Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis (RECORDS): study protocol for a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial

INTRODUCTION

Corticosteroids affect variably survival in sepsis trials, suggesting heterogeneity in patients' response to corticosteroids. The RECORDS (Rapid rEcognition of COrticosteRoiD resistant or sensitive Sepsis) trial aimed at defining endotypes associated with adults with sepsis responsiveness to corticosteroids.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RECORDS, a multicentre, placebo-controlled, biomarker-guided, adaptive Bayesian design basket trial, will randomly assign to a biomarker stratum 1800 adults with community-acquired pneumonia, vasopressor-dependent sepsis, septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome. In each stratum, patients will be randomly assigned to receive a 7-day course of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone or their placebos. Patients with COVID-19 will be treated with a 10-day standard course of dexamethasone and randomised to fludrocortisone or its placebo. Primary outcome will be 90-day death or persistent organ dysfunction. Large simulation study will be performed across a range of plausible scenarios to foresee power to detect a 5%-10% absolute difference with corticosteroids. We will assess subset-by-treatment interaction by estimating in a Bayesian framework two quantities: (1) measure of influence, relying on the value of the estimation of corticosteroids' effect in each subset, and (2) measure of interaction.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes, Dijon, France), on 6 April 2020. Trial results will be disseminated at scientific conferences and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04280497).

Relation of COVID-19 with liver diseases and their impact on healthcare systems: The Portuguese case

BACKGROUND

The impact caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the Portuguese population has been addressed in areas such as clinical manifestations, frequent comorbidities, and alterations in consumption habits. However, comorbidities like liver conditions and changes concerning the Portuguese population's access to healthcare-related services have received less attention.

AIM

To (1) Review the impact of COVID-19 on the healthcare system; (2) examine the relationship between liver diseases and COVID-19 in infected individuals; and (3) investigate the situation in the Portuguese population concerning these topics.

METHODS

For our purposes, we conducted a literature review using specific keywords.

RESULTS

COVID-19 is frequently associated with liver damage. However, liver injury in COVID-19 individuals is a multifactor-mediated effect. Therefore, it remains unclear whether changes in liver laboratory tests are associated with a worse prognosis in Portuguese individuals with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 has impacted healthcare systems in Portugal and other countries; the combination of COVID-19 with liver injury is common. Previous liver damage may represent a risk factor that worsens the prognosis in individuals with COVID-19.

The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19

Background:

The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal. Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1/financial; 2/to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.

Methods:

Pharmaceutical industry techniques for manipulating science and COVID-19 reporting were reviewed. Several sources of official documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical companies; policy documents; national newspapers and news agencies; and books by prominent professionals (scientific and legal). A few studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they have been conducted by reputable scientists in their respective fields.

Results:

Since the beginning of COVID-19, we can list the following methods of information manipulation which have been used: falsified clinical trials and inaccessible data; fake or conflict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines’ short-term side effects and total lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations under conflicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative effective treatments; unscientific and liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose confinements, masks, and vaccine acceptance; scientific censorship by the media.

Conclusion:

By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conflicts of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientifically validated vaccination laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.

Ethical challenges of prospective clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented opportunity to reimagine clinical research. While much has been written about the challenges associated with generating real-world evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparatively little attention has been paid to the ethical challenges facing patients, clinicians, researchers, and regulatory bodies.

AREAS COVERED

In this manuscript, we examine these challenges through the lens of informed consent and explore how the consenting process changes as our understanding of the disease is altered.

EXPERT OPINION

We also suggest ways to limit these ethical hurdles through the use of embedded pragmatic clinical trials, which generate real-world data without the limitations associated with observational trials or the resources and lack of generalizability that are obstacles to conducting conventional randomized clinical trials. We argue that clinical research must become more nimble, and must include embedded researchers to ensure that relevant questions and ethical issues are properly addressed.

G6PD distribution in sub-Saharan Africa and potential risks of using chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine based treatments for COVID-19

Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine have been proposed as potential treatments for COVID-19. These drugs have warning labels for use in individuals with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. Analysis of whole genome sequence data of 458 individuals from sub-Saharan Africa showed significant G6PD variation across the continent. We identified nine variants, of which four are potentially deleterious to G6PD function, and one (rs1050828) that is known to cause G6PD deficiency. We supplemented data for the rs1050828 variant with genotype array data from over 11,000 Africans. Although this variant is common in Africans overall, large allele frequency differences exist between sub-populations. African sub-populations in the same country can show significant differences in allele frequency (e.g. 16.0% in Tsonga vs 0.8% in Xhosa, both in South Africa, p = 2.4 × 10-3). The high prevalence of variants in the G6PD gene found in this analysis suggests that it may be a significant interaction factor in clinical trials of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in Africans.

Current treatment strategies for COVID‑19 (Review)

The spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) emerged suddenly at the end of 2019 and the disease came to be known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19). To date, there is no specific therapy established to treat COVID‑19. Identifying effective treatments is urgently required to treat patients and stop the transmission of SARS‑CoV‑2 in humans. For the present review, >100 publications on therapeutic agents for COVID‑19, including in vitro and in vivo animal studies, case reports, retrospective analyses and meta‑analyses were retrieved from PubMed and analyzed, and promising therapeutic agents that may be used to combat SARS‑CoV‑2 infection were highlighted. Since the outbreak of COVID‑19, different drugs have been repurposed for its treatment. Existing drugs, including chloroquine (CQ), its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), remdesivir and nucleoside analogues, monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, Chinese herbal medicine and natural compounds for treating COVID‑19 evaluated in experimental and clinical studies were discussed. Although early clinical studies suggested that CQ/HCQ produces antiviral action, later research indicated certain controversy regarding their use for treating COVID‑19. The molecular mechanisms of these therapeutic agents against SARS‑CoV2 have been investigated, including inhibition of viral interactions with angiotensin‑converting enzyme 2 receptors in human cells, viral RNA‑dependent RNA polymerase, RNA replication and the packaging of viral particles. Potent therapeutic options were reviewed and future challenges to accelerate the development of novel therapeutic agents to treat and prevent COVID‑19 were acknowledged.