lung with Ivermectin or combination therapy may get better results and decrease the dose of the drug.

Antiparasitic Drugs against SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Literature Survey

More than two years have passed since the viral outbreak that led to the novel infectious respiratory disease COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Since then, the urgency for effective treatments resulted in unprecedented efforts to develop new vaccines and to accelerate the drug discovery pipeline, mainly through the repurposing of well-known compounds with broad antiviral effects. In particular, antiparasitic drugs historically used against human infections due to protozoa or helminth parasites have entered the main stage as a miracle cure in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Despite having demonstrated promising anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities in vitro, conflicting results have made their translation into clinical practice more difficult than expected. Since many studies involving antiparasitic drugs are currently under investigation, the window of opportunity might be not closed yet. Here, we will review the (controversial) journey of these old antiparasitic drugs to combat the human infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

Predictive modeling for COVID-19 readmission risk using machine learning algorithms

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed healthcare systems with severe shortages in hospital resources such as ICU beds, specialized doctors, and respiratory ventilators. In this situation, reducing COVID-19 readmissions could potentially maintain hospital capacity. By employing machine learning (ML), we can predict the likelihood of COVID-19 readmission risk, which can assist in the optimal allocation of restricted resources to seriously ill patients.

Methods

In this retrospective single-center study, the data of 1225 COVID-19 patients discharged between January 9, 2020, and October 20, 2021 were analyzed. First, the most important predictors were selected using the horse herd optimization algorithms. Then, three classical ML algorithms, including decision tree, support vector machine, and k-nearest neighbors, and a hybrid algorithm, namely water wave optimization (WWO) as a precise metaheuristic evolutionary algorithm combined with a neural network were used to construct predictive models for COVID-19 readmission. Finally, the performance of prediction models was measured, and the best-performing one was identified.

Results

The ML algorithms were trained using 17 validated features. Among the four selected ML algorithms, the WWO had the best average performance in tenfold cross-validation (accuracy: 0.9705, precision: 0.9729, recall: 0.9869, specificity: 0.9259, F-measure: 0.9795).

Conclusions

Our findings show that the WWO algorithm predicts the risk of readmission of COVID-19 patients more accurately than other ML algorithms. The models developed herein can inform frontline clinicians and healthcare policymakers to manage and optimally allocate limited hospital resources to seriously ill COVID-19 patients.

Use of Favipiravir for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the Setting of Hospitel

Objective

In a setting with a limited capacity for hospitalization, "hospitels" have been developed by using hotels as extension healthcare facilities for patients with mild illness. This study examined the clinical evidence of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who were treated with favipiravir, the main medication for treating COVID-19, in the hospitel setting in Thailand.

Methods

We retrospectively collected demographic and clinical information, medication treatment, and outcome data for all patients who received favipiravir for COVID-19 during admission to a hospitel from April 27, 2021, to July 2, 2021. Risk factors for adults who could not complete treatment in a hospitel and who required hospitel transfer were analyzed.

Results

In total, 421 patients were included in the study. Most patients (94.5%) received favipiravir to treat COVID-19 pneumonia. Adjunctive corticosteroids were prescribed to 42.3% of patients. Concerning the treatment outcome, 83.6% of patients completed treatment at a hospitel, and only two deaths occurred. No serious adverse drug reactions were observed. On multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-1.10, P=0.002), dyspnea (OR = 2.84; 95% CI = 1.25-6.44, P=0.013), loss of taste (OR = 107.63; 95% CI = 1.24-9337.39, P=0.040), corticosteroid use (OR = 12.56; 95% CI = 3.65-43.18, P < 0.001), and an extended duration of favipiravir use (OR = 16.91; 95% CI = 7.29-39.24, P < 0.001) were associated with a higher risk of hospitel transfer.

Conclusions

Low rates of hospitel transfer and mortality were observed in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients treated with favipiravir at hospitel. Caution might be required in elderly patients, patients with dyspnea or a loss of taste, and patients receiving a 10-day course of favipiravir or adjunctive corticosteroids because these patients might require further management in the hospitel.

Predicting hospital readmission risk in patients with COVID-19: A machine learning approach

Introduction

The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic stunned the health systems with severe scarcities in hospital resources. In this critical situation, decreasing COVID-19 readmissions could potentially sustain hospital capacity. This study aimed to select the most affecting features of COVID-19 readmission and compare the capability of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms to predict COVID-19 readmission based on the selected features.

Material and methods

The data of 5791 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were retrospectively recruited from a hospital registry system. The LASSO feature selection algorithm was used to select the most important features related to COVID-19 readmission. HistGradientBoosting classifier (HGB), Bagging classifier, Multi-Layered Perceptron (MLP), Support Vector Machine ((SVM) kernel = linear), SVM (kernel = RBF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) classifiers were used for prediction. We evaluated the performance of ML algorithms with a 10-fold cross-validation method using six performance evaluation metrics.

Results

Out of the 42 features, 14 were identified as the most relevant predictors. The XGBoost classifier outperformed the other six ML models with an average accuracy of 91.7%, specificity of 91.3%, the sensitivity of 91.6%, F-measure of 91.8%, and AUC of 0.91%.

Conclusion

The experimental results prove that ML models can satisfactorily predict COVID-19 readmission. Besides considering the risk factors prioritized in this work, categorizing cases with a high risk of reinfection can make the patient triaging procedure and hospital resource utilization more effective.

Comparison of Trials Using Ivermectin for COVID-19 Between Regions With High and Low Prevalence of Strongyloidiasis: A Meta-analysis

Importance

A widely cited meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials has claimed ivermectin as an effective treatment for prevention of mortality in COVID-19. However, an unrecognized interaction variable with the relative risk (RR) of mortality may substantially change the appropriate interpretation of this analysis.

Objective

To evaluate the association between regional prevalence of strongyloidiasis and ivermectin trial results for the outcome of mortality by testing the hypothesis that strongyloidiasis prevalence interacts with the RR of mortality.

Data Sources

Original meta-analysis as well as a manual review of all references in a dedicated ivermectin trial database (c19ivermectin) from January 1, 2019, to November 6, 2021.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials using ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 and reporting the outcome of mortality. Studies were excluded in the event of publications revealing suspected trial fraud and/or randomization failure.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Study characteristics and RR estimates were extracted from each source. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Differences by strongyloidiasis prevalence were estimated using subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Relative risk of mortality in ivermectin trials in regions of high vs low strongyloidiasis prevalence and correlation coefficient of meta-regression analysis between RR of mortality and regional prevalence of strongyloidiasis.

Results

A total of 12 trials comprising 3901 patients were included in the analysis. Four trials (33%) took place in regions of high strongyloidiasis prevalence and 8 (67%) trials took place in regions of low strongyloidiasis prevalence. Ivermectin trials that took place in areas of low regional strongyloidiasis prevalence were not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of mortality (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.60-1.18]; P = .31). By contrast, ivermectin trials that took place in areas of high regional strongyloidiasis prevalence were associated with a significantly decreased risk of mortality (RR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.09-0.70]; P = .008). Testing for subgroup differences revealed a significant difference between the results of groups with low and high strongyloidiasis prevalence (χ21 = 4.79; P = .03). The estimate for τ2 (the variance of the study effect sizes) was 0 (95% CI, 0.0000-0.2786), and the estimate for I2 (percentage of variability that is explained by between-study heterogeneity) was 0 (95% CI, 0-43.7%). The meta-regression analysis revealed an RR decrease of 38.83% (95% CI, 0.87%-62.25%) for each 5% increase in strongyloidiasis prevalence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis of 12 trials including 3901 patients, strongyloidiasis prevalence was found to interact with the RR of mortality for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. No evidence was found to suggest ivermectin has any role in preventing mortality among patients with COVID-19 in regions where strongyloidiasis was not endemic.

[Potentially useful drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 in Primary Care]

The consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have exceeded any forecast made. Today we know that the level of severity of the infection in its initial stages will correspond to the evolution and the presence of sequelae in the future. There are no specific treatments that have shown sufficient evidence to allow their recommendation, especially in the mild-moderate stages of the disease. The anti-Covid vaccination is showing clear benefits, both in the prevention of the disease and in its evolution, with the consequent improvement in the numbers of those affected by the pandemic. The use of different drugs used in other indications has been proposed as possible beneficial treatments for COVID-19 that, if used, will be prescribed individually taking into account the characteristics and situation of the patient, the evolutionary phase of the disease as well as well as the limitations of the lack of evidence in its administration.

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.

Retrospective evaluation of seven different treatment protocols in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Background/aim

As the experience has increased regarding SARS-CoV-2 in time, treatment trends have changed since the beginning of the pandemic. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different treatment modalities for inpatients in a tertiary pandemic hospital in Antalya, Turkey.

Materials and methods

Individuals aged 18 years and above who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in PCR with presenting COVID-related radiological findings, hospitalized for at least 3 days, and completed follow-up between March 15, 2020 and November 30, 2020 were included in the study. Patients’ data were reviewed retrospectively. Seven treatment groups based on the single or combined use of hydroxychloroquine, oseltamivir, favipiravir, and remdesivir were formed and compared in terms of mortality, survival, length of hospital stay, need for intensive care, and mechanical ventilation.

Results

A total of 321 patients were included in the study. The length of hospital stay, the need for intensive care, and mechanical ventilation were lower in Group 1 (hydroxychloroquine) and Group 2 (hydroxychloroquine + oseltamivir) compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). No significant difference was determined in survival between treatment groups. Analysis of prognostic factors affecting overall survival revealed that the need for intensive care and mechanical ventilation increased mortality [11.1 times (p < 0.001) and 6.48 times (p < 0.001), respectively].

Conclusion

No significant difference was determined between different treatment protocols in terms of their impact on survival. To end the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to develop highly efficient, rapid-acting, and orally available antiviral drugs.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units.

METHODS

Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Clinical outcomes of patients with mild COVID-19 following treatment with hydroxychloroquine in an outpatient setting

The role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in early outpatient management of mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) needs further investigation. This study was a multicenter, population-based national retrospective-cohort investigation of 28,759 adults with mild COVID-19 seen at the network of Comprehensive Healthcare Centers (CHC) between March and September 2020 throughout Iran. The baseline characteristics and outcome variables were extracted from the national integrated health system database. A total of 7295 (25.37%) patients who presented with mild COVID-19 within 3-7 days of symptoms onset received HCQ (400 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg twice daily for the next four days and were then followed for 14 days). The main outcome measures were hospitalization or death for six months follow-up. COVID-19-related hospitalizations or deaths occurred in 523 (7.17%) and 27 (0.37%) respectively, in HCQ recipients and 2382 (11.10%) and 287 (1.34%) respectively, in non-recipients. The odds of hospitalization or death was reduced by 38% (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.68, p = < 0.001) and 73% (OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.18-0.41, p = < 0.001) in HCQ recipients and non-recipients. These effects were maintained after adjusting for age, comorbidities, and diagnostic modality. No serious HCQ-related adverse drug reactions were reported. In our large outpatient national cohort of adults with mild COVID-19 disease who were given HCQ early in the course of the disease, the odds of hospitalization or death was reduced significantly regardless of age or comorbidities.

Safety and Efficacy of Ivermectin and Doxycycline Monotherapy and in Combination in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the evidence in the literature on the safety and efficacy of their use as monotherapy and combination therapy in COVID-19 management.

METHODS

After prospectively registering the study protocol with the Open Science Framework, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, various pre-print servers and reference lists for relevant records published until 16 February, 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Baseline features and data pertaining to efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted separately for IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy, and IVM + DOXY combination therapy. Methodological quality was assessed based on the study design.

RESULTS

Out of 200 articles screened, 19 studies (six retrospective cohort studies, seven randomised controlled trials, five non-randomised trials, one case series) with 8754 unique patients with multiple stages of COVID-19 were included; four were pre-prints and one was an unpublished clinicaltrials.gov document. The comparator was standard care and 'hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin' in seven and three studies respectively, and two studies were placebo controlled; six studies did not have a comparator. IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy and IVM + DOXY were explored in eight, five and five studies, respectively; one study compared IVM monotherapy and IVM + DOXY with placebo. While all studies described efficacy, the safety profile was described in only six studies. Efficacy outcomes were mixed with some studies concluding in favour of the intervention and some studies displaying no significant benefit; barring one study that described 9/183 patients with erosive esophagitis and non-ulcer dyspepsia with IVM + DOXY (without causality assessment details), there were no new safety signals of concern with any of the three interventions considered. The quality of studies varied widely, with five studies having a 'good' methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is not sufficiently strong to either promote or refute the efficacy of IVM, DOXY, or their combination in COVID-19 management.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/n7r2j .

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

From hydroxychloroquine to ivermectin: what are the anti-viral properties of anti-parasitic drugs to combat SARS-CoV-2?

BACKGROUND

Nearly a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, we still lack effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs with substantial impact on mortality rates except for dexamethasone. As the search for effective antiviral agents continues, we aimed to review data on the potential of repurposing antiparasitic drugs against viruses in general, with an emphasis on coronaviruses.

METHODS

We performed a review by screening in vitro and in vivo studies that assessed the antiviral activity of several antiparasitic agents: chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), mefloquine, artemisinins, ivermectin, nitazoxanide (NTZ), niclosamide, atovaquone and albendazole.

RESULTS

For HCQ and chloroquine we found ample in vitro evidence of antiviral activity. Cohort studies that assessed the use of HCQ for COVID-19 reported conflicting results, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated no effect on mortality rates and no substantial clinical benefits of HCQ used either for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. We found two clinical studies of artemisinins and two studies of NTZ for treatment of viruses other than COVID-19, all of which showed mixed results. Ivermectin was evaluated in one RCT and few observational studies, demonstrating conflicting results. As the level of evidence of these data is low, the efficacy of ivermectin against COVID-19 remains to be proven. For chloroquine, HCQ, mefloquine, artemisinins, ivermectin, NTZ and niclosamide, we found in vitro studies showing some effects against a wide array of viruses. We found no relevant studies for atovaquone and albendazole.

CONCLUSIONS

As the search for an effective drug active against SARS-CoV-2 continues, we argue that pre-clinical research of possible antiviral effects of compounds that could have antiviral activity should be conducted. Clinical studies should be conducted when sufficient in vitro evidence exists, and drugs should be introduced into widespread clinical use only after being rigorously tested in RCTs. Such a search may prove beneficial in this pandemic or in outbreaks yet to come.

Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of outpatients with mildly symptomatic COVID-19: a multi-center observational study

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine has not been associated with improved survival among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the majority of observational studies and similarly was not identified as an effective prophylaxis following exposure in a prospective randomized trial. We aimed to explore the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy in mildly symptomatic patients diagnosed in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

We examined the association between outpatient hydroxychloroquine exposure and the subsequent progression of disease among mildly symptomatic non-hospitalized patients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome assessed was requirement of hospitalization. Data was obtained from a retrospective review of electronic health records within a New Jersey USA multi-hospital network. We compared outcomes in patients who received hydroxychloroquine with those who did not applying a multivariable logistic model with propensity matching.

RESULTS

Among 1274 outpatients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection 7.6% were prescribed hydroxychloroquine. In a 1067 patient propensity matched cohort, 21.6% with outpatient exposure to hydroxychloroquine were hospitalized, and 31.4% without exposure were hospitalized. In the primary multivariable logistic regression analysis with propensity matching there was an association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and a decreased rate of hospitalization from COVID-19 (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.95). Sensitivity analyses revealed similar associations. QTc prolongation events occurred in 2% of patients prescribed hydroxychloroquine with no reported arrhythmia events among those with data available.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient population is warranted.

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.

Hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin in COVID-19: The association between time to treatment and case fatality rate

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no formally accepted pharmacological treatment for COVID-19.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included COVID-19 outpatients of a Peruvian primary care center from Lima, Peru, who were treated between April 30 - September 30, 2020, with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. Logistic regression was applied to determine factors associated with case-fatality rate.

RESULTS

A total of 1265 COVID-19 patients with an average age of 44.5 years were studied. Women represented 50.1% of patients, with an overall 5.9 symptom days, SpO2 97%, temperature of 37.3 °C, 41% with at least one comorbidity and 96.1% one symptom or sign. No patient treated within the first 72 h of illness died. The factors associated with higher case fatality rate were age (OR = 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.11, p = 0.021), SpO2 (OR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.79-0.96, p = 0.005) and treatment onset (OR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.27, p = 0.002), being the latter the only associated in the multivariate analysis (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.32, p = 0.005). 0.6% of our patients died.

CONCLUSIONS

The case fatality rate in COVID-19 outpatients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin was associated with the number of days of illness on which treatment was started.