An open-label randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine in severe COVID-19 patients

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.

Hydroxychloroquine-Chloroquine, QT-Prolongation, and Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Meta-analysis and Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the high-quality literature on the frequency and nature of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) associated with either hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CQ).

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central from 1996 onward using search strategies created in collaboration with medical science librarians.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language from January 1996 to September 2022, involving adult patients at least 18 years of age, were selected. Outcomes of interest were death, arrhythmias, syncope, and seizures. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with a Treatment Arm Continuity Correction for single and double zero event studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

By study drug, there were 31 HCQ RCTs (n = 6677), 9 CQ RCTs (n = 622), and 1 combined HCQ-CQ trial (n = 105). Mortality was the most commonly reported MACE at 220 of 255 events (86.3%), with no reports of torsades de pointes or sudden cardiac death. There was no increased risk of MACE with exposure to HCQ-CQ compared with control (risk ratio [RR] = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.69-1.17, I2 = 0%).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

These findings have important implications with respect to patient reassurance and updated guidance for prescribing practices of these medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite listing as QT-prolonging meds, HCQ-CQ did not increase the risk of MACE.

Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 story: is the low-dose treatment the missing link? A comprehensive review and meta-analysis

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been repurposed and used for the treatment of COVID-19 patients; however, its efficacy remains controversial, maybe partly due to the dosage, ranging from 200 to 800 mg/day, reported in different studies. Indeed, HCQ low dose (≤ 2.4 g/5 days) showed a lower risk of side effects compared to high doses. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of low-dose HCQ used alone on three outcomes including in-hospital mortality, the need for mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission in COVID-19 patients. A systematic review of English literature was conducted from January 2020 to April 2022, in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies reporting a dosage of 400 mg twice the first day, followed by 200 mg twice for four days were included. Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models. Eleven studies (12,503 patients) were retained in the quantitative analysis, four observational cohort studies, and seven RCTs. When pooling both observational and RCTs, low-dose HCQ was associated with decreased mortality (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: [0.55-0.97], I2 = 58%), but not with mechanical ventilation need (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: [0.56-1.89], I2 = 67%) and ICU admission rate (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: [0.42-1.17], I2 = 47%). However, no effect was observed when pooling only RCTs. Despite RCTs limitations, treatment with low-dose HCQ was not associated with improvement in mortality, mechanical ventilation need and ICU admission rate in COVID-19 patients.

Small molecules in the race of COVID-19 drug development

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is spreading worldwide, regardless of different continents, increasing the death toll to almost five million, with more than 300 million reported cases. Researchers have been fighting the greatest threats to human civilization. This report provides a glimpse of ongoing small-molecule research on COVID-19 drugs to save millions of lives, which may provide researchers with a better understanding of rigorously investigated therapeutic agents. This report emphasizes the chemical structures and mechanisms of activity along with drug target information for several small molecules, including marketable drugs and agents under investigation.

Translatability scoring in prospective and retrospective COVID drug development cases

BACKGROUND

The ongoing pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has led to an enormous surge of clinical research. So far, the speed and success rate of related drug development projects, especially of vaccines, is unprecedented. For the first time, this situation allowed for the opportunistic evaluation of a translatability score, originally proposed in 2009, in a prospective manner.

METHODS

Several vaccines and treatments under development in clinical phase III trials were selected for translational scoring with the translatability score. Six prospective and six retrospective case studies were performed. The scores had to be determined for a fictive date before any results of the phase III trial were reported in any media. Spearman correlation analysis and a Kruskal Wallis test were performed for statistical evaluation.

RESULTS

A significant correlation between the translatability scores and the clinical outcomes in translation was found, as judged on the basis of positive/intermediate/negative endpoint studies or market approval. The Spearman correlation analysis of all cases (r = 0.91, p < 0.001), the prospective cases alone (r = 0.93, p = 0.008), and the retrospective cases alone (r = 0.93, p = 0.008) showed a strong correlation between the score and outcome; R2 demonstrated a score-derived determination of outcomes by 86%.

CONCLUSIONS

The score detects strengths and weaknesses of a given project, resulting in the opportunity of selective amelioration of a project, as well as prospective portfolio risk balancing. Its substantial predictive value that has been demonstrated here for the first time could be of particular interest for biomedical industry (pharmaceutical and device manufacturers), funding agencies, venture capitalists, and researchers in the area. Future evaluations will have to address the generalizability of results obtained in an exceptional pandemic situation, and the potential adaptations of weighing factors/items to particular therapeutic areas.

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

Plant Extracts and SARS-CoV-2: Research and Applications

The recent pandemic of COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has brought upon the world an unprecedented challenge. During its acute dissemination, a rush for vaccines started, making the scientific community come together and contribute to the development of efficient therapeutic agents and vaccines. Natural products have been used as sources of individual molecules and extracts capable of inhibiting/neutralizing several microorganisms, including viruses. Natural extracts have shown effective results against the coronavirus family, when first tested in the outbreak of SARS-CoV-1, back in 2002. In this review, the relationship between natural extracts and SARS-CoV is discussed, while also providing insight into misinformation regarding the use of plants as possible therapeutic agents. Studies with plant extracts on coronaviruses are presented, as well as the main inhibition assays and trends for the future regarding the yet unknown long-lasting effects post-infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Clinical and electrocardiographic outcomes evaluated by telemedicine of outpatients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 treated with chloroquine compounds in Brazil†

Aims

To evaluate clinical and electrocardiographic outcomes of patients with COVID-19, comparing those using chloroquine compounds (chloroquine) to individuals without specific treatment.

Methods

Outpatients with suspected COVID-19 in Brazil who had at least one tele-electrocardiography (ECG) recorded in a telehealth system were enrolled in two arms (Group 1: chloroquine and Group 2: without specific treatment) and one registry (Group 3: other treatments). Outcomes were assessed through follow-up calls (phone contact, days 3 and 14) and linkage to national mortality and hospitalization databases. The primary outcome was composed of: hospitalization, intensive care admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause death, and the ECG outcome was the occurrence of major abnormalities by the Minnesota code. Significant variables in univariable logistic regression were included in 4 models: 1-unadjusted; 2-adjusted for age and sex; 3-model 2 + cardiovascular risk factors and 4-model 3 + COVID-19 symptoms.

Results

In 303 days, 712 (10.2%) patients were allocated in group 1, 3,623 (52.1%) in group 2 and 2,622 (37.7%) in group 3; 1,969 had successful phone follow-up (G1: 260, G2: 871, and G3: 838). A late follow-up ECG was obtained for 917 (27.2%) patients [group 1: 81 (11.4%), group 2: 512 (14.1%), group 3: 334 (12.7%)]. In adjusted models, chloroquine was independently associated with greater chance of the composite clinical outcome: phone contact (model 4): OR = 3.24 (95% CI 2.31-4.54), p < 0.001. Chloroquine was also independently associated with higher mortality, assessed by phone + administrative data (model 3): OR = 1.67 (95% CI 1.20-2.28). However, chloroquine did not associate with the occurrence of major ECG abnormalities [model 3; OR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.63-1.02, p = 0.07)]. Abstracts with partial results of this work was accepted in the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, November 2022, in Chicago, IL, USA.

Conclusion

Chloroquine was associated with a higher risk of poor outcomes in patients suspected to have COVID-19 when compared to those who received standard care. Follow-up ECGs were obtained in only 13.2% of patients and did not show any significant differences in major abnormalities amongst the three groups. In the absence of early ECG changes, other side effects, late arrhythmias or deferral of care may be hypothesized to explain the worse outcomes.

Hypertension related toxicity of chloroquine explains its failure against COVID-19: Based on rat model

Chloroquine was once thought to be a promising treatment for COVID-19 but it quickly failed due to its inefficiency and association with increased mortality. Further, comorbidities such as hypertension may have contributed this failure. The safety and toxicity of chloroquine at doses required for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in hypertensive patients remain unknown. Herein, to investigate these effects, we performed a safety evaluation of chloroquine at the approved dose (63 mg/kg) and at a high dose (126 mg/kg) in hypertensive rats. We found that chloroquine increased the mortality of hypertensive rats to 18.2% and 100%, respectively, after 7 days. During the chloroquine exposure period, the bodyweight, feed, and water consumption of hypertensive rats were decreased significantly. In addition, we show that chloroquine induces prolongation of QTc interval, elevation of LDH and CK, and histopathological damage of the myocardium in hypertensive rats. Ocular toxicity was observed in hypertensive rats in the form of hemorrhage in the eyes and retinal damage. Furthermore, we also observed intestinal toxicity in hypertensive rats, which presented as thinning intestinal walls with hemorrhagic contents, and histopathological changes of the jejunum. Hepatotoxicity was also evidenced by elevated ALT, and vacuolization of hepatocytes was also observed. Nephrotoxicity was observed only in high dose chloroquine-treated hypertensive rats, presenting as alterations of urinalysis and renal function. Immune alterations were also found in high-dose chloroquine-treated hypertensive rats with elevation of serum IL-10, IL-1β and GRO, and moderate damage to the spleen. In summary, this study partially explains the reason for the failure of chloroquine as a COVID-19 therapy, and underlines the importance of safety evaluation and medical supervision of chloroquine to avoid patient harm, especially to those with hypertension.

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.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

RESULTS

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and methylprednisolone and in hospital survival in severe COVID-19 pneumonia

Introduction: Severe COVID-19 pneumonia has two phases that are not mutually exclusive. Repurposed drugs target only one phase and the association of combination therapy to survival is unknown.

Objective: To determine the association of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and methylprednisolone versus methylprednisolone only to in hospital survival.

Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort of patients admitted for severe covid-19 in 13 hospitals in New Jersey, United States from March–June 2020. Propensity score match with 11 variables was constructed between those who received no methylprednisolone and methylprednisolone. Multivariate Cox regression was used for risk of in hospital mortality.

Measurements and main results: There were 759 patients, 380 in no methylprednisolone and 379 with methylprednisolone. Multivariate Cox regression shows that methylprednisolone, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin had prolonged survival compared to methylprednisolone alone [HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.22,0.91 p < 0.03)]. In patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, those who also received high dose methylprednisolone were associated with worse survival compared to those who received low dose methylprednisolone (HR = 1.642; 95% CI 1.053 to 2.562; p = 0.0287). Nursing home residents [HR 2.77 (95% CI 1.67, 4.59 p < 0.0001)], coronary artery disease [HR 2.93 (95% CI 1.31, 3.15 p = 0.001), and invasive mechanical ventilation [HR 3.02 (95% CI 1.71,5.34 p = 0.0001)] were independently associated with worse survival.

Conclusion: Combination therapy was associated with improved survival compared to monotherapy. However, nursing home residents, coronary artery disease, and mechanical ventilation were independently associated with mortality. Larger randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm conclusions.

DFV890: a new oral NLRP3 inhibitor—tested in an early phase 2a randomised clinical trial in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and impaired respiratory function

Background

Coronavirus-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) has limited effective therapy to date. NLRP3 inflammasome activation induced by SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 contributes to cytokine storm.

Methods

This randomised, multinational study enrolled hospitalised patients (18–80 years) with COVID-19-associated pneumonia and impaired respiratory function. Eligible patients were randomised (1:1) via Interactive Response Technology to DFV890 + standard-of-care (SoC) or SoC alone for 14 days. Primary endpoint was APACHE II score at Day 14 or on day-of-discharge (whichever-came-first) with worst-case imputation for death. Other key assessments included clinical status, CRP levels, SARS-CoV-2 detection, other inflammatory markers, in-hospital outcomes, and safety.

Findings

Between May 27, 2020 and December 24, 2020, 143 patients (31 clinical sites, 12 countries) were randomly assigned to DFV890 + SoC (n = 71) or SoC alone (n = 72). Primary endpoint to establish clinical efficacy of DFV890 vs. SoC, based on combined APACHE II score, was not met; LSM (SE), 8·7 (1.06) vs. 8·6 (1.05); p = 0.467. More patients treated with DFV890 vs. SoC showed ≥ 1-level improvement in clinical status (84.3% vs. 73.6% at Day 14), earlier clearance of SARS-CoV-2 (76.4% vs. 57.4% at Day 7), and mechanical ventilation-free survival (85.7% vs. 80.6% through Day 28), and there were fewer fatal events in DFV890 group (8.6% vs. 11.1% through Day 28). DFV890 was well tolerated with no unexpected safety signals.

Interpretation

DFV890 did not meet statistical significance for superiority vs. SoC in primary endpoint of combined APACHE II score at Day 14. However, early SARS-CoV-2 clearance, improved clinical status and in-hospital outcomes, and fewer fatal events occurred with DFV890 vs. SoC, and it may be considered as a protective therapy for CARDS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04382053.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01904-w.

Rash morphology as a predictor of COVID-19 severity: A systematic review of the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19

Approximately 6% of those with COVID-19 will experience cutaneous manifestations. Examining data from this cohort could provide useful information to help with the management of COVID-19. To that end, we conducted a systematic review primarily to assess rash morphologies associated with COVID-19 and their relationship with disease severity. Secondary outcomes include demographics, distribution, dermatological symptoms, timeline, diagnostic method and medication history. The literature was searched for all patients with skin manifestations thought to be related to suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Patients with a history of dermatological, rheumatological or occupational skin disorders were excluded. Of the 2056 patients selected, the most common morphologies were chilblain-like lesions (54.2%), maculopapular (13.6%) and urticaria (8.3%). Chilblain-like lesions were more frequent in the younger population (mean age 21.5, standard deviation ± 10.8) and were strongly linked with milder disease, not requiring an admission (odds ratio [OR] 35.36 [95% confidence interval {CI} 23.58, 53.03]). Conversely, acro-ischaemia and livedo reticularis were associated with worse outcomes, including a need for ICU (OR 34.01 [95% CI 16.62, 69.57] and OR 5.57 [95% CI 3.02, 10.30], respectively) and mortality (OR 25.66 [95% CI 10.83, 60.79] and OR 10.71 [95% CI 4.76, 24.13], respectively). Acral lesions were the most common site (83.5%). 35.1% experienced pruritus, 16.4% had pain and 4.7% reported a burning sensation. 34.1% had asymptomatic lesions. Rash was the only symptom in 20.9% and occurred before or alongside systemic symptoms in 12.4%. 28.3% had a positive polymerase chain reaction nasopharyngeal swab and 5.4% had positive antibodies, while 21.9% tested negative and 45.1% were not tested. In conclusion, COVID-19 causes a variety of rashes, which may cause symptoms and add to morbidity. Rash type could be helpful in determining COVID-19 prognosis.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Background

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

Results

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

Conclusions

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Use of Tox21 Screening Data to Evaluate the COVID-19 Drug Candidates for Their Potential Toxic Effects and Related Pathways

Currently, various potential therapeutic agents for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a global pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), are being investigated worldwide mainly through the drug repurposing approach. Several anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-malarial, and anti-inflammatory drugs were employed in randomized trials and observational studies for developing new therapeutics for COVID-19. Although an increasing number of repurposed drugs have shown anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities in vitro, so far only remdesivir has been approved by the US FDA to treat COVID-19, and several other drugs approved for Emergency Use Authorization, including sotrovimab, tocilizumab, baricitinib, paxlovid, molnupiravir, and other potential strategies to develop safe and effective therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 infection are still underway. Many drugs employed as anti-viral may exert unwanted side effects (i.e., toxicity) via unknown mechanisms. To quickly assess these drugs for their potential toxicological effects and mechanisms, we used the Tox21 in vitro assay datasets generated from screening ∼10,000 compounds consisting of approved drugs and environmental chemicals against multiple cellular targets and pathways. Here we summarize the toxicological profiles of small molecule drugs that are currently under clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 based on their in vitro activities against various targets and cellular signaling pathways.

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

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

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions on mortality and the average length of hospital stay of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Up to now, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined various drugs as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results were diverse and occasionally even inconsistent with each other. To this point,we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological agents in published RCTs.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was performed using PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. RCTs evaluating mortality and the average length of hospital stay to standard of care (SOC)/placebo/control were included. RCTs mainly were classified into five categories of drugs, including anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antiparasitic, antibody and antibiotics. Meta-analysis was done on 5 drugs classes and sub-group meta-analysis was done on single drugs and moderate or severe stage of disease.

EXPERT OPINION

Mortality and the average length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients were significantly reduced with anti-inflammatory drugs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 to 0.85, P<0.00001, and mean difference [MD]: -1.41, CI:-1.75 to -1.07, P<0.00001, respectively) compared to SOC/control/placebo. Furthermore, antiparasitic was associated with reduced length of hospital stay (MD: -0.65, CI: -1.26 to -0.03, P<0.05) in comparison to SOC/placebo/control. However, no effectiveness was found in other pharmacological interventions.

The Fragility of Statistically Significant Results in Randomized Clinical Trials for COVID-19

IMPORTANCE

Interpreting results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for COVID-19, which have been published rapidly and in vast numbers, is challenging during a pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the robustness of statistically significant findings from RCTs for COVID-19 using the fragility index.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study included COVID-19 trial articles that randomly assigned patients 1:1 into 2 parallel groups and reported at least 1 binary outcome as significant in the abstract. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed to identify RCTs on COVID-19 published until August 7, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Trial characteristics, such as type of intervention (treatment drug, vaccine, or others), number of outcome events, and sample size.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Fragility index.

RESULTS

Of the 47 RCTs for COVID-19 included, 36 (77%) were studies of the effects of treatment drugs, 5 (11%) were studies of vaccines, and 6 (13%) were of other interventions. A total of 138 235 participants were included in these trials. The median (IQR) fragility index of the included trials was 4 (1-11). The medians (IQRs) of the fragility indexes of RCTs of treatment drugs, vaccines, and other interventions were 2.5 (1-6), 119 (61-139), and 4.5 (1-18), respectively. The fragility index among more than half of the studies was less than 1% of each sample size, although the fragility index as a proportion of events needing to change would be much higher.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study found a relatively small number of events (a median of 4) would be required to change the results of COVID-19 RCTs from statistically significant to not significant. These findings suggest that health care professionals and policy makers should not rely heavily on individual results of RCTs for COVID-19.

The Role of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes in COVID-19 Pathogenesis and Therapy

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a new public health crisis threatening the world. Dysregulated immune responses are the most striking pathophysiological features of patients with severe COVID-19, which can result in multiple-organ failure and death. The cytochrome P450 (CYP) system is the most important drug metabolizing enzyme family, which plays a significant role in the metabolism of endogenous or exogenous substances. Endogenous CYPs participate in the biosynthesis or catabolism of endogenous substances, including steroids, vitamins, eicosanoids, and fatty acids, whilst xenobiotic CYPs are associated with the metabolism of environmental toxins, drugs, and carcinogens. CYP expression and activity are greatly affected by immune response. However, changes in CYP expression and/or function in COVID-19 and their impact on COVID-19 pathophysiology and the metabolism of therapeutic agents in COVID-19, remain unclear. In this analysis, we review current evidence predominantly in the following areas: firstly, the possible changes in CYP expression and/or function in COVID-19; secondly, the effects of CYPs on the metabolism of arachidonic acid, vitamins, and steroid hormones in COVID-19; and thirdly, the effects of CYPs on the metabolism of therapeutic COVID-19 drugs.

Natural Products and Nanotechnology Against Coronavirus Disease 2019

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new and severe infectious disease and new global disaster and is spreading rapidly worldwide. Natural products have a long history and have been widely used to treat various acute, chronic, and even life-threatening diseases worldwide. However, the natural products have reduced bioavailability and availability as they have poor kinetic properties, such as large molecular weight, inability to cross lipid membranes, and weak absorption ability. With the rapid development of nanotechnology, using novel nanotechnology in conjunction with natural products can effectively eliminate the molecular restriction of the entry of nanoproducts into the body and can be used to diagnose and treat various diseases, including COVID-19, bringing new strategies and directions for medicine. This article reviews the role and implementation of natural products against COVID-19 based on nanotechnology.

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

SCOPE

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

METHODS

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

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

SCOPE

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

Outcomes associated with Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are advocated as potential treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) despite the lack of supportive clinical evidence. In this study, outcomes associated with Hydroxychloroquine and/or Ivermectin were determined in a series of patients with confirmed COVID-19 from a single institution in Brazil.

METHODS

Consecutive patients admitted between March and July 2020 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into four treatment categories: no treatment (Group 0), Ivermectin only (Group I), Hydroxychloroquine only (Group II), and Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin (Group III). Intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and death were compared between the Groups.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients were included, with the following treatment distribution: 35.2% (0), 9.1% (I), 48.3% (II), and 7.4% (III). Groups I, II, and III had the higher rates of Intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or death (0: 23.5% versus I: 38.1% versus II: 37.8% versus III: 70.6%, p=0.002), and the greatest mortality was found in Group III (0 versus III: 13.6% versus 35.3%, p=0.03). In the multivariate analysis, Hydroxychloroquine remained significantly associated with death (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.1-9.6, p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

In a series of consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19, Ivermectin was not associated with improved outcomes and Hydroxychloroquine may have resulted in a harmful effect.

2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To update the EULAR points to consider (PtCs) on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

METHODS

According to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review up to 14 July 2021 was conducted and followed by a consensus meeting of an international multidisciplinary task force. The new statements were consolidated by formal voting.

RESULTS

We updated 2 overarching principles and 12 PtC. Evidence was only available in moderate to severe and critical patients. Glucocorticoids alone or in combination with tocilizumab are beneficial in COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen therapy and in critical COVID-19. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib and tofacitinib) is promising in the same populations of severe and critical COVID-19. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma may find application in early phases of the disease and in selected subgroups of immunosuppressed patients. There was insufficient robust evidence for the efficacy of other immunomodulators with further work being needed in relation to biomarker-based stratification for IL-1 therapy CONCLUSIONS: Growing evidence supports incremental efficacy of glucocorticoids alone or combined with tocilizumab/Janus kinase inhibitors in moderate to severe and critical COVID-19. Ongoing studies may unmask the potential application of other therapeutic approaches. Involvement of rheumatologists, as systemic inflammatory diseases experts, should be encouraged in clinical trials of immunomodulatory therapy in COVID-19.

Current challenges in different approaches to control COVID-19: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) as a global health emergency on January 30, 2020, and as a pandemic disease on March 11, 2020. This review highlights the international situation, risk factors, and related protections to be taken as prerequisite measures and probable treatment options for the COVID-19-infected population in the current scenario.

MAIN TEXT

The SARS-CoV-2 viruses and their variants caused mild-to-severe respiratory tract infection and used airborne pathways as a way of contagion. Human-to-human transmission led to an exponential growth in the rise in the number of cases making it a real burden to immobilize the rapid spread of the virus while asymptomatic patients created ambiguity for confirmation in the community. It was clear from the case studies of patients that most of them were asymptomatic but still vulnerable to the people around, and hence, in a flash, many countries around the globe went into a complete lockdown, influencing the economy and thrashing industrial outputs. On the other hand, numerous researches were made to counteract the spread through studies in antiviral therapy, immune-based therapy, vaccination development, and natural remedies.

CONCLUSION

Although exploration for a specific drug required for the COVID-19 treatment is under extensive research worldwide and some of them are in clinical trial now. Virtual drug library screening is one of the current techniques for repurposing accessible compounds. This review could provide beneficial information about the potential current and future treatment strategies to treat the pandemic COVID-19 infection.

Repurposing the estrogen receptor modulator raloxifene to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) necessitates strategies to identify prophylactic and therapeutic drug candidates to enter rapid clinical development. This is particularly true, given the uncertainty about the endurance of the immune memory induced by both previous infections or vaccines, and given the fact that the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 might be challenging to reach, given the attack rate of the virus, which would require unusually high protection by a vaccine. Here, we show how raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator with anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties, emerges as an attractive candidate entering clinical trials to test its efficacy in early-stage treatment COVID-19 patients.

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

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

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19: possible mechanisms and therapeutic management

COVID-19 pandemic is a serious concern in the new era. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and lung failure are the main lung diseases in COVID-19 patients. Even though COVID-19 vaccinations are available now, there is still an urgent need to find potential treatments to ease the effects of COVID-19 on already sick patients. Multiple experimental drugs have been approved by the FDA with unknown efficacy and possible adverse effects. Probably the increasing number of studies worldwide examining the potential COVID-19 related therapies will help to identification of effective ARDS treatment. In this review article, we first provide a summary on immunopathology of ARDS next we will give an overview of management of patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit (ICU), while focusing on the current treatment strategies being evaluated in the clinical trials in COVID-19-induced ARDS patients.

Safety of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine Plus Azithromycin for the Treatment of COVID-19 Patients in Burkina Faso: An Observational Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Though chloroquine derivatives are used in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in many countries worldwide, doubts remain about the safety and efficacy of these drugs, especially in African communities where published data are scarce.

METHODS

We conducted an observational prospective cohort study from April 24 to September 03, 2020, in Burkina Faso to assess (as primary outcome) the clinical, biological, and cardiac (electrocardiographic) safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin administered to COVID-19 patients. The main secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and median time of viral clearance.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were enrolled and followed for 21 days. Among patients who took at least one dose of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine (90.1% [138/153]), few clinical adverse events were reported and were mainly rash/pruritus, diarrhea, chest pain, and palpitations. No statistically significant increase in hepatic, renal, and hematological parameters or electrolyte disorders were reported. However, there was a significant increase in the QTc value without exceeding 500ms, especially in those who received chloroquine phosphate. Three adverse events of special interest classified as serious (known from chloroquine derivatives) were recorded namely pruritus, paresthesia, and drowsiness. One case of death occurred. The average onset of SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity was estimated at 7.0 (95% CI: 5.0-10.0) days.

CONCLUSION

Hydroxychloroquine appeared to be well tolerated in treated COVID-19 patients in Burkina Faso. In the absence of a robust methodological approach that could generate a high level of scientific evidence, our results could at least contribute to guide health decisions that should be made based on different sources of scientific evidence including those from our study.

Effects of hydroxychloroquine and its metabolites in patients with connective tissue diseases

Hydroxychloroquine has attracted attention in the treatment of COVID-19. Many conflicting findings have been reported regarding the efficacy and safety of this drug, which has been used safely in the rheumatological diseases for years. However, these studies lacked measurement methods that allow accurate assessment of hydroxychloroquine and its metabolite levels. The aim of this study was to measure hydroxychloroquine and its metabolite levels in whole blood samples of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) and scleroderma (Scl) by a robust, simple and accurate validated tandem mass spectrometric method, and to investigate the relationship between these levels with drug-related adverse effects and disease activity scores. The validated LC–MS/MS method was applied to measure blood hydroxychloroquine and its metabolite levels of patients with RA, SLE, SS, Scl. Various haematological and biochemical parameters were measured with Beckman-Coulter AU 5800 and Beckman Coulter LH 780 analyzers, respectively. QTc intervals were calculated with Bazett’s formula, and the patients were followed up by clinicians in terms of clinical findings and adverse effects. Hydroxychloroquine levels of patients were similar to previous studies. There was a negative correlation between disease activity scores and hydroxychloroquine levels, while the highest correlation was between QTc interval, creatinine and GFR levels with desethylchloroquine. Bidetylchloroquine had the highest correlation with RBC count and liver function tests. Our findings showed that hydroxychloroquine and its metabolite levels were associated with disease activity scores, renal, hepatic function, QTc prolongation, and hematological parameters.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Antirheumatic Drug Intake Influence on Occurrence of COVID-19 Infection in Ambulatory Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Cohort Study

Introduction

We aimed to study the prevalence of a history of COVID-19 infection among patients suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Sjögren’s syndrome (SjS) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and the potential influence of long-term hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) intake.

Methods

We performed an observational monocentric cohort study at the Adolphe de Rothschild Foundation Hospital ophthalmology division (Paris, France). Electronic medical records (EMR) data were searched for keywords associated with SLE, RA, SjS, or PsA. Patients were contacted by phone and were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a positive COVID-19 test result during the study period. We determined the adjusted association between various antirheumatic drugs intake, COVID-19 risk factors, and occurrence of COVID-19 using a logistic regression model. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04345159).

Results

Patients were recruited between Apr 17, 2020, and Apr 30, 2020 and were recontacted between Oct 6, 2020, and Nov 2, 2020. A total of 569 patients were included, of whom 459 patients were eligible for data analysis. One hundred and eighty-one patients were treated with long-term HCQ and 18 patients had tested positive for COVID-19. No antirheumatic drug intake, including HCQ intake, was significantly associated with an increased or decreased risk of developing COVID-19 infection.

Conclusions

No antirheumatic drug intake was associated with an increased or decreased risk of developing COVID-19 infection in our cohort of patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Mapping Trends and Hotspots Regarding Clinical Research on COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research

Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, which began in December 2019, has not been completely controlled; therefore, COVID-19 has received much attention from countries around the world. Many related clinical studies, such as clinical trials, have been published, but to the knowledge of the authors, there has been no bibliometric analysis of these publications focusing on clinical research studies on COVID-19.

Methods: Global publications on COVID-19 from January 2020 to December 2020 were extracted from the Web of Science (WOS) collection database. The VOSviewer software and CiteSpace were employed to perform a bibliometric study. In addition, we obtained information on relevant clinical trials from the website http://clinicaltrials.gov.

Results: China published most of the articles in this field and had the highest number of citations and H-index. The Journal of Medical Virology published most of the articles related to COVID-19. In terms of institutions, Huazhong University of Science and Technology had the most publications, and Wang, JW received the highest number of citations.

Conclusion: The diagnosis, prevention, and prognosis of COVID-19 are still the focus of attention at present. The overall analysis of the disease were identified as the emerging topics from the perspectives of epidemiology and statistics. However, finding an effective treatment remains the focus of clinical trials.