Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial

Comparative clinical trial of Langenlianqiao oral liquid and Lianhuaqingwen capsule in the treatment of mild cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of Langenlianqiao (LGLQ) oral liquid treatment and provide a reference basis for the clincal treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

DESIGN

An experimental clinical study was conducted on three groups with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19. SITE: This study was conducted at Changde Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 253 patients were enrolled in this study.

METHODS

The patients were divided into the LGLQ treatment group (100 cases), the Lianhuaqingwen (LHQW) treatment group (100 cases) and the placebo control group (53 cases), according to the treatment each group received. The occurrence of major clinical symptoms, the duration of symptom disappearance, the number of days in hospitalisation and the duration of infection were compared among the three groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the placebo control group (10.0 [1.2] d, 9.4 [1.3] d), the duration of infection and hospitalisation effectively decreased in the LGLQ group (6.8 [0.6] d, 7.4 [0.8] d) and the LHQW group (6.8 [1.0] d, 7.3 [1.0] d). Furthermore, the incidence of fatigue in the LGLQ group (4.0%) was lower compared to the LHQW group (14.0%) and the placebo control group (15.1%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.580 for LGLQ vs. LHQW, P = 0.246 for LGLQ vs. placebo). In the treatment of cough, the LGLQ group showed a significantly different effect compared to both the LHQW group (P = 0.014) and the placebo group (P = 0.016). Additionally, for dry cough specifically, LHQW was effective in reducing its incidence compared to the placebo control group (P < 0.05), while LGLQ showed no statistically significant difference from either LHQW (P = 0.39) or the placebo group (P = 0.14). However, neither the LGLQ group nor the LHQW group showed a reduction in the duration of symptom disappearance in patients with pre-existing symptoms (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the placebo control group, the LGLQ group showed an improvement in the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and a decrease in the duration of hospitalisation and infection, which confirmed that the LGLQ treatment had the same antiviral effect as the LHQW treatment. This may provide in-depth insights for antiviral therapy research.

Efficacy of Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin in Managing COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic several drugs were used to manage the patients mainly those with a severe phenotype. Potential drugs were used off-label and major concerns arose from their applicability to managing the health crisis highlighting the importance of clinical trials. In this context, we described the mechanisms of the three repurposed drugs [Ivermectin-antiparasitic drug, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine-antimalarial drugs, and Azithromycin-antimicrobial drug]; and, based on this description, the study evaluated the clinical efficacy of those drugs published in clinical trials. The use of these drugs reflects the period of uncertainty that marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made them a possible treatment for COVID-19. Methods: In our review, we evaluated phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy of these drugs published from the COVID-19 pandemic onset to 2023. We included eight RCTs published for Ivermectin, 11 RCTs for Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and three RCTs for Azithromycin. The research question (PICOT) accounted for P-hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19; I-use of oral or intravenous Ivermectin OR Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine OR Azithromycin; C-placebo or no placebo (standard of care); O-mortality OR hospitalization OR viral clearance OR need for mechanical ventilation OR clinical improvement; and T-phase III RCTs. Results: While studying these drugs' respective mechanisms of action, the reasons for which they were thought to be useful became apparent and are as follows: Ivermectin binds to insulin-like growth factor and prevents nuclear transportation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), therefore preventing cell entrance, induces apoptosis, and osmotic cell death and disrupts viral replication. Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine blocks the movement of SARS-CoV-2 from early endosomes to lysosomes inside the cell, also, this drug blocks the binding between SARS-CoV-2 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE)-2 inhibiting the interaction between the virus spike proteins and the cell membrane and this drug can also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 viral replication causing, ultimately, the reduction in viral infection as well as the potential to progression for a higher severity phenotype culminating with a higher chance of death. Azithromycin exerts a down-regulating effect on the inflammatory cascade, attenuating the excessive production of cytokines and inducing phagocytic activity, and acts interfering with the viral replication cycle. Ivermectin, when compared to standard care or placebo, did not reduce the disease severity, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. Only one study demonstrated that Ivermectin may improve viral clearance compared to placebo. Individuals who received Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine did not present a lower incidence of death, improved clinical status, or higher chance of respiratory deterioration compared to those who received usual care or placebo. Also, some studies demonstrated that Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine resulted in worse outcomes and side-effects included severe ones. Adding Azithromycin to a standard of care did not result in clinical improvement in hospitalized COVID-19 participants. In brief, COVID-19 was one of the deadliest pandemics in modern human history. Due to the potential health catastrophe caused by SARS-CoV-2, a global effort was made to evaluate treatments for COVID-19 to attenuate its impact on the human species. Unfortunately, several countries prematurely justified the emergency use of drugs that showed only in vitro effects against SARS-CoV-2, with a dearth of evidence supporting efficacy in humans. In this context, we reviewed the mechanisms of several drugs proposed to treat COVID-19, including Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin, as well as the phase III clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of these drugs for treating patients with this respiratory disease. Conclusions: As the main finding, although Ivermectin, Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin might have mechanistic effects against SARS-CoV-2 infection, most phase III clinical trials observed no treatment benefit in patients with COVID-19, underscoring the need for robust phase III clinical trials.

Severe COVID-19 infection: An institutional review and literature overview

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to describe the group of severe COVID-19 patients at an institutional level, and determine factors associated with different outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients admitted with severe acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 infection. Based on outcomes, we categorized 3 groups of severe COVID-19: (1) Favorable outcome: progressive care unit admission and discharge (2) Intermediate outcome: ICU care (3) Poor outcome: in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients met our inclusion criteria; 42.7% were female. The average age was 59.7 (standard deviation (SD):13.7). Most of the population were Caucasian (95.5%) and non-Hispanic (91.0%). Age, sex, race, and ethnicity were similar between outcome groups. Medicare and Medicaid patients accounted for 62.9%. The average BMI was 33.5 (SD:8.2). Moderate comorbidity was observed, with an average Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) of 3.8 (SD:2.6). There were no differences in the average CCI between groups(p = 0.291). Many patients (67.4%) had hypertension, diabetes (42.7%) and chronic lung disease (32.6%). A statistical difference was found when chronic lung disease was evaluated; p = 0.002. The prevalence of chronic lung disease was 19.6%, 27.8%, and 40% in the favorable, intermediate, and poor outcome groups, respectively. Smoking history was associated with poor outcomes (p = 0.04). Only 7.9% were fully vaccinated. Almost half (46.1%) were intubated and mechanically ventilated. Patients spent an average of 12.1 days ventilated (SD:8.5), with an average of 6.0 days from admission to ventilation (SD:5.1). The intermediate group had a shorter average interval from admission to ventilator (77.2 hours, SD:67.6), than the poor group (212.8 hours, SD:126.8); (p = 0.001). The presence of bacterial pneumonia was greatest in the intermediate group (72.2%), compared to the favorable group (17.4%), and the poor group (56%); this was significant (p<0.0001). In-hospital mortality was seen in 28.1%.

CONCLUSION

Most patients were male, obese, had moderate-level comorbidity, a history of tobacco abuse, and government-funded insurance. Nearly 50% required mechanical ventilation, and about 28% died during hospitalization. Bacterial pneumonia was most prevalent in intubated groups. Patients who were intubated with a good outcome were intubated earlier during their hospital course, with an average difference of 135.6 hours. A history of cigarette smoking and chronic lung disease were associated with poor outcomes.

Challenges of consolidating evidence collected during a pandemic and lessons for the future

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate the challenges encountered when gathering rapidly synthesized evidence in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

In this article, we describe the challenges encountered when we performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of treatments for severe COVID-19. The methods of the SLR are described in full, to show the context of our objectives. Then we use the results of the SLR to demonstrate the problems of producing synthesized evidence in this setting.

RESULTS

Various challenges were identified during this SLR. These were primarily a result of heterogeneity in the study methodology of eligible studies. Definitions of the patient populations and outcome measurements were highly variable and the majority of studies demonstrated a high risk of bias, preventing quantitative synthesis of the collated evidence.

CONCLUSION

Consolidating evidence from RCTs evaluating COVID-19 interventions was problematic. Guidance is needed for scenarios with high rapid output in primary research.

Antimalarial Drugs at the Intersection of SARS-CoV-2 and Rheumatic Diseases: What Are the Potential Opportunities?

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed a serious threat to humanity and is considered a global health emergency. Antimalarial drugs (ADs) have been used in the treatment of immuno-inflammatory arthritis (IIA) and coronavirus infection (COVID-19). The aim of this review is to analyze the current knowledge about the immunomodulatory and antiviral mechanisms of action, characteristics of use, and side effects of antimalarial drugs. Material and Methods: A literature search was carried out using PubMed, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar databases. The inclusion criteria were the results of randomized and cohort studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and original full-text manuscripts in the English language containing statistically confirmed conclusions. The exclusion criteria were summary reports, newspaper articles, and personal messages. Qualitative methods were used for theoretical knowledge on antimalarial drug usage in AIRDs and SARS-CoV-2 such as a summarization of the literature and a comparison of the treatment methods. Results: The ADs were considered a "candidate" for the therapy of a new coronavirus infection due to mechanisms of antiviral activity, such as interactions with endocytic pathways, the prevention of glycosylation of the ACE2 receptors, blocking sialic acid receptors, and reducing the manifestations of cytokine storms. The majority of clinical trials suggest no role of antimalarial drugs in COVID-19 treatment or prevention. These circumstances do not allow for their use in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Conclusions: The mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine are related to potential cardiotoxic manifestations and demonstrate potential adverse effects when used for COVID-19. Furthermore, the need for high doses in the treatment of viral infections increases the likelihood of gastrointestinal side effects, the prolongation of QT, and retinopathy. Large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have refuted the fact that there is a positive effect on the course and results of COVID-19.

Is Antimicrobial Stewardship Policy Effectively Implemented in Polish Hospitals? Results from Antibiotic Consumption Surveillance before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic posed numerous challenges to public health systems, particularly in antimicrobial stewardship. This study aimed to assess antibiotic consumption before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented antimicrobial stewardship program.

METHODS

This retrospective study was carried out at the University Hospital in Krakow, Poland, between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020. A total of 80,639 patients were enrolled. Antibiotic usage was measured as the percentage of patients receiving antibiotics and the number of days of therapy (DOTs). The World Health Organization (WHO) methodology and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) codes and AWaRe classification were utilized. The analyzed ATC antibiotic groups included penicillins (J01CA, J01CE, J01CF, J01CR, excluding piperacillin/tazobactam), piperacillin with tazobactam-beta-lactamase inhibitor (J01CR05), third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins (J01DD, J01DE), carbapenems (J01DH), macrolides (J01FA), fluoroquinolones (J01M), colistin (J01XB01), metronidazole (J01XD01) and others (J01DF, J01DI, J01E, J01G, J01XA, J01A). In the AWaRe classification, Access, Watch and Reserve groups of antibiotics were included.

RESULTS

In 2020, 79.2% of COVID-19 patients and 40.1% of non-COVID-19 patients were treated with antibiotics, compared to 28.8% in 2019. Also, in 2020, the antibiotic consumption in non-ICU COVID-19 patients was twice as high as in non-COVID-19 patients: 50.9 vs. 38.5 DOTs/100 patient days (pds). Conversely, in the ICU, antibiotic consumption in COVID-19 patients was 112.1 DOTs/100 pds compared to 248.9 DOTs/100 pds in non-COVID-19 patients. Significant increases were observed in the usage of third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins in 2020. The analysis according to the AWaRe system revealed the highest usage of the Watch group-ranging from 61.9% to 78.7%-and very high usage of the Reserve group-from 5.8% to 11.1%-in non COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight substantial issues with antibiotic use both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results underscore the urgent need for improved antimicrobial stewardship policy implementation.

Antibiotic utilization patterns in Tanzania: a retrospective longitudinal study comparing pre- and intra-COVID-19 pandemic era using Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority data

Background

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing public health concern globally, and misuse of antibiotics is a major contributor.

Objective

This study investigated antibiotic utilization patterns before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Tanzania using data from the Tanzania Medicines and Medical Devices Authority (TMDA).

Methods

This retrospective longitudinal study analysed secondary data. The study compared antibiotics consumption in defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID) in two distinct eras: 2018-2019 as the pre-COVID-19 era and 2020-2021 as the intra-COVID-19 era. A sample t-test was conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

Results

The study analysed 10 614 records and found an overall increase in antibiotics consumption from 2018 to 2021. We found that the consumption was 61.24 DID in the intra-COVID-19 era and 50.32 DID in the pre-COVID-19 era. Levofloxacin had the highest percentage increase in use, with a 700% increase in DID during the intra-COVID-19 era. Azithromycin had a 163.79% increase, while cefotaxime had a 600% increase. By contrast, some antibiotics exhibited a decrease in usage during the intra-COVID-19 era, such as nalidixic acid, which had a 100% decrease, and cefpodoxime, which had a 66.67% decrease.

Conclusions

Increased antibiotic consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of implementing effective antimicrobial stewardship strategies to prevent AMR, especially during pandemics.

Evaluating whether the proportional odds models to analyse ordinal outcomes in COVID-19 clinical trials is providing clinically interpretable treatment effects: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

After an initial recommendation from the World Health Organisation, trials of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 often include an ordinal clinical status outcome, which comprises a series of ordered categorical variables, typically ranging from 'Alive and discharged from hospital' to 'Dead'. These ordinal outcomes are often analysed using a proportional odds model, which provides a common odds ratio as an overall measure of effect, which is generally interpreted as the odds ratio for being in a higher category. The common odds ratio relies on the assumption of proportional odds, which implies an identical odds ratio across all ordinal categories; however, there is generally no statistical or biological basis for which this assumption should hold; and when violated, the common odds ratio may be a biased representation of the odds ratios for particular categories within the ordinal outcome. In this study, we aimed to evaluate to what extent the common odds ratio in published COVID-19 trials differed to simple binary odds ratios for clinically important outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials evaluating interventions for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, which used a proportional odds model to analyse an ordinal clinical status outcome, published between January 2020 and May 2021. We assessed agreement between the common odds ratio and the odds ratio from a standard logistic regression model for three clinically important binary outcomes: 'Alive', 'Alive without mechanical ventilation', and 'Alive and discharged from hospital'.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials, comprising 38 individual comparisons, were included in this study; of these, only 6 trials (38%) formally assessed the proportional odds assumption. The common odds ratio differed by more than 25% compared to the binary odds ratios in 55% of comparisons for the outcome 'Alive', 37% for 'Alive without mechanical ventilation', and 24% for 'Alive and discharged from hospital'. In addition, the common odds ratio systematically underestimated the odds ratio for the outcome 'Alive' by -16.8% (95% confidence interval: -28.7% to -2.9%, p = 0.02), though differences for the other outcomes were smaller and not statistically significant (-8.4% for 'Alive without mechanical ventilation' and 3.6% for 'Alive and discharged from hospital'). The common odds ratio was statistically significant for 18% of comparisons, while the binary odds ratio was significant in 5%, 16%, and 3% of comparisons for the outcomes 'Alive', 'Alive without mechanical ventilation', and 'Alive and discharged from hospital', respectively.

CONCLUSION

The common odds ratio from proportional odds models often differs substantially to odds ratios from clinically important binary outcomes, and similar to composite outcomes, a beneficial common OR from a proportional odds model does not necessarily indicate a beneficial effect on the most important categories within the ordinal outcome.

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to estimate the causal effect of one or more interventions relative to a control. One type of outcome that can be of interest in an RCT is an ordinal outcome, which is useful to answer clinical questions regarding complex and evolving patient states. The target parameter of interest for an ordinal outcome depends on the research question and the assumptions the analyst is willing to make. This review aimed to provide an overview of how ordinal outcomes have been used and analysed in RCTs.

METHODS

The review included RCTs with an ordinal primary or secondary outcome published between 2017 and 2022 in four highly ranked medical journals (the British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) identified through PubMed. Details regarding the study setting, design, the target parameter, and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome were extracted.

RESULTS

The search identified 309 studies, of which 144 were eligible for inclusion. The most used target parameter was an odds ratio, reported in 78 (54%) studies. The ordinal outcome was dichotomised for analysis in 47 ( 33 % ) studies, and the most common statistical model used to analyse the ordinal outcome on the full ordinal scale was the proportional odds model (64 [ 44 % ] studies). Notably, 86 (60%) studies did not explicitly check or describe the robustness of the assumptions for the statistical method(s) used.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review indicate that in RCTs that use an ordinal outcome, there is variation in the target parameter and the analytical approaches used, with many dichotomising the ordinal outcome. Few studies provided assurance regarding the appropriateness of the assumptions and methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome. More guidance is needed to improve the transparent reporting of the analysis of ordinal outcomes in future trials.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

OBJECTIVE

To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil.

METHODS

Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made.

CONCLUSION

New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

COVID-19 and health systems in Brazil and around the world: effects on the working conditions and health of health workers

This article discusses the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems and its effects on the working conditions and mental health of health professionals and invisible health workers. It presents data on deaths among health professionals, highlighting the need for better and safer working conditions and improvements in public management. We emphasize WHO/PAHO recommendations and the need for equitable vaccine distribution, including poor countries and vulnerable populations. We also highlight the impacts of interrupting essential health services, such as the treatment of chronic conditions and infectious disease prevention, and the damage caused by the dissemination of fake news, stressing the need to improve access to correct and safe health information.

Coronavirus disease 2019 in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The clinical presentation and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have not been well studied.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis to examine the presenting features, outcomes and the effect of treatment on outcomes of KTRs with COVID-19. Database search was performed up to 5 September 2020 through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and CENTRAL.

Results

Overall, 23 studies (1,373 patients) were included in the review and meta-analysis. The most common presenting symptoms included fever (74.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 65.3-81.1), cough (63.3%, 95% CI 56.5-69.6) and dyspnoea (47.5%, 95% CI 39.6-55.6). Pooled rates of mortality and critical illness were 21.1% (95% CI 15.3-28.4) and 27.7% (95% CI 21.5-34.8), respectively. Acute kidney injury occurred in 38.9% (95% CI 30.6-48.1) and dialysis was required in 12.4% (95% CI 8.3-18.0) of the cases.

Conclusion

Kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 have a similar clinical presentation as the general population, but they have higher morbidity and mortality. It is uncertain whether high-dose corticosteroid or hydroxychloroquine reduces the risks of mortality in KTRs with COVID-19.

Physicochemical Characteristics of Antimicrobials and Practical Recommendations for Intravenous Administration: A Systematic Review

Most antimicrobial drugs need an intravenous (IV) administration to achieve maximum efficacy against target pathogens. IV administration is related to complications, such as tissue infiltration and thrombo-phlebitis. This systematic review aims to provide practical recommendations about diluent, pH, osmolarity, dosage, infusion rate, vesicant properties, and phlebitis rate of the most commonly used antimicrobial drugs evaluated in randomized controlled studies (RCT) till 31 March 2023. The authors searched for available IV antimicrobial drugs in RCT in PUBMED EMBASE®, EBSCO® CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials. Drugs' chemical features were searched online, in drug data sheets, and in scientific papers, establishing that the drugs with a pH of <5 or >9, osmolarity >600 mOsm/L, high incidence of phlebitis reported in the literature, and vesicant drugs need the adoption of utmost caution during administration. We evaluated 931 papers; 232 studies were included. A total of 82 antimicrobials were identified. Regarding antibiotics, 37 reach the "caution" criterion, as well as seven antivirals, 10 antifungals, and three antiprotozoals. In this subgroup of antimicrobials, the correct vascular access device (VAD) selection is essential to avoid complications due to the administration through a peripheral vein. Knowing the physicochemical characteristics of antimicrobials is crucial to improve the patient's safety significantly, thus avoiding administration errors and local side effects.

Relationship Between Azithromycin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Unvaccinated Patients With COVID-19 and Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease

Background Empiric antimicrobial therapy with azithromycin is highly used in patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, despite prior research suggesting that azithromycin may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. Methods and Results This study was conducted using data from the ISACS-COVID-19 (International Survey of Acute Coronavirus Syndromes-COVID-19) registry. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion. The study included 793 patients exposed to azithromycin within 24 hours from hospital admission and 2141 patients who received only standard care. The primary exposure was cardiovascular disease (CVD). Main outcome measures were 30-day mortality and acute heart failure (AHF). Among 2934 patients, 1066 (36.4%) had preexisting CVD. A total of 617 (21.0%) died, and 253 (8.6%) had AHF. Azithromycin therapy was consistently associated with an increased risk of AHF in patients with preexisting CVD (risk ratio [RR], 1.48 [95% CI, 1.06-2.06]). Receiving azithromycin versus standard care was not significantly associated with death (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.28]). By contrast, we found significantly reduced odds of death (RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.42-0.79]) and no significant increase in AHF (RR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.75-2.04]) in patients without prior CVD. The relative risks of death from the 2 subgroups were significantly different from each other (Pinteraction=0.01). Statistically significant association was observed between AHF and death (odds ratio, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.34-3.90]). Conclusions These findings suggest that azithromycin use in patients with COVID-19 and prior history of CVD is significantly associated with an increased risk of AHF and all-cause 30-day mortality. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05188612.

Healing Treatments in COVID-19 Patients: A Narrative Review

Since December 2019, many drugs have been evaluated or advocated as potential treatments of SARS-CoV-2 induced disease (COVID-19), including many repositioned drugs and some others specifically developed for these diseases. They can be roughly classified into three categories according to their main mechanism of action (passive immunization, direct antivirals, and anti-inflammatory treatments), and their use depends on the stage of the disease. Despite often promising preclinical data, most of the treatments evaluated failed to show a significant clinical benefit. In addition, a few others have seen their effectiveness affected by the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and sub-variants. Herein, the aim of this article is to take stock of the data available as of the 14th of July 2022, concerning the specific healing options evaluated for patients suffering from COVID-19. We focus particularly on healing treatments of COVID-19 and do not deal with preventive treatments such as vaccine. Associated therapies such as venous thromboembolism prophylaxis are not detailed since they are covered in a specific chapter of this issue. Passive immunization, especially through monoclonal antibodies, showed a positive impact on the clinical evolution, whether in outpatients or inpatients without oxygen supply. However, their effectiveness strongly depends on the type of SARS-CoV-2 variant, and often decreases or even vanishes with the most recent variants. Among direct antiviral treatments, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir appears to currently be the cornerstone in the management of early infections, but its use may be limited by drug interactions. Remdesivir remains as an alternative in this situation, even though it is potentially less convenient. Anti-inflammatory treatments have often been shown to be the most effective in inpatients with oxygen supply. Dexamethasone is now a cornerstone of management of these patients. Added tocilizumab seems beneficial in the case of hyper inflammation. JAK inhibitors and anakinra have also gained an interest in some studies. As a conclusion of this narrative review, the best treatment strategy has yet to be defined and is likely to evolve in the future, not only because many other drugs are still under development and evaluation, but also because of the viral epidemics and epidemiology evolution.

Prescribing of Outpatient Antibiotics Commonly Used for Respiratory Infections Among Adults Before and During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Brazil

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have impacted outpatient antibiotic prescribing in low- and middle-income countries such as Brazil. However, outpatient antibiotic prescribing in Brazil, particularly at the prescription level, is not well-described.

METHODS

We used the IQVIA MIDAS database to characterize changes in prescribing rates of antibiotics commonly prescribed for respiratory infections (azithromycin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, levofloxacin/moxifloxacin, cephalexin, and ceftriaxone) among adults in Brazil overall and stratified by age and sex, comparing prepandemic (January 2019-March 2020) and pandemic periods (April 2020-December 2021) using uni- and multivariate Poisson regression models. The most common prescribing provider specialties for these antibiotics were also identified.

RESULTS

In the pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period, outpatient azithromycin prescribing rates increased across all age-sex groups (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 1.474-3.619), with the greatest increase observed in males aged 65-74 years; meanwhile, prescribing rates for amoxicillin-clavulanate and respiratory fluoroquinolones mostly decreased, and changes in cephalosporin prescribing rates varied across age-sex groups (IRR range, 0.134-1.910). For all antibiotics, the interaction of age and sex with the pandemic in multivariable models was an independent predictor of prescribing changes comparing the pandemic versus prepandemic periods. General practitioners and gynecologists accounted for the majority of increases in azithromycin and ceftriaxone prescribing during the pandemic period.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial increases in outpatient prescribing rates for azithromycin and ceftriaxone were observed in Brazil during the pandemic with prescribing rates being disproportionally different by age and sex. General practitioners and gynecologists were the most common prescribers of azithromycin and ceftriaxone during the pandemic, identifying them as potential specialties for antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

A linked physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for hydroxychloroquine and metabolite desethylhydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+) populations

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for malaria, systemic and chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Because HCQ has a proposed multimodal mechanism of action and a well-established safety profile, it is often investigated as a repurposed therapeutic for a range of indications. There is a large degree of uncertainty in HCQ pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters which complicates dose selection when investigating its use in new disease states. Complications with HCQ dose selection emerged as multiple clinical trials investigated HCQ as a potential therapeutic in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to uncertainty in baseline HCQ PK parameters, it was not clear if disease-related consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 would be expected to impact the PK of HCQ and its primary metabolite desethylhydroxychloroquine (DHCQ). To address the question whether SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 impacted HCQ and DHCQ PK, dried blood spot samples were collected from SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+) participants administered HCQ. When a previously published physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was used to fit the data, the variability in exposure of HCQ and DHCQ was not adequately captured and DHCQ concentrations were overestimated. Improvements to the previous PBPK model were made by incorporating the known range of blood to plasma concentration ratios (B/P) for each compound, adjusting HCQ and DHCQ distribution settings, and optimizing DHCQ clearance. The final PBPK model adequately captured the HCQ and DHCQ concentrations observed in SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+)participants, and incorporating COVID-19-associated changes in cytochrome P450 activity did not further improve model performance for the SARS-CoV-2(+) population.

Impact of common comorbidities on antimicrobial consumption and mortality amongst critically ill COVID-19 patients: A retrospective two center study in Saudi Arabia

Objectives

To determine the association between common comorbidities, ICU mortality and antimicrobial consumption among critically ill COVID 19 patients in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

A retrospective observational study of patients admitted to the ICU from March 1st, 2020, through August 31st, 2021. We excluded patients who stayed <24 h in the ICU and with no confirmed COVID-19 PCR testing.

Results

Of the 976 screened ICU patients, 848 were included. While there was no difference in mortality between patients with and without comorbidities, those with at least one comorbidity had a higher severity of illness (p = 0.013). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were more likely to require mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support (P < 0.001). Almost all patients received at least one antimicrobial therapy. Predictors independently associated with ICU mortality were: older age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.04), vancomycin use (AOR, 2.69; 95% [CI], 1.65-4.37), linezolid use (AOR, 2.65; 95% [CI], 1.65-4.04), sepsis or septic shock (AOR, 6.39; 95% [CI], 3.68-11.08), Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) (AOR, 2.51; 95% [CI], 1.61-3.92) and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) (AOR, 2.03; 95% [CI], 1.61-3.92).

Conclusion

Older age, vancomycin and linezolid use, sepsis/septic shock, AKI, and ARDS were negative prognostic factors in critically ill COVID-19 patients. More studies are needed to evaluate the outcomes of survived critically ill patients in relation to their vaccination status.

Herbal small RNAs in patients with COVID-19 linked to reduced DEG expression

In China, more than 80% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) received traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as a treatment and their clinical efficacy have been reported. However, the underlying molecular mechanism remains unclear. Previous studies have identified herbal small RNAs (sRNAs) as novel functional components. In this study, a cohort of 22 patients with COVID-19 treated with Toujie Quwen (TQ) granules was analyzed. We observed thousands of herbal small RNAs that entered the blood cells of patients after the consumption of TQ granules. In response to this treatment, the reduced differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were highly correlated with the predicted target genes of the most prevalent herbal sRNAs detected in the blood. Moreover, the predicted target genes of the top 30 sRNAs from each of the 245 TCMs in the Bencao sRNA Atlas overlapped with 337 upregulated DEGs in patients with mild COVID-19, and 33 TCMs, with more than 50% overlapping genes were identified as effective TCMs. These predicted target genes of top 30 sRNAs from Juhong, Gualoupi and Foshou were confirmed experimentally. Our results not only elucidated a novel molecular mechanism of TCM potential clinical efficacy for COVID-19 patients, but also provided 33 effective COVID-19 TCMs for prescription optimization.

The Hidden Cost of COVID-19: Focus on Antimicrobial Resistance in Bloodstream Infections

Antibiotic resistance is one of the greatest growing public health threats and a worldwide priority. According to the WHO, drug-resistant diseases may cause 10 million deaths a year by 2050 and have a substantial impact on the global economy, driving up to 24 million people into poverty. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the fallacies and vulnerability of healthcare systems worldwide, displacing resources from existing programs and reducing funding for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) fighting efforts. Moreover, as already seen for other respiratory viruses, such as flu, COVID-19 is often associated with superinfections, prolonged hospital stays, and increased ICU admissions, further aggravating healthcare disruption. These events are accompanied by widespread antibiotic use, misuse, and inappropriate compliance with standard procedures with a potential long-term impact on AMR. Still, COVID-19-related measures such as increasing personal and environmental hygiene, social distancing, and decreasing hospital admissions could theoretically help the AMR cause. However, several reports have shown increased antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This narrative review focuses on this "twindemic", assessing the current knowledge of antimicrobial resistance in the COVID-19 era with a focus on bloodstream infections and provides insights into the lessons learned in the COVID-19 field that could be applied to antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.

Antihistamines as an early treatment for Covid-19

Infection with SARs-COV-2 results in COVID-19 disease. Between March 2020 and August 2021, 468 COVID-19 patients confirmed by PCR or antigen test, in Yepes, Spain, received early treatment with antihistamines, adding azithromycin in selected cases. The primary endpoint is the hospitalization rate of COVID-19 patients, and the secondary endpoints are ICU admission and mortality rates. All endpoints are compared with the official Spanish rates during the time period of the study. There were 20 hospital admissions (hospitalization rate 4,3%), 5 ICU admissions (ICU admission rate 1,1%) and 3 deaths (fatality rate of 0,6%). No patients in the study required follow up treatment, which suggest they did not develop long COVID. Results from this retrospective trail indicate that early treatment of SARS-COV-2 positive patients with antihistamines may reduce the odds of hospitalization (OR: 0.490, CI: 0.313-0.767, p-value: 0.001). Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the effects of early antihistamine treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients to prevent hospitalization, ICU admission, mortality and long-covid.

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

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

Rivaroxaban in Outpatients with Mild or Moderate COVID-19: Rationale and Design of the Study CARE (CARE - Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VIII)

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated a high risk of arterial and venous thromboembolic events as a consequence of direct viral damage to endothelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 and a procoagulant milieu due to increased biomarkers, such as D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII. Although randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapies have been conducted in hospitalized patients, few have evaluated the role of thromboprophylaxis in an outpatient setting.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduces the risk of venous or arterial thrombotic events, invasive ventilatory support, and death in COVID-19 outpatients.

METHODS

The COVID Antithrombotic Rivaroxaban Evaluation (CARE) study, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 14 days or local standard treatment alone to prevent adverse outcomes, is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04757857). The inclusion criteria are adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild or moderate symptoms without indication for hospitalization, within 7 days of symptom onset, and 1 risk factor for COVID-19 complication (> 65 years, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other chronic lung diseases, smoking, immunosuppression, or obesity). The primary composite endpoint, which includes venous thromboembolism, invasive mechanical ventilation, major acute cardiovascular events, and mortality within 30 days of randomization, will be assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. All patients will provide informed consent. A significance level of 5% will be used for all statistical tests.

RESULTS

Major thrombotic and bleeding outcomes, hospitalizations, and deaths will be centrally adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee blinded to the assigned treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The CARE study will provide relevant and contemporary information about the potential role of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19.

Comparison of methylprednisolone pulse vs conventional dexamethasone for adult cases of COVID-19 requiring oxygen; a Japanese retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although dexamethasone is an effective treatment in cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring oxygen, the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulse is unclear. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of methylprednisolone pulse to those of dexamethasone.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study on adult COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen and no invasive mechanical ventilation treated with methylprednisolone pulse (1 g/day for 3 days) or dexamethasone (6 mg/day orally or 6.6 mg/day intravenously for ≥5 days). The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LoS), duration of oxygen requirement, and requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).

RESULTS

Twenty two cases of methylprednisolone pulse and 77 cases of dexamethasone were included. Mask ventilation was more common in the methylprednisolone pulse group (P < 0.001). The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between both groups (P = 0.635). The secondary outcomes of hospital mortality and the requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, and CRRT were similar between groups. No cases received ECMO. Median LoS (P = 0.006) and duration of oxygen requirement (P = 0.004) were longer in the methylprednisolone pulse group.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between the methylprednisolone pulse and the dexamethasone group. However, more cases in the methylprednisolone pulse group required mask ventilation than in the dexamethasone group, suggesting that some cases benefited from methylprednisolone pulse.

An overview on the treatments and prevention against COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Critical patients COVID-19 has changed the management and outcomes in the ICU after 1 year of the pandemic? A multicenter, prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of critical patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated in Intensive Care Units (ICU) after one year of pandemic.

METHODOLOGY

Multicenter, prospective study, which included critical COVID-19 patients in 9 ICUs in northwestern Spain. The clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of patients admitted to the ICU during the months of March-April 2020 (period 1) were compared with patients admitted in January-February 2021 (period 2).

RESULTS

337 patients were included (98 in period 1 and 239 in period 2). In period 2, fewer patients required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (65% vs 84%, p < 0.001), using high-flow nasal cannulas (CNAF) more frequently (70% vs 7%, p < 0.001), ventilation non-invasive mechanical (NIMV) (40% vs 14%, p < 0.001), corticosteroids (100% vs 96%, p = 0.007) and prone position in both awake (42% vs 28%, p = 0.012), and intubated patients (67% vs 54%, p = 0.034). The days of IMV, ICU stay and hospital stay were lower in period 2. Mortality was similar in the two periods studied (16% vs 17%).

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year of pandemic, we observed that in patients admitted to the ICU, CNAF, NIMV, use of the prone position, and corticosteroids have been used more frequently, reducing the number of patients in IMV, and the length of stay in the ICU and hospital stay. Mortality was similar in the two study periods.

[Critical patients COVID-19 has changed the management and outcomes in the ICU after 1 year of the pandemic? A multicenter, prospective, observational study]

Objective

To compare the clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of critical patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated in intensive care units (ICU) after one year of pandemic.

Methodology

Multicenter, prospective study, which included critical COVID-19 patients in 9 ICUs in northwestern Spain. The clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of patients admitted to the ICU during the months of March-April 2020 (period 1) were compared with patients admitted in January-February 2021 (period 2).

Results

337 patients were included (98 in period 1 and 239 in period 2). In period 2, fewer patients required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (65% vs. 84%, P < .001), using high-flow nasal cannulas (CNAF) more frequently (70% vs. 7%, P < .001), ventilation non-invasive mechanical (NIMV) (40% vs. 14%, P < .001), corticosteroids (100% vs. 96%, P = .007) and prone position in both awake (42% vs. 28%, P = .012), and intubated patients (67% vs. 54%, P = .034). The days of IMV, ICU stay and hospital stay were lower in period 2. Mortality was similar in the two periods studied (16% vs. 17%).

Conclusions

After one year of pandemic, we observed that in patients admitted to the ICU, CNAF, NIMV, use of the prone position, and corticosteroids have been used more frequently, reducing the number of patients in IMV, and the length of stay in the ICU and hospital stay. Mortality was similar in the two study periods.

Association between acute disease severity and one-year quality of life among post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients: Coalition VII prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To assess the association between acute disease severity and 1-year quality of life in patients discharged after hospitalisation due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study nested in 5 randomised clinical trials between March 2020 and March 2022 at 84 sites in Brazil. Adult post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was the utility score of EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and new disabilities in instrumental activities of daily living. Adjusted generalised estimating equations were used to assess the association between outcomes and acute disease severity according to the highest level on a modified ordinal scale during hospital stay (2: no oxygen therapy; 3: oxygen by mask or nasal prongs; 4: high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation; 5: mechanical ventilation).

RESULTS

1508 COVID-19 survivors were enrolled. Primary outcome data were available for 1156 participants. At 1 year, compared with severity score 2, severity score 5 was associated with lower EQ-5D-3L utility scores (0.7 vs 0.84; adjusted difference, - 0.1 [95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.06]); and worse results for all-cause mortality (7.9% vs 1.2%; adjusted difference, 7.1% [95% CI 2.5%-11.8%]), major cardiovascular events (5.6% vs 2.3%; adjusted difference, 2.6% [95% CI 0.6%-4.6%]), and new disabilities (40.4% vs 23.5%; adjusted difference, 15.5% [95% CI 8.5%-22.5]). Severity scores 3 and 4 did not differ consistently from score 2.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 patients who needed mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation have lower 1-year quality of life than COVID-19 patients who did not need mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation.

The development of COVID-19 treatment

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that has become the greatest worldwide public health threat of this century. Recent studies have unraveled numerous mysteries of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and thus largely improved the studies of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutic strategies. However, important questions remain regarding its therapy. In this review, the recent research advances on COVID-19 mechanism are quickly summarized. We mainly discuss current therapy strategies for COVID-19, with an emphasis on antiviral agents, neutralizing antibody therapies, Janus kinase inhibitors, and steroids. When necessary, specific mechanisms and the history of therapy are present, and representative strategies are described in detail. Finally, we discuss key outstanding questions regarding future directions of the development of COVID-19 treatment.

The Outcome of COVID-19 Infection on Kidney Transplantation Recipients in Southern Saudi Arabia: Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

To report the incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe COVID-19 disease in kidney transplant recipients attending a Saudi hospital at a single center in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A retrospective chart-based cohort study involving all kidney transplant recipients tested for COVID-19 in the Armed Forces Hospital Southern Region, KSA.

RESULTS

Of 532 kidney transplant recipients who reported to the center, from March 2020 to June 2022, 180 were tested for COVID-19. Of these recipients, 31 (17%) tested positive. Among the 31 positive recipients, 11 were treated at home, 15 were admitted to the noncritical isolation ward, and 5 were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Older age (P = .0001), higher body mass index (P = .0001), and history of hypertension (P = .0023) were more frequent in the COVID-19-positive recipients. Admission to the ICU was more frequent in older recipients (P = .0322) with a history of ischemic heart disease (P = .06) and higher creatinine baseline (P = .08) presenting with dyspnea (P = .0174), and acute allograft dysfunction (P = .002). In the ICU group, 4 (80%) patients required hemodialysis, and 4 (80%) died.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 could have a higher risk for developing acute kidney injury, dialysis, and mortality than the general population. ICU admission and renal replacement therapy were more evident in older recipients with a history of ischemic heart disease, presenting with shortness of breath (P = .017) and a higher serum creatinine baseline. Acute allograft dysfunction was the independent predictor of mortality among patients admitted to the ICU.

Evolution of Care and Outcomes Across Surges in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has unfolded in distinct surges. Understanding how surges differ may reveal important insights into the evolution of the pandemic and improve patient care.

METHODS

We leveraged the Michigan Medicine COVID-19 Cohort, a prospective observational study at an academic tertiary medical center that systematically enrolled 2309 consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19, comprising 5 distinct surges.

RESULTS

As the pandemic evolved, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 tended to have a lower burden of comorbidities and a lower inflammatory burden as measured by admission levels of C-reactive protein, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, and D-dimer. Use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin decreased substantially after Surge 1, while use of corticosteroids and remdesivir markedly increased (P < .001 for all). In-hospital mortality significantly decreased from 18.3% in Surge 1 to 5.3% in Surge 5 (P < .001). The need for mechanical ventilation significantly decreased from 42.5% in Surge 1 to 7.0% in Surge 5 (P < .001), while the need for renal replacement therapy decreased from 14.4% in Surge 1 to 2.3% in Surge 5 (P < .001). Differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and inflammatory markers accounted only partially for the differences in outcomes between surges.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved significantly with respect to hospitalized patient populations and therapeutic approaches, and clinical outcomes have substantially improved. Hospitalization after the first surge was independently associated with improved outcomes, even after controlling for relevant clinical covariates.

Life stressors significantly impact long-term outcomes and post-acute symptoms 12-months after COVID-19 hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Limited data exists evaluating predictors of long-term outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The following outcomes were collected at 6 and 12-months post-diagnosis: disability using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), activities of daily living assessed with the Barthel Index, cognition assessed with the telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (t-MoCA), Neuro-QoL batteries for anxiety, depression, fatigue and sleep, and post-acute symptoms of COVID-19. Predictors of these outcomes, including demographics, pre-COVID-19 comorbidities, index COVID-19 hospitalization metrics, and life stressors, were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 790 COVID-19 patients who survived hospitalization, 451(57%) completed 6-month (N = 383) and/or 12-month (N = 242) follow-up, and 77/451 (17%) died between discharge and 12-month follow-up. Significant life stressors were reported in 121/239 (51%) at 12-months. In multivariable analyses, life stressors including financial insecurity, food insecurity, death of a close contact and new disability were the strongest independent predictors of worse mRS, Barthel Index, depression, fatigue, and sleep scores, and prolonged symptoms, with adjusted odds ratios ranging from 2.5 to 20.8. Other predictors of poor outcome included older age (associated with worse mRS, Barthel, t-MoCA, depression scores), baseline disability (associated with worse mRS, fatigue, Barthel scores), female sex (associated with worse Barthel, anxiety scores) and index COVID-19 severity (associated with worse Barthel index, prolonged symptoms).

CONCLUSIONS

Life stressors contribute substantially to worse functional, cognitive and neuropsychiatric outcomes 12-months after COVID-19 hospitalization. Other predictors of poor outcome include older age, female sex, baseline disability and severity of index COVID-19.

Antibiotics Use in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Literature Review

The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of the pandemic. We performed a literature review to assess the reasons, evidence and practices on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. Published articles providing data on antibiotics use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches on the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Searching the MEDLINE database, the following search terms were adopted: ((antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)). Searching the SCOPUS database, the following search terms were used: ((antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)). The risk of bias in the included studies was not assessed. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five-hundred-ninety-three studies were identified, published from January 2020 to 30 October 2022. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, 32 studies were on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 inpatients and 4 on antibiotic use in COVID-19 outpatients. Apart from the studies identified and included in the review, the main recommendations on antibiotic treatment from 5 guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19 were also summarized in a separate paragraph. Antibiotics should not be prescribed during COVID-19 unless there is a strong clinical suspicion of bacterial coinfection or superinfection.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION

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

The Intersection Between Heart Failure and Critical Care Cardiology: An International Perspective on Structure, Staffing, and Design Considerations

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery.

Multicenter, randomized controlled trial of traditional Japanese medicine, kakkonto with shosaikotokakikyosekko, for mild and moderate coronavirus disease patients

The traditional Japanese (Kampo) medicine, kakkonto with shosaikotokakikyosekko, has antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects. In this randomized trial, patients with mild and moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were randomly allocated to the control group receiving conventional treatment for symptom relief such as antipyretics and antitussives or the Kampo group receiving mixed extract granules of kakkonto (2.5 g) and shosaikotokakikyosekko (2.5 g) three times a day for 14 days in addition to conventional treatment. The main outcome was the number of days until total symptom relief. The secondary outcome was the number of days until each symptom's relief and whether the disease progressed to respiratory failure. We enrolled a total of 161 patients (Kampo group, n = 81; control group, n = 80). The results from Kaplan-Meier estimates of symptom relief showed that there are no significant differences between the groups. However, covariate-adjusted cumulative incidence of fever relief considering competitive risk showed that the recovery was significantly faster in the Kampo group than in the control group (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-3.01). Additionally, the risk of disease progression to moderate COVID-19 requiring oxygen inhalation was lower in the Kampo group than in the control group (Risk Difference -0.13, 95% CI -0.27-0.01). No significant drug-related side effects were observed. Kakkonto with shosaikotokakikyosekko is effective for fever relief with suppression of disease progression in COVID-19 patients. Clinical Trial Registration: https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCTs021200020, identifier [jRCTs021200020].

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for severe COVID-19 patients: An updated network meta-analysis of 48 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To date, there has been little agreement on what drug is the "best" drug for treating severe COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 28, 2022, with no language restrictions, of medications recommended for patients (aged 16 years or older) with severe COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on trials and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (ACM), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

We identified 4021 abstracts and of these included 48 RCTs comprising 9147 participants through database searches and other sources. For decrease in ACM, we found that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG (i.e., a hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenous immunoglobulin), methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/standard-of-care (SOC), interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, high dosage sarilumab (HS), auxora, and imatinib were effective when compared with placebo or SOC group. We found that colchicine and interferon-beta/SOC were only associated with the TEAEs of severe COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG, methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/SOC, interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma (CP), remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, HS, auxora, and imatinib were efficacious for treating severe COVID-19 patients. We found that most medications were safe in treating severe COVID-19. More large-scale RCTs are still needed to confirm the results of this study.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

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

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE

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

Impact of COVID-19 on the liver and on the care of patients with chronic liver disease, hepatobiliary cancer, and liver transplantation: An updated EASL position paper

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a serious challenge to the hepatology community, particularly healthcare professionals and patients. While the rapid development of safe and effective vaccines and treatments has improved the clinical landscape, the emergence of the omicron variant has presented new challenges. Thus, it is timely that the European Association for the Study of the Liver provides a summary of the latest data on the impact of COVID-19 on the liver and issues guidance on the care of patients with chronic liver disease, hepatobiliary cancer, and previous liver transplantation, as the world continues to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Calibration and Validation of a Mechanistic COVID-19 Model for Translational Quantitative Systems Pharmacology - A Proof-of-Concept Model Development for Remdesivir

With the ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is an urgent need to accelerate the traditional drug development process. Many studies identified potential COVID-19 therapies based on promising nonclinical data. However, the poor translatability from nonclinical to clinical settings has led to failures of many of these drug candidates in the clinical phase. In this study, we propose a mechanism-based, quantitative framework to translate nonclinical findings to clinical outcome. Adopting a modularized approach, this framework includes an in silico disease model for COVID-19 (virus infection and human immune responses) and a pharmacological component for COVID-19 therapies. The disease model was able to reproduce important longitudinal clinical data for patients with mild and severe COVID-19, including viral titer, key immunological cytokines, antibody responses, and time courses of lymphopenia. Using remdesivir as a proof-of-concept example of model development for the pharmacological component, we developed a pharmacological model that describes the conversion of intravenously administered remdesivir as a prodrug to its active metabolite nucleoside triphosphate through intracellular metabolism and connected it to the COVID-19 disease model. After being calibrated with the placebo arm data, our model was independently and quantitatively able to predict the primary endpoint (time to recovery) of the remdesivir clinical study, Adaptive Covid-19 Clinical Trial (ACTT). Our work demonstrates the possibility of quantitatively predicting clinical outcome based on nonclinical data and mechanistic understanding of the disease and provides a modularized framework to aid in candidate drug selection and clinical trial design for COVID-19 therapeutics.

Identification of the effects of COVID-19 on patients with pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancer: a bioinformatics analysis and literature review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses a serious threat to human health and life. The effective prevention and treatment of COVID-19 complications have become crucial to saving patients’ lives. During the phase of mass spread of the epidemic, a large number of patients with pulmonary fibrosis and lung cancers were inevitably infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Lung cancers have the highest tumor morbidity and mortality rates worldwide, and pulmonary fibrosis itself is one of the complications of COVID-19. Idiopathic lung fibrosis (IPF) and various lung cancers (primary and metastatic) become risk factors for complications of COVID-19 and significantly increase mortality in patients. Therefore, we applied bioinformatics and systems biology approaches to identify molecular biomarkers and common pathways in COVID-19, IPF, colorectal cancer (CRC) lung metastasis, SCLC and NSCLC. We identified 79 DEGs between COVID-19, IPF, CRC lung metastasis, SCLC and NSCLC. Meanwhile, based on the transcriptome features of DSigDB and common DEGs, we identified 10 drug candidates. In this study, 79 DEGs are the common core genes of the 5 diseases. The 10 drugs were found to have positive effects in treating COVID-19 and lung cancer, potentially reducing the risk of pulmonary fibrosis.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions-governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research-and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom's healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users' needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.