Doxycycline for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at high risk of adverse outcomes in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

Democratising the design and delivery of large-scale randomised, controlled clinical trials in primary care: A personal view

BACKGROUND

Rapid identification of effective treatments for use in the community during a pandemic is vital for the well-being of individuals and the sustainability of healthcare systems and society. Furthermore, identifying treatments that do not work reduces research wastage, spares people unnecessary side effects, rationalises the cost of purchasing and stockpiling medication, and reduces inappropriate medication use. Nevertheless, only a small minority of therapeutic trials for SARS-CoV-2 infections have been in primary care: most opened too late, struggled to recruit, and few produced actionable results. Participation in research is often limited by where one lives or receives health care, and trial participants may not represent those for whom the treatments are intended.

INNOVATIVE TRIALS

The ALIC4E, PRINCIPLE and the ongoing PANORAMIC trial have randomised over 40,500 people with COVID-19. This personal view describes how these trials have innovated in: trial design (by using novel adaptive platform designs); trial delivery (by complementing traditional site-based recruitment ('the patient comes to the research') with mechanisms to enable sick, infectious people to participate without having to leave home ('taking research to the people'), and by addressing the 'inverse research participation law,' which highlights disproportionate barriers faced by those who have the most to contribute, and benefit from, research, and; in transforming the evidence base by evaluating nine medicines to support guidelines and care decisions world-wide for COVID-19 and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship.

CONCLUSION

The PRINCIPLE and PANORAMIC trials represent models of innovation and inclusivity, and exemplify the potential of primary care to lead the way in addressing pressing global health challenges.

Nasal sprays and behavioural interventions compared with usual care for acute respiratory illness in primary care: a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial

BACKGROUND

A small amount of evidence suggests that nasal sprays, or physical activity and stress management, could shorten the duration of respiratory infections. This study aimed to assess the effect of nasal sprays or a behavioural intervention promoting physical activity and stress management on respiratory illnesses, compared with usual care.

METHODS

This randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was done at 332 general practitioner practices in the UK. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had at least one comorbidity or risk factor increasing their risk of adverse outcomes due to respiratory illness (eg, immune compromise due to serious illness or medication; heart disease; asthma or lung disease; diabetes; mild hepatic impairment; stroke or severe neurological problem; obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]; or age ≥65 years) or at least three self-reported respiratory tract infections in a normal year (ie, any year before the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computerised system to: usual care (brief advice about managing illness); gel-based spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); saline spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); or a brief behavioural intervention in which participants were given access to a website promoting physical activity and stress management. The study was partially masked: neither investigators nor medical staff were aware of treatment allocation, and investigators who did the statistical analysis were unaware of treatment allocation. The sprays were relabelled to maintain participant masking. Outcomes were assessed using data from participants' completed monthly surveys and a survey at 6 months. The primary outcome was total number of days of illness due to self-reported respiratory tract illnesses (coughs, colds, sore throat, sinus or ear infections, influenza, or COVID-19) in the previous 6 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had primary outcome data available. Key secondary outcomes were possible harms, including headache or facial pain, and antibiotic use, assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, 17936080, and is closed to recruitment.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 12, 2020, and April 7, 2023, of 19 475 individuals screened for eligibility, 13 799 participants were randomly assigned to usual care (n=3451), gel-based nasal spray (n=3448), saline nasal spray (n=3450), or the digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management (n=3450). 11 612 participants had complete data for the primary outcome and were included in the primary outcome analysis (usual care group, n=2983; gel-based spray group, n=2935; saline spray group, n=2967; behavioural website group, n=2727). Compared with participants in the usual care group, who had a mean of 8·2 (SD 16·1) days of illness, the number of days of illness was significantly lower in the gel-based spray group (mean 6·5 days [SD 12·8]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·82 [99% CI 0·76-0·90]; p<0·0001) and the saline spray group (6·4 days [12·4]; 0·81 [0·74-0·88]; p<0·0001), but not in the group allocated to the behavioural website (7·4 days [14·7]; 0·97 [0·89-1·06]; p=0·46). The most common adverse event was headache or sinus pain in the gel-based group: 123 (4·8%) of 2556 participants in the usual care group; 199 (7·8%) of 2498 participants in the gel-based group (risk ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·30-1·99]; p<0·0001); 101 (4·5%) of 2377 participants in the saline group (0·81 [0·63-1·05]; p=0·11); and 101 (4·5%) of 2091 participants in the behavioural intervention group (0·95 [0·74-1·22]; p=0·69). Compared with usual care, antibiotic use was lower for all interventions: IRR 0·65 (95% CI 0·50-0·84; p=0·001) for the gel-based spray group; 0·69 (0·45-0·88; p=0·003) for the saline spray group; and 0·74 (0·57-0·94; p=0·02) for the behavioural website group.

INTERPRETATION

Advice to use either nasal spray reduced illness duration and both sprays and the behavioural website reduced antibiotic use. Future research should aim to address the impact of the widespread implementation of these simple interventions.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Molecular Hydrogen for Outpatients with COVID-19 (Hydro-COVID): A Phase 3 Randomised, Triple-Blinded, Pragmatic, Placebo-Controlled, Multicentre Trial

Background. Due to its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-apoptosis, and anti-fatigue properties, molecular hydrogen (H2) is potentially a novel therapeutic nutrient for patients with coronavirus acute disease 2019 (COVID-19). We determined the efficacy and safety profile of hydrogen-rich water (HRW) to reduce the risk of COVID-19 progression. Methods: We also conducted a phase 3, triple-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate treatment with HRW initiated within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in primary care patients with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Participants were randomised to receive HRW or placebo twice daily for 21 days. The incidence of clinical worsening and adverse events were the primary endpoints. Results: A total of 675 participants were followed up to day 30. HRW was not superior to placebo in preventing clinical worsening at day 14: in H2 group, 46.1% in the H2 group, 43.5% in the placebo group, hazard ratio 1.09, 90% confidence interval [0.90-1.31]. One death was reported at day 30 in the H2 group and two in the placebo group at day 30. Adverse events were reported in 91 (27%) and 89 (26.2%) participants, respectively. Conclusions: HRW taken twice daily from the onset of COVID-19 symptoms for 21 days did not reduce clinical worsening.

COVID-19 drug discovery and treatment options

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused substantial morbidity and mortality, and serious social and economic disruptions worldwide. Unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated older individuals with underlying diseases are especially prone to severe disease. In patients with non-fatal disease, long COVID affecting multiple body systems may persist for months. Unlike SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, which have either been mitigated or remained geographically restricted, SARS-CoV-2 has disseminated globally and is likely to continue circulating in humans with possible emergence of new variants that may render vaccines less effective. Thus, safe, effective and readily available COVID-19 therapeutics are urgently needed. In this Review, we summarize the major drug discovery approaches, preclinical antiviral evaluation models, representative virus-targeting and host-targeting therapeutic options, and key therapeutics currently in clinical use for COVID-19. Preparedness against future coronavirus pandemics relies not only on effective vaccines but also on broad-spectrum antivirals targeting conserved viral components or universal host targets, and new therapeutics that can precisely modulate the immune response during infection.

Why Certain Repurposed Drugs Are Unlikely to Be Effective Antivirals to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infections

Most repurposed drugs have proved ineffective for treating COVID-19. We evaluated median effective and toxic concentrations (EC50, CC50) of 49 drugs, mostly from previous clinical trials, in Vero cells. Ratios of reported unbound peak plasma concentrations, (Cmax)/EC50, were used to predict the potential in vivo efficacy. The 20 drugs with the highest ratios were retested in human Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells, and their CC50 was determined in an expanded panel of cell lines. Many of the 20 drugs with the highest ratios were inactive in human Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells. Antivirals effective in controlled clinical trials had unbound Cmax/EC50 ≥ 6.8 in Calu-3 or Caco-2 cells. EC50 of nucleoside analogs were cell dependent. This approach and earlier availability of more relevant cultures could have reduced the number of unwarranted clinical trials.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.

FUNDING

UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

AZD1222 effectiveness against severe COVID-19 in individuals with comorbidity or frailty: The RAVEN cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations.

METHODS

Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity.

RESULTS

Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the 'fit' (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed.

Photocatalyst Based on Nanostructured TiO2 with Improved Photocatalytic and Antibacterial Properties

This study shows an easy way to use electrochemistry and plasma layering to make Cobalt-Blue-TiO2 nanotubes that are better at catalysing reactions. Once a titanium plate has been anodized, certain steps are taken to make oxygen vacancies appear inside the TiO2 nanostructures. To find out how the Co deposition method changed the final catalyst's properties, it was put through electrochemical tests (to find the charge transfer resistance and flat band potential) and optical tests (to find the band gap and Urbach energy). The catalysts were also described in terms of their shape, ability to stick to surfaces, and ability to inhibit bacteria. When Cobalt was electrochemically deposited to Blue-TiO2 nanotubes, a film with star-shaped structures was made that was hydrophilic and antibacterial. The band gap energy went down from 3.04 eV to 2.88 eV and the Urbach energy went up from 1.171 eV to 3.836 eV using this electrochemical deposition method. Also, photodegradation tests with artificial doxycycline (DOX) water were carried out to see how useful the study results would be in real life. These extra experiments were meant to show how the research results could be used in real life and what benefits they might have. For the bacterial tests, both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria were used, and BT/Co-E showed the best response. Additionally, photodegradation and photoelectrodegradation experiments using artificial doxycycline (DOX) water were conducted to determine the practical relevance of the research findings. The synergistic combination of light and applied potential leads to 70% DOX degradation after 60 min of BT/Co-E irradiation.

Primary and secondary care collaboration in clinical research

More patients are seen in primary care than in any other part of the health system in the UK. Our NHS datasets are the envy of the world and provide us with huge opportunities to support our patients and populations. In this paper, we demonstrate the breadth of primary care research, recruitment and delivery options. We show how research can affect many different aspects of patient care and demonstrate, through the delivery and publication of game-changing research, the ability of recruitment in primary care to answer questions that are relevant to secondary care activity. Indeed, these complex and innovative study designs and their collaborative delivery across the multitude of diseases (acute and chronic) show the strength of primary care. Collaboration across boundaries, specialties and healthcare settings will provide increased opportunities for clinical research development and, most importantly, deliver the highest quality research to support our patients.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of common infections in primary care and the change to antibiotic prescribing in England

BACKGROUND

There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic altered the management of common infections in primary care. This study aimed to evaluate infection-coded consultation rates and antibiotic use during the pandemic and how any change may have affected clinical outcomes.

METHODS

With the approval of NHS England, a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform analysed routinely collected electronic health data from GP practices in England between January 2019 and December 2021. Infection coded consultations and antibiotic prescriptions were used estimate multiple measures over calendar months, including age-sex adjusted prescribing rates, prescribing by infection and antibiotic type, infection consultation rates, coding quality and rate of same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infections. Interrupted time series (ITS) estimated the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on infection-coded consultation rates. The impact of the pandemic on non- COVID-19 infection-related hospitalisations was also estimated.

RESULTS

Records from 24 million patients were included. The rate of infection-related consultations fell for all infections (mean reduction of 39% in 2020 compared to 2019 mean rate), except for UTI which remained stable. Modelling infection-related consultation rates highlighted this with an incidence rate ratio of 0.44 (95% CI 0.36-0.53) for incident consultations and 0.43 (95% CI 0.33-0.54) for prevalent consultations. Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) saw the largest reduction of 0.11 (95% CI 0.07-0.17). Antibiotic prescribing rates fell with a mean reduction of 118.4 items per 1000 patients in 2020, returning to pre-pandemic rates by summer 2021. Prescribing for LRTI decreased 20% and URTI increased 15.9%. Over 60% of antibiotics were issued without an associated same-day infection code, which increased during the pandemic. Infection-related hospitalisations reduced (by 62%), with the largest reduction observed for pneumonia infections (72.9%). Same-day antibiotic prescribing for COVID-19 infection increased from 1 to 10.5% between the second and third national lockdowns and rose again during 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes to consultations and hospital admissions may be driven by reduced transmission of non-COVID-19 infections due to reduced social mixing and lockdowns. Inconsistencies in coding practice emphasises the need for improvement to inform new antibiotic stewardship policies and prevent resistance to novel infections.

Drug repurposing for COVID-19: current evidence from randomized controlled adaptive platform trials and living systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a race to develop effective treatments largely through drug repurposing via adaptive platform trials on a global scale. Drug repurposing trials have focused on potential antiviral therapies aimed at preventing viral replication, anti-inflammatory agents, antithrombotic agents and immune modulators through a number of adaptive platform trials. Living systematic reviews have also enabled evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis as clinical trial data emerge globally.

SOURCES OF DATA

Recent published literature.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Corticosteroids and immunomodulators that antagonize the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor have been shown to play a critical role in modulating inflammation and improving clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. Inhaled budesonide reduces the time to recovery in older patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed in the community.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The clinical benefit of remdesivir remains controversial with conflicting evidence from different trials. Remdesivir led to a reduction in time to clinical recovery in the ACTT-1 trial. However, the World Health Organization SOLIDARITY and DISCOVERY trial did not find a significant benefit on 28-day mortality and clinical recovery.

GROWING POINTS

Other treatments currently being investigated include antidiabetic drug empagliflozin, antimalarial drug artesunate, tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, immunomodulatory drug infliximab, antiviral drug favipiravir, antiparasitic drug ivermectin and antidepressant drug fluvoxamine.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The timing of therapeutic interventions based on postulated mechanisms of action and the selection of clinically meaningful primary end points remain important considerations in the design and implementation of COVID-19 therapeutic trials.

A randomized phase 2 study on demeclocycline in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19

Tetracyclines exhibit anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory activities via various mechanisms. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of demeclocycline in patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 via an open-label, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled phase 2 trial. Primary and secondary outcomes included changes from baseline (day 1, before the study treatment) in lymphocytes, cytokines, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA on day 8. Seven, seven, and six patients in the control, demeclocycline 150 mg daily, and demeclocycline 300 mg daily groups, respectively, were included in the modified intention-to-treat population that was followed until day 29. A significant change of 191.3/μL in the number of CD4+ T cells from day 1 to day 8 was observed in the demeclocycline 150 mg group (95% CI 5.1/μL-377.6/μL) (p = 0.023), whereas that in the control group was 47.8/μL (95% CI - 151.2/μL to 246.8/μL), which was not significant (p = 0.271). The change rates of CD4+ T cells negatively correlated with those of IL-6 in the demeclocycline-treated groups (R = - 0.807, p = 0.009). All treatment-emergent adverse events were of mild-to-moderate severity. The present results indicate that the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients with demeclocycline elicits immune responses conducive to recovery from COVID-19 with good tolerability.Trial registration: This study was registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (Trial registration number: jRCTs051200049; Date of the first registration: 26/08/2020).

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Is Associated With Reduced Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing in Older Adults With Confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Population-Wide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics are frequently prescribed unnecessarily in outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to evaluate factors associated with antibiotic prescribing in outpatients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

METHODS

We performed a population-wide cohort study of outpatients aged ≥66 years with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 in Ontario, Canada. We determined rates of antibiotic prescribing within 1 week before (prediagnosis) and 1 week after (postdiagnosis) reporting of the positive SARS-CoV-2 result, compared to a self-controlled period (baseline). We evaluated predictors of prescribing, including a primary-series COVID-19 vaccination, in univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 13 529 eligible nursing home residents and 50 885 eligible community-dwelling adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the nursing home and community residents, 3020 (22%) and 6372 (13%), respectively, received at least 1 antibiotic prescription within 1 week of a SARS-CoV-2 positive result. Antibiotic prescribing in nursing home and community residents occurred, respectively, at 15.0 and 10.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days prediagnosis and 20.9 and 9.8 per 1000 person-days postdiagnosis, higher than the baseline rates of 4.3 and 2.5 prescriptions per 1000 person-days. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with reduced prescribing in nursing home and community residents, with adjusted postdiagnosis incidence rate ratios (95% confidence interval) of 0.7 (0.4-1) and 0.3 (0.3-0.4), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prescribing was high and with little or no decline following SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but was reduced in COVID-19-vaccinated individuals, highlighting the importance of vaccination and antibiotic stewardship in older adults with COVID-19.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

INTRODUCTION

There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Elastin-targeted nanoparticles delivering doxycycline mitigate cytokine storm and reduce immune cell infiltration in LPS-mediated lung inflammation

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Cytokine storm invoked during acute and chronic lung injury promotes alveolar damage and remodeling. The current study shows that degraded elastin-targeted nanoparticles releasing doxycycline (Doxy NPs) are potent in mitigating cytokines storm, migration of immune cells in the lungs, and inhibiting inflammasome pathways in the LPS mouse model.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Cytokine storm and lung injury were induced using LPS and elastase in C57BL/6 mice (rodent model for emphysema). The mice were then treated with I.V. Doxy NPs, blank NPs, or Doxy a day before LPS administration. Cytokine levels, immune cell population, and MMP activity were analyzed in broncheo-alveolar lavage fluid (BALF) 4 hours after LPS administration. Additionally, gene expression of IL-6, IL-1beta, MCP-1, NLRP3, Caspase 1 and MMPs were investigated in alveolar cells on day 3 after LPS administration.

KEY RESULTS

Doxycycline NPs but not Doxycycline significantly decreased IL-6, TNF-α, IL-23 and were significantly more effective in decreasing the percentage of immune cells in the BALF. This is the first in-vivo study to demonstrate that Doxycycline can effectively inhibit inflammasome pathways in the lungs.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

IV administration of elastin antibody conjugated Doxycycline-loaded albumin NPs can effectively modulate the local immune environment in the lungs, which is not achieved by IV Doxycycline even at 100-fold higher dose. This novel method of drug delivery can effectively lead to the repurposing of traditional Doxycycline as a potential adjunct treatment for managing the cytokine storm in the lungs in COPD and viral infections.

Wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 and chemical markers in campus dormitories in an evolving COVID - 19 pandemic

In this study, we report the implementation of a comprehensive wastewater surveillance testing program at a university campus in Singapore to identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected individuals and the usage of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) as well as other emerging contaminants (ECs). This unique co-monitoring program simultaneously measured SARS-CoV-2 with chemical markers/contaminants as the COVID-19 situation evolved from pandemic to endemic stages, following a nationwide mass vaccination drive. SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in wastewater from campus dormitories were measured using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and corroborated with the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases confirmed with the antigen rapid test (ART). Consistent results were observed where the concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in wastewater increased proportionately with the number of COVID-19 infected individuals residing on campus. Similarly, a wide range of ECs, including disinfectants and antibiotics, were detected through sensitive liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) techniques to establish PPCPs consumption patterns during various stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. Statistical correlation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was observed with few ECs belonging to disinfectants, PCPs and antibiotics. A high concentration of disinfectants and subsequent positive correlation with the number of reported cases on the university campus indicates that disinfectants could serve as a chemical marker during such unprecedented times.

Antibiotic Utilization during COVID-19: Are We Over-Prescribing?

The aims of this study were to analyze the utilization of antibiotics before (2018, 2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) and the practice of prescribing antibiotics in outpatient settings for COVID-19 patients during the 2020-2022 period. The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification/Defined Daily Dose methodology was used for the analysis of outpatient antibiotic utilization in the Republic of Srpska. The data was expressed in DDD/1000 inhabitants/day. The rate of antibiotics prescribed to COVID-19 outpatients was analyzed using medical record data from 16,565 patients registered with B34.2, U07.1, and U07.2 World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes. During 2020, outpatient antibiotic utilization increased by 53.80% compared to 2019. At least one antibiotic was prescribed for 91.04%, 83.05%, and 73.52% of COVID-19 outpatients during 2020, 2021, and the first half of 2022, respectively. On a monthly basis, at least one antibiotic was prescribed for more than 55% of COVID-19 outpatients. The three most commonly prescribed antibiotics were azithromycin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and doxycycline. The trend of repurposing antibiotics for COVID-19 and other diseases treatment might be a double-edged sword. The long-term effect of this practice might be an increase in antimicrobial resistance and a loss of antibiotic effectiveness.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.

METHODS

PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.

INTERPRETATION

Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Doxycycline for the prevention of progression of COVID-19 to severe disease requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission: A randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel group trial (DOXPREVENT.ICU)

BACKGROUND

After admission to hospital, COVID-19 progresses in a substantial proportion of patients to critical disease that requires intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

METHODS

In a pragmatic, non-blinded trial, 387 patients aged 40-90 years were randomised to receive treatment with SoC plus doxycycline (n = 192) or SoC only (n = 195). The primary outcome was the need for ICU admission as judged by the attending physicians. Three types of analyses were carried out for the primary outcome: "Intention to treat" (ITT) based on randomisation; "Per protocol" (PP), excluding patients not treated according to randomisation; and "As treated" (AT), based on actual treatment received. The trial was undertaken in six hospitals in India with high-quality ICU facilities. An online application serving as the electronic case report form was developed to enable screening, randomisation and collection of outcomes data.

RESULTS

Adherence to treatment per protocol was 95.1%. Among all 387 participants, 77 (19.9%) developed critical disease needing ICU admission. In all three primary outcome analyses, doxycycline was associated with a relative risk reduction (RRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR): ITT 31.6% RRR, 7.4% ARR (P = 0.063); PP 40.7% RRR, 9.6% ARR (P = 0.017); AT 43.2% RRR, 10.8% ARR (P = 0.007), with numbers needed to treat (NTT) of 13.4 (ITT), 10.4 (PP), and 9.3 (AT), respectively. Doxycycline was well tolerated with not a single patient stopping treatment due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, doxycycline, a safe, inexpensive, and widely available antibiotic with anti-inflammatory properties, reduces the need for ICU admission when added to SoC.

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.

Investigation of Antibiotic Resistome in Hospital Wastewater during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is the Initial Phase of the Pandemic Contributing to Antimicrobial Resistance?

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, there has been much speculation about how COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance may be interconnected. In this study, untreated wastewater was sampled from Hospital A designated to treat COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic alongside Hospital B that did not receive any COVID-19 patients. Metagenomics was used to determine the relative abundance and mobile potential of antibiotic resistant genes (ARGs), prior to determining the correlation of ARGs with time/incidence of COVID-19. Our findings showed that ARGs resistant to macrolides, sulfonamides, and tetracyclines were positively correlated with time in Hospital A but not in Hospital B. Likewise, minor extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) and carbapenemases of classes B and D were positively correlated with time, suggesting the selection of rare and/or carbapenem-resistant genes in Hospital A. Non-carbapenemase bla_VEB also positively correlated with both time and intI1 and was copresent with other ARGs including carbapenem-resistant genes in 6 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). This study highlighted concerns related to the dissemination of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) during the COVID-19 pandemic that may arise from antibiotic use and untreated hospital wastewater.

Facebook as a source of access to medicines

Over the last decade, we've observed an enormous social media development, which have recently become commercial services. Hence, we aimed to verify if Facebook might be considered as a source of access to medicines. We also intended to identify prescription (Rx) and over the counter (OTC) medicines if available on that platform. The study was conducted from January 2019 to July 2020. We investigated offers of pharmaceuticals posted on Facebook (individual posts and communities) between 2016 and 2019. Medicines were divided into Rx and OTC brands and in accordance with their possible therapeutic use. We verified whether the medicines were for sale, to exchange, or available for free. Posts and groups were investigated for example, by entering the phrase "for free," followed by a city in Poland. Out of 409 offers, 380 (92.91%) concerned Rx brands and 29 (7.09%) OTC brands. 315 (77.02%) medications were available "for free". In 47 (11.49%) cases, an "exchange" was expected, and 47 (11.49%) announcements were marked as "for sale". Cardiovascular medicines (n = 125; 30.56%) were the most popular. There were also antidiabetics (n = 38; 9.29%) and antipsychotics (n = 28; 6.84%). We also found clear candidates for misuse. These were opioids (n = 7; 1.71%), benzodiazepines (n = 2; 0.48%), clomifene (n = 1; 0.24%), and letrozole (n = 1; 0.24%). Facebook provides the possibility of uncontrolled access to medicines. The majority of offers concerned Rx brands, including opioids and benzodiazepines. Medicines offered on Facebook were mainly accessible for free. The scope and the number of medications offered on Facebook should make this issue a hazardous phenomenon.

The Role of Matrix Metalloproteinase in Inflammation with a Focus on Infectious Diseases

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are involved in extracellular matrix remodeling through the degradation of extracellular matrix components and are also involved in the inflammatory response by regulating the pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-α and IL-1β. Dysregulation in the inflammatory response and changes in the extracellular matrix by MMPs are related to the development of various diseases including lung and cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, numerous studies have been conducted to understand the role of MMPs in disease pathogenesis. MMPs are involved in the pathogenesis of infectious diseases through a dysregulation of the activity and expression of MMPs. In this review, we discuss the role of MMPs in infectious diseases and inflammatory responses. Furthermore, we present the potential of MMPs as therapeutic targets in infectious diseases.

COVID-19 prophylaxis with doxycycline and zinc in health care workers: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the efficacy of a combination treatment of doxycycline and zinc in the primary prevention of COVID-19 infection in Tunisian health care workers compared with two control groups.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial over 5 months to determine the efficacy of a preventive combination treatment dose of doxycycline (100 mg/day) and zinc (15 mg/day), compared with a single-dose treatment with doxycycline versus placebo. The effectiveness of preventive treatment was measured by the significant decline in the number of cases of COVID-19 infection and/or a decrease in the viral load as determined by SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold value using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests.

RESULTS

We detected a significant decrease of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the group that received both doxycycline and zinc compared with other participants. We also demonstrated that COVID-19 infection was neither associated with diabetes (P = 0.51) nor associated with hypertension (P = 0.99), asthma (P = 0.52), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated that preventive therapy reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2. These results suggest that the combination of doxycycline and zinc has a protective effect in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Understanding the Potential Impact of Different Drug Properties on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Transmission and Disease Burden: A Modelling Analysis

BACKGROUND

The public health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear.

METHODS

Using a mathematical model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care, we explore the public-health impact of different potential therapeutics, under a range of scenarios varying healthcare capacity, epidemic trajectories; and drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care.

RESULTS

The impact of drugs like dexamethasone (delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R = 1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalization) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date have been focused on hospitalized-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics delivered earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority.

The Global Impact of COVID-19 on Solid Organ Transplantation: Two Years Into a Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a major global impact on solid organ transplantation (SOT). An estimated 16% global reduction in transplant activity occurred over the course of 2020, most markedly impacting kidney transplant and living donor programs, resulting in substantial knock-on effects for waitlisted patients. The increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection risk and excess deaths in transplant candidates has resulted in substantial effort to prioritize the safe restart and continuation of transplant programs over the second year of the pandemic, with transplant rates returning towards prepandemic levels. Over the past 2 y, COVID-19 mortality in SOT recipients has fallen from 20%-25% to 8%-10%, attributed to the increased and early availability of SARS-CoV-2 testing, adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions, development of novel treatments, and vaccination. Despite these positive steps, transplant programs and SOT recipients continue to face challenges. Vaccine efficacy in SOT recipients is substantially lower than the general population and SOT recipients remain at an increased risk of adverse outcomes if they develop COVID-19. SOT recipients and transplant teams need to remain vigilant and ongoing adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions appears essential. In this review, we summarize the global impact of COVID-19 on transplant activity, donor evaluation, and patient outcomes over the past 2 y, discuss the current strategies aimed at preventing and treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in SOT recipients, and based on lessons learnt from this pandemic, propose steps the transplant community could consider as preparation for future pandemics.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment.

AIM

To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE).

METHOD

Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models.

RESULTS

The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4).

CONCLUSION

Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Neutrophils in COVID-19: Not Innocent Bystanders

Unusually for a viral infection, the immunological phenotype of severe COVID-19 is characterised by a depleted lymphocyte and elevated neutrophil count, with the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio correlating with disease severity. Neutrophils are the most abundant immune cell in the bloodstream and comprise different subpopulations with pleiotropic actions that are vital for host immunity. Unique neutrophil subpopulations vary in their capacity to mount antimicrobial responses, including NETosis (the generation of neutrophil extracellular traps), degranulation and de novo production of cytokines and chemokines. These processes play a role in antiviral immunity, but may also contribute to the local and systemic tissue damage seen in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Neutrophils also contribute to complications of COVID-19 such as thrombosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome and multisystem inflammatory disease in children. In this Progress review, we discuss the anti-viral and pathological roles of neutrophils in SARS-CoV-2 infection, and potential therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 that target neutrophil-mediated inflammatory responses.

Contemporary Concise Review 2021: COVID-19 and other respiratory infections

Bats are likely the primary source of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2).

Minks are highly susceptible to infection by SARS‐CoV‐2.

Transmission from asymptomatic individuals was estimated to account for over 50% of all transmissions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) cases.

SARS‐CoV‐2 is evolving towards more efficient aerosol transmission.

Remdesivir, baricitinib, tocilizumab and dexamethasone are frequently used for the treatment of patients with respiratory failure due to COVID‐19.

There is a rising incidence of non‐tuberculous Mycobacterium pulmonary disease globally, with a higher prevalence in Asian countries than in the Western world.

Protracted bacterial bronchitis is a common cause of chronic productive cough in childhood.

Re‐emergence of respiratory syncytial virus may occur after the relaxation of infection control measures and the reopening of borders during COVID‐19 pandemic.

Repurposing of Doxycycline to Hinder the Viral Replication of SARS-CoV-2: From in silico to in vitro Validation

Since the rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) became a global pandemic, healthcare ministries around the world have recommended specific control methods such as quarantining infected peoples, identifying infections, wearing mask, and practicing hand hygiene. Since no effective treatment for COVID-19 has yet been discovered, a variety of drugs approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been suggested for repurposing strategy. In the current study, we predicted that doxycycline could interact with the nucleotide triphosphate (NTP) entry channel, and is therefore expected to hinder the viral replication of SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) through docking analysis. Further, the molecular dynamics results revealed that the RdRp-Doxycycline complex was structurally relatively stable during the dynamic period (100 ns), and its complex maintained close contact with their active catalytic domains of SARS-CoV-2 RdRp. The molecular mechanics Poisson–Boltzmann surface area (MM-PBSA) calculation of binding free energy also showed that the doxycycline has worthy affinities with SARS-CoV-2 RdRp. As expected, doxycycline effectively inhibited the viral replication of IHU strains of SARS-CoV-2 (IHUMI-3 and IHUMI-6), identified from the hospitalized patients in IHU Méditerranée Infection (IHUMI), Marseille, France. Moreover, doxycycline inhibited the viral load in vitro at both on-entry and after viral entry of IHU variants of SARS-CoV-2. The results suggest that doxycycline exhibits strains-dependant antiviral activity against COVID-19. As a result, the current study concludes that doxycycline may be more effective in combination with other drugs for better COVID-19 treatment efficacy.

Antimicrobials in COVID-19: strategies for treating a COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a serious global challenge, with the world engulfed in fighting second, third and fourth waves of the disease, which is reaching scary proportions in terms of cases and mortality in countries like India. Despite the urgent need of proven management protocols, there is still confusion about the best practices for treating COVID-19 with different pharmaceutical interventions. Antimicrobials are empirically used in COVID-19 patients. During the initial phase of this pandemic, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin and doxycycline were widely suggested for possible prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19 in outpatient as well as hospitalized settings. Various national and international guidelines recommended its use. However, cumulative evidence from subsequent clinical trials has revealed no significant clinical benefits in any setting, with the risk of adverse effects being high particularly in combination with azithromycin. Yet, there is continued use of antimicrobials particularly in outpatient settings which should be avoided because there is no justifiable rationale for doing so. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was one of the top problems for global public health before the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began. AMR, which is already a difficult problem, must now be handled in the context of a changing healthcare sector.

Immunomodulation by Tetracyclines in the Critically Ill: An Emerging Treatment Option?

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2022. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2022 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

Repurposing tetracyclines for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe COVID-19: A critical discussion of recent publications

Introduction

Drug repurposing can be a successful approach to deal with the scarcity of cost-effective therapies in situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Tetracyclines have previously shown efficacy in preclinical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) models and initial predictions and experimental reports suggest a direct antiviral activity against SARS-CoV2. Furthermore, a few clinical reports indicate their potential in COVID-19 patients. In addition to the scarcity and limitations of the scientific evidence, the effectiveness of tetracyclines in experimental ARDS has been proven extensively, counteracting the overt inflammatory reaction and fibrosis sequelae due to a synergic combination of pharmacological activities.

Areas covered

This paper discusses the scientific evidence behind the application of tetracyclines for ARDS/COVID-19.

Expert Opinion

The benefits of their multi-target pharmacology and their safety profile overcome the limitations, such as antibiotic activity and low commercial interest. Immunomodulatory tetracyclines and novel chemically modified non-antibiotic tetracyclines have therapeutic potential. Further drug repurposing studies in ARDS and severe COVID-19 are necessary.

Antibiotic Prescribing in Dutch Daytime and Out-of-Hours General Practice during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Database Study

COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in major changes in healthcare, including the prescribing of antibiotics. We aimed to monitor antibiotic prescribing trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in Dutch general practice, both during daytime and out-of-hours (OOH). Routine care data were used from 379 daytime general practices (DGP) and 28 OOH-services over the period 2019–2021. Per week, we analyzed prescription rates per 100,000 inhabitants, overall, for respiratory and urinary tract infections (RTIs and UTIs) specifically and within age categories. We assessed changes in antibiotic prescribing during different phases of the pandemic using interrupted time series analyses. Both at DGPs and OOH-services significantly fewer antibiotics were prescribed during the COVID-19 pandemic after government measures became effective. Furthermore, the number of contacts decreased in both settings. When restrictions were revoked in 2021 prescription rates increased both at DGP and OOH-services, returning to pre-pandemic levels at OOH-services, but not in DGP. Changes in antibiotic prescribing rates were prominent for RTIs and among children up to 11 years old, but not for UTIs. To conclude, while antibiotic prescribing decreased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic both in daytime and out-of-hours, the pandemic does not seem to have a lasting effect on antibiotic prescribing.

Effectiveness of ivermectin-based multidrug therapy in severely hypoxic, ambulatory COVID-19 patients

Aims: Ivermectin is a safe, inexpensive and effective early COVID-19 treatment validated in 20+ random, controlled trials. Having developed combination therapies for Helicobacter pylori, the authors present a highly effective COVID-19 therapeutic combination, stemming from clinical observations. Patients & methods: In 24 COVID-19 subjects refusing hospitalization with high-risk features, hypoxia and untreated moderate to severe symptoms averaging 9 days, the authors administered this novel combination of ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc and vitamins D and C. Results & conclusions: All subjects resolved symptoms (in 11 days on average), and oxygen saturation improved in 24 h (87.4% to 93.1%; p = 0.001). There were no hospitalizations or deaths, less than (p < 0.002 or 0.05, respectively) background-matched CDC database controls. Triple combination therapy is safe and effective even when used in outpatients with moderate to severe symptoms. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04482686 (ClinicalTrial.gov).

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin became a popular choice for COVID-19 treatment among clinicians and the public following encouraging results from pre-print trials and in vitro studies. Early reviews recommended the use of ivermectin based largely on non-peer-reviewed evidence, which may not be robust. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 based on peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2020 to 1 September 2021 for relevant studies. Outcomes included time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation and incidence of adverse events. RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. GRADE was used to evaluate quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Three OSs and 14 RCTs were included in the review. Most RCTs were rated as having some concerns in regards to risk of bias, while OSs were mainly rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Based on meta-analysis of RCTs, the use of ivermectin was not associated with reduction in time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, incidence of mortality and incidence of mechanical ventilation. Ivermectin did not significantly increase incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis of OSs agrees with findings from RCT studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low to moderate quality of evidence, ivermectin was not efficacious at managing COVID-19. Its safety profile permits its use in trial settings to further clarify its role in COVID-19 treatment.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021275302).

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Community Antibiotic Prescribing and Stewardship: A Qualitative Interview Study with General Practitioners in England

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived the pandemic as having had less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations) in addition to changing patient presentations and GP workloads as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. The pandemic disrupted, and required adaptations in, the usual ways of working and AMS. It is now important to identify opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

Clinical trials with antiviral drugs against COVID-19: some progress and many shattered hopes

Vaccines and drugs are the cornerstones in the fight against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While vaccines were a success story, the development of antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2 turned out to be difficult. For an accelerated use of antivirals in the clinic, most SARS-CoV-2 antivirals represented repurposed drugs. The present article summarizes the outcomes of clinical trials with antiviral drugs in COVID-19 patients. Many antiviral drugs failed to demonstrate beneficial effects or showed mixed results. One reason for the low success rate of clinical trials was shortcomings of antiviral tests in cell culture systems and another reason was the abundance of ill-coordinated and underpowered clinical trials. However, large pragmatic clinical trials particularly of the British RECOVERY trial series demonstrated that even under emergency situation drug trials can be conducted in a timely way such that the therapy of COVID-19 patients can be based on evidence basis instead on expert opinion or even worse on political pressure.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications.

Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

PRINCIPLE trial demonstrates scope for in-pandemic improvement in primary care antibiotic stewardship: a retrospective sentinel network cohort study

BACKGROUND

The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE (PRINCIPLE) has provided in-pandemic evidence that azithromycin and doxycycline were not beneficial in the early primary care management of COVID-19.

AIM

To explore the extent of azithromycin and doxycycline in-pandemic use, and the scope for trial findings impacting on practice.

DESIGN & SETTING

Crude rates of prescribing and respiratory tract infections (RTI) in 2020 were compared with 2019, using the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC).

METHOD

A negative binomial model was used to compare azithromycin and doxycycline lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI), and influenza-like-illness (ILI) in 2020 with 2019; reporting incident rate ratios (IRR) between years, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Azithromycin prescriptions increased 7% in 2020 compared with 2019, whereas doxycycline decreased by 7%. Concurrently, LRTI and URTI incidence fell by over half (58.3% and 54.4%, respectively) while ILI rose slightly (6.4%). The overall percentage of RTI prescribed azithromycin rose from 0.51% in 2019 to 0.72% in 2020 (risk difference of 0.214% [95% CI = 0.211 to 0.217]); doxycycline rose from 11.86% in 2019 to 15.79% in 2020 (risk difference: 3.93% [95% CI = 3.73 to 4.14]). The adjusted IRR showed azithromycin prescribing was 22% higher in 2020 (IRR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.26, P<0.0001), for every unit rise in confirmed COVID-19 there was an associated 3% rise in prescription (IRR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.03, P<0.0001); whereas these measures were static for doxycycline.

CONCLUSION

PRINCIPLE demonstrates scope for improved antimicrobial stewardship during a pandemic.