Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial

Antiviral effect of Evusheld in COVID-19 hospitalized patients infected with pre-Omicron or Omicron variants: a modelling analysis of the randomized DisCoVeRy trial

BACKGROUND

The antiviral efficacy of Evusheld (AZD7442) in patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 is unknown.

METHODS

We analysed the evolution of both the nasopharyngeal viral load and the serum neutralization activity against the variant of infection in 199 hospitalized patients (109 treated with Evusheld, 90 treated with placebo) infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and included in the randomized, double-blind, trial DisCoVeRy (NCT04315948). Using a mechanistic mathematical model, we reconstructed the trajectories of viral kinetics and how they are modulated by the increase in serum neutralization activity during Evusheld treatment.

RESULTS

Our model identified that the neutralization activity was associated with viral kinetics. Reflecting the variant-dependent neutralization activity of Evusheld, the antiviral activity of Evusheld was larger in patients infected with pre-Omicron or Omicron BA.2 variants than in patients infected with Omicron BA.1 variant. More specifically, the model predicted that Evusheld reduced the median time to viral clearance compared with placebo-treated patients by more than 5 days in patients infected by pre-Omicron (median: 5.9; 80% PI: 2.1-13.6) or Omicron BA.2 (median: 5.4; 80% PI: 2.0-12.4), respectively. The effect was more modest in patients infected by the Omicron BA.1 variant, reducing the median time to viral clearance by 2 days (median: 2.2; 80% PI: 0.4-8.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients treated with Evusheld had a shorter median time to SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance. As Evusheld antiviral activity is mediated by the level of neutralization activity, its impact on viral clearance varies largely according to the variant of infection.

Effect of Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate on the outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a prospective, block-balanced, open-label, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The global effort to cure COVID-19 is still ongoing. Thus, a prospective, block-balanced, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate how Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate affects hospitalized COVID-19 patients' outcomes.

METHODS

The intervention and control groups of 60 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly allocated. Along with normal medication, the intervention group received 25 mg of tenofovir orally daily for seven days. The control group got normal therapy, including remdesivir and corticosteroids. ICU hospitalization duration, laboratory data, fever, dyspnea, arterial blood oxygen saturation with and without an oxygen face mask, mechanical ventilation, and mortality were the outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty of 236 eligible patients between September 2020 and February 2021 were enrolled. The intervention group had a mean age (±SD) of 61.33 (±13.09) years and the control group 60.03 (±18.03). Sixteen (53.3%) intervention patients and 15 (50.0%) control patients were males. The intervention group had fewer mechanical ventilation and ICU days. Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate did not improve fever, dyspnea, oxygen saturation with or without a face mask or nasal cannula, or laboratory data including WBC, ESR, CRP, AST, ALT, AlkP, total and direct bilirubin, in COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

According to this pilot trial, Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate, along with conventional treatment, significantly reduced mechanical ventilation and ICU stay in COVID-19 patients. Further thorough research is necessary to verify this conclusion.

Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study

The term "statistical significance," ubiquitous in the medical literature, is often misinterpreted, as is the "p-value" from which it stems. This article explores the implications of results that are numerically positive (e.g., those in the treatment arm do better on average) but not statistically significant. This lack of statistical significance is sometimes interpreted as strong, even decisive, evidence against an effect without due consideration of other factors. Three influential articles on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19 are illustrative. They all involve numerically positive results that were not statistically significant that were misinterpreted as strong evidence against HCQ's efficacy. These and related considerations raise concerns regarding the reliability of academic/medical reasoning around COVID-19 treatments, as well as more generally, and regarding the potential for bias stemming from conflicts of interest.

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.

COVID-19 therapeutics for the pregnant patient

SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause severe disease among pregnant persons. Pregnant persons were not included in initial studies of therapeutics for COVID-19, but cumulative experience demonstrates that most are safe for pregnant persons and the fetus, and effective for prevention or treatment of severe COVID-19.

The relationship between viral clearance rates and disease progression in early symptomatic COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Effective antiviral drugs accelerate viral clearance in acute COVID-19 infections; the relationship between accelerating viral clearance and reducing severe clinical outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiviral therapies in early symptomatic COVID-19, where viral clearance data were available. Treatment benefit was defined clinically as the relative risk of hospitalization/death during follow-up (≥14 days), and virologically as the SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance rate ratio (VCRR). The VCRR is the ratio of viral clearance rates between the intervention and control arms. The relationship between the clinical and virological treatment effects was assessed by mixed-effects meta-regression.

RESULTS

From 57 potentially eligible RCTs, VCRRs were derived for 44 (52 384 participants); 32 had ≥1 clinical endpoint in each arm. Overall, 9.7% (R2) of the variation in clinical benefit was explained by variation in VCRRs with an estimated linear coefficient of -0.92 (95% CI: -1.99 to 0.13; P = 0.08). However, this estimate was highly sensitive to the inclusion of the recent very large PANORAMIC trial. Omitting this outlier, half the variation in clinical benefit (R2 = 50.4%) was explained by variation in VCRRs [slope -1.47 (95% CI -2.43 to -0.51); P = 0.003], i.e. higher VCRRs were associated with an increased clinical benefit.

CONCLUSION

Methods of determining viral clearance in COVID-19 studies and the relationship to clinical outcomes vary greatly. As prohibitively large sample sizes are now required to show clinical treatment benefit in antiviral therapeutic assessments, viral clearance is a reasonable surrogate endpoint.

Viral clearance as a surrogate of clinical efficacy for COVID-19 therapies in outpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surrogates of antiviral efficacy are needed for COVID-19. We aimed to investigate the relationship between the virological effect of treatment and clinical efficacy as measured by progression to severe disease in outpatients treated for mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and medRxiv from database inception to Aug 16, 2023, for randomised placebo-controlled trials that tested virus-directed treatments (ie, any monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, or antivirals) in non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19. We only included studies that reported both clinical outcomes (ie, rate of disease progression to hospitalisation or death) and virological outcomes (ie, viral load within the first 7 days of treatment). We extracted summary data from eligible reports, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. We used an established meta-regression model with random effects to assess the association between clinical efficacy and virological treatment effect, and calculated I2 to quantify residual study heterogeneity.

FINDINGS

We identified 1718 unique studies, of which 22 (with a total of 16 684 participants) met the inclusion criteria, and were in primarily unvaccinated individuals. Risk of bias was assessed as low in 19 of 22 studies for clinical outcomes, whereas for virological outcomes, a high risk of bias was assessed in 11 studies, some risk in ten studies, and a low risk in one study. The unadjusted relative risk of disease progression for each extra log10 copies per mL reduction in viral load in treated compared with placebo groups was 0·12 (95% CI 0·04-0·34; p<0·0001) on day 3, 0·20 (0·08-0·50; p=0·0006) on day 5, and 0·53 (0·30-0·94; p=0·030) on day 7. The residual heterogeneity in our meta-regression was estimated as low (I2=0% [0-53] on day 3, 0% [0-71] on day 5, and 0% [0-43] on day 7).

INTERPRETATION

Despite the aggregation of studies with differing designs, and evidence of risk of bias in some virological outcomes, this review provides evidence that treatment-induced acceleration of viral clearance within the first 5 days after treatment is a potential surrogate of clinical efficacy to prevent hospitalisation with COVID-19. This work supports the use of viral clearance as an early phase clinical trial endpoint of therapeutic efficacy.

FUNDING

Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and prevention of COVID-19 severity in pregnant and postpartum women: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Pregnant women have an increased risk of severe COVID-19. Evaluation of drugs with a safety reproductive toxicity profile is a priority. At the beginning of the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was recommended for COVID-19 treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted in eight teaching hospitals in Spain to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HCQ in reducing viral shedding and preventing COVID-19 progression. Pregnant and postpartum women with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR (with or without mild COVID-19 signs/symptoms) and a normal electrocardiogram were randomized to receive either HCQ orally (400 mg/day for 3 days and 200 mg/day for 11 days) or placebo. PCR and electrocardiogram were repeated at day 21 after treatment start. Enrollment was stopped before reaching the target sample due to low recruitment rate. Trial registration EudraCT #: 2020-001587-29, on April 2, 2020.

CLINICAL TRIALS

gov # NCT04410562, registered on June 1, 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 116 women (75 pregnant and 41 post-partum) were enrolled from May 2020 to June 2021. The proportion of women with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR at day 21 was lower in the HCQ group (21.8%, 12/55) than in the placebo group (31.6%, 18/57), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.499). No differences were observed in COVID-19 progression, adverse events, median change in QTc, hospital admissions, preeclampsia or poor pregnancy and perinatal outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HCQ was found to be safe in pregnant and postpartum women with asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although the prevalence of infection was decreased in the HCQ group, the statistical power was insufficient to confirm the potential beneficial effect of HCQ for COVID-19 treatment.

Clinical course and management of COVID-19 in the era of widespread population immunity

The clinical implications of COVID-19 have changed since SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in humans. The current high levels of population immunity, due to prior infection and/or vaccination, have been associated with a vastly decreased overall risk of severe disease. Some people, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions, remain at risk for severe outcomes. Through the course of the pandemic, variants with somewhat different symptom profiles from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus have emerged. The management of COVID-19 has also changed since 2020, with the increasing availability of evidence-based treatments in two main classes: antivirals and immunomodulators. Selecting the appropriate treatment(s) for patients with COVID-19 requires a deep understanding of the evidence and an awareness of the limitations of applying data that have been largely based on immune-naive populations to patients today who most likely have vaccine-derived and/or infection-derived immunity. In this Review, we provide a summary of the clinical manifestations and approaches to caring for adult patients with COVID-19 in the era of vaccine availability and the dominance of the Omicron subvariants, with a focus on the management of COVID-19 in different patient groups, including immunocompromised, pregnant, vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

Exploring trial publication and research waste in COVID-19 randomised trials of hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and vitamin D: a meta-epidemiological cohort study

BACKGROUND

The global research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was impressive, but also led to an infodemic and considerable research waste. Registered, but unpublished trials added to this noise. We aimed to determine the proportion of registered randomised trials of common COVID-19 treatments that were published and to describe the characteristics of these trials to examine the association between trial characteristics, publication status and research waste.

METHODS

This meta-epidemiological cohort study used a sample of randomised trials of corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine or vitamin D as treatments for COVID-19, registered between 1 November 2019 and 31 December 2021 and available via the WHO ICTRP portal. We searched for the trials' published results up to 20 October 2022. We extracted the trial characteristics, analysing with descriptive statistics. We performed univariate logistic regression to examine the association between trials' characteristics and publication status, followed by multiple logistic regression using significant characteristics to assess the association between trial characteristics and publication status.

RESULTS

We identified 357 eligible trials on ICTRP. Of these, 107 (30%) had published or made their results available publicly by 20 October 2022, while 250 (70%) had not been published or shared their results publicly. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that a larger target sample size was a significant positive predictor of publication with target sample sizes above 300 almost tripling the odds of publication (aOR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.35 to 5.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Less than one third of registered trials made their results public and our findings identified that many trialists had not updated their trial registry entry with the trial status, results or both. Failure to share trial results publicly is a disservice to patients, clinicians and policy makers and adds to research waste.

Managing hospitalized patients with COVID-19

ABSTRACT

Treatment for COVID-19 has significantly changed since the beginning of the pandemic and continues to change as new evidence is published. This article describes which COVID-19 patients require hospitalization and how to manage hospitalized patients based on current evidence from randomized clinical trials.

Statistical Challenges When Analyzing SARS-CoV-2 RNA Measurements Below the Assay Limit of Quantification in COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Most clinical trials evaluating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutics include assessments of antiviral activity. In recently completed outpatient trials, changes in nasal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA levels from baseline were commonly assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) with single imputation for results below assay lower limits of quantification (LLoQ). Analyzing changes in viral RNA levels with singly imputed values can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. In this article, using an illustrative example from the ACTIV-2 trial, we highlight potential pitfalls of imputation when using ANCOVA or MMRM methods, and illustrate how these methods can be used when considering values Collapse

Key Words

• COVID-19
• SARS-CoV-2 RNA
• linear regression for censored data
• randomized trial

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Antiviral Agents
• Biological Assay
• COVID-19
• RNA, Viral
• SARS-CoV-2/genetics

Collapse

Grants

• UM1 AI069423 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069424 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069481 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069463 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI106701 NIAID NIH HHS
• U01 AI069424 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068634 NIH HHS
• U01 AI069463 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069432 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069412 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068634 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068636 NIAID NIH HHS
• U01 AI068636 NIAID NIH HHS
• National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
• National Institutes of Health

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Carlee B Moser Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Kara W Chew Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
Mark J Giganti Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Jonathan Z Li Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Evgenia Aga Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Justin Ritz Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Alexander L Greninger Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Arzhang Cyrus Javan National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA
Rachel Bender Ignacio Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Eric S Daar Lundquist Institute at Harbor-University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
David A Wohl Department of Medicine, Chapel Hill School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Judith S Currier Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
Joseph J Eron Department of Medicine, Chapel Hill School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Davey M Smith Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
Michael D Hughes Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Collapse

Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API)

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population.

METHODS

Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

The use and safety risk of repurposed drugs for COVID-19 patients: lessons learned utilizing the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System

Objectives

This study was designed to assess the disproportionality analyses of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir and how ADR reporting fluctuated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted utilizing the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data between 2019 and 2021. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, all reports associated with the drugs of interest were evaluated to assess all related adverse drug reactions. In the second phase, specific outcomes of interest (i.e., QT prolongation and renal and hepatic events) were determined to study their association with the drugs of interest. A descriptive analysis was conducted for all adverse reactions related to the drugs being studied. In addition, disproportionality analyses were conducted to compute the reporting odds ratio, the proportional reporting ratio, the information component, and the empirical Bayes geometric mean. All analyses were conducted using RStudio.

Results

A total of 9,443 ADR reports related to hydroxychloroquine; 6,160 (71.49) patients were female, and higher percentage of patients of both sexes were over the age of 65 years. QT prolongation (1.48%), pain (1.38%), and arthralgia (1.25%) were most frequently reported ADRs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The association of QT prolongation with use of hydroxychloroquine was statistically significant (ROR 47.28 [95% CI 35.95-62.18]; PRR 42.41 [95% CI 32.25-55.78]; EBGM 16.08; IC 4.95) compared with fluoroquinolone. The outcome was serious medical events in 48.01% of ADR reports; 27.42% required hospitalization and 8.61% resulted in death. Of 6,673 ADR reports related to remdesivir, 3,928 (61.13%) patients were male. During 2020, the top three ADR reports were elevated liver function tests (17.26%), acute kidney injury (5.95%) and death (2.84%). Additionally, 42.71% of ADR reports indicated serious medical events; 19.69% resulted in death and 11.71% indicated hospitalization. The ROR and PRR of hepatic and renal events associated with remdesivir were statistically significant, (4.81 [95% CI 4.46-5.19] and 2.96 [95% CI 2.66-3.29], respectively.

Conclusion

Our study showed that several serious ADRs were reported with the use of hydroxychloroquine, which resulted in hospitalization and death. Trends with the use of remdesivir were similar, but to a lesser extent. Therefore, this study showed us that off-label use should be based on thorough evidence-based evaluation.

Does Widespread Use of Hydroxychloroquine Reduce the Transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19? An Ecological Correlational Study

BACKGROUND

At the beginning of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was widely used as a possible antiviral agent. Current knowledge indicates that HCQ has little or no effect on individual clinical outcomes of COVID-19, but populational effects on disease transmissibility are still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the hypothesis that massive HCQ consumption by a population may contribute to reducing the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 spread by reducing the viral load of infected individuals.

METHODS

Public database of seven states from Brazil in 2020 were assessed, before the start of COVID-19 vaccination. The daily values of the COVID-19 effective reproduction number (Rt) were obtained. Associations between Rt values and the proposed predictor variables (prevalence of COVID-19 as a marker of collective immunity; social isolation indices; consumption of HCQ) were tested using multiple linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

In all seven states, consumption of HCQ was a significant negative predictor of Rt (β ranged from -0.295 to -0.502, p = 0.001). Furthermore, the mean derivative of Rt during the declining period of the COVID-19 incidence (the mean rate of variation) was also significantly negatively related to the mean HCQ consumption in that period (R2 = 0.895; β = -0.783; p = 0.011), meaning that the higher the HCQ consumption, the faster the decline of COVID-19 Rt. It suggests a dose-response phenomenon and a causal relationship in this association.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study are compatible with the hypothesis that HCQ has small but significant in vivo antiviral effects that are able to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility at the populational level.

Paxlovid for Treating COVID-19 Patients: A Case-Control Study From Two Hospitals in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease that shortly progressed into an unprecedented pandemic spreading all over the world and causing millions of deaths. Many new COVID-19-specific therapies were suggested for the treatment of the patients at increased risk of progression to severe disease, especially those who were unvaccinated and those with a likely inadequate vaccine response. One of the preferred therapies in this setting is Paxlovid, a combination of the oral protease inhibitors nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. Paxlovid was authorized by the Saudi Ministry of Health for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. This study aimed to report the effects of Paxlovid on the mortality of the COVID-19 patients at Dammam Medical Complex (DMC) and Qatif Complex Hospital (QCH), two hospitals in the Eastern Provence of Saudi Arabia, and compare the results with the international data. Methods The study was a retrospective study that included all the COVID-19 patients who were treated with Paxlovid at DMC and QCH between January and December 2022. Those patients were compared with control COVID-19 patients who did not receive Paxlovid. The patients were included irrespective of their COVID-19 vaccination status. All the patients were managed according to the Saudi Ministry of Health guidelines. They were followed up through the infectious disease virtual clinics and were monitored for ICU admissions and death of any cause for three months following their COVID-19 infections. Results A total of 92 COVID-19 patients were included. The patients consisted of 47 male and 45 female patients (51.09% and 48.91%, respectively). The mean ± standard deviation for the patients' age was 55.58±19.25 years. Twenty-eight patients were given Paxlovid (30.43%). Eighteen patients (19.57%) died. The use of Paxlovid was associated with lower ICU admissions (0.0% vs. 18.75%, P value <0.05) and with lower deaths (3.57% vs 26.56%, P value <0.05) but the Paxlovid group included less immunocompromised patients (7.14% vs. 60.94%, P value <0.001), cancer patients (0.0% vs. 42.19%, P value <0.001), and chronic kidney disease patients (7.14% vs. 29.69%, P value <0.05) than the control group. Conclusion This study suggests that Paxlovid is highly effective in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 or mortality. However, larger studies with better qualities are needed for a full assessment of the role of Paxlovid in COVID-19 management in Saudi Arabia.

Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

Diagnosis, treatment protocols, and outcomes of liver transplant recipients infected with COVID-19

Several cases of fatal pneumonia during November 2019 were linked initially to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which the World Health Organization later designated as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. In the general population, COVID-19 severity can range from asymptomatic/mild symptoms to seriously ill. Its mortality rate could be as high as 49%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have acknowledged that people with specific underlying medical conditions, among those who need immunosuppression after solid organ transplantation (SOT), are at an increased risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19. Liver transplantation is the second most prevalent SOT globally. Due to their immunosuppressed state, liver transplant (LT) recipients are more susceptible to serious infections. Therefore, comorbidities and prolonged immunosuppression among SOT recipients enhance the likelihood of severe COVID-19. It is crucial to comprehend the clinical picture, immunosuppressive management, prognosis, and prophylaxis of COVID-19 infection because it may pose a danger to transplant recipients. This review described the clinical and laboratory findings of COVID-19 in LT recipients and the risk factors for severe disease in this population group. In the following sections, we discussed current COVID-19 therapy choices, reviewed standard practice in modifying immunosuppressant regimens, and outlined the safety and efficacy of currently licensed drugs for inpatient and outpatient management. Additionally, we explored the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in LT recipients and mentioned the efficacy and safety of vaccination use.

Statistical Challenges when Analyzing SARS-CoV-2 RNA Measurements Below the Assay Limit of Quantification in COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Most clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 therapeutics include assessments of antiviral activity. In recently completed outpatient trials, changes in nasal SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels from baseline were commonly assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) with single-imputation for results below assay lower limits of quantification (LLoQ). Analyzing changes in viral RNA levels with singly-imputed values can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. In this paper, using an illustrative example from the ACTIV-2 trial, we highlight potential pitfalls of imputation when using ANCOVA or MMRM methods, and illustrate how these methods can be used when considering values Collapse

Key Words

• sars-cov-2 rna
• covid-19
• linear regression for censored data
• randomized trial

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants

• UM1 AI068634 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068636 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI106701 NIAID NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Carlee B Moser Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA
Kara W Chew Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 90024, USA
Mark J Giganti Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA
Jonathan Z Li Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, 02139, USA
Evgenia Aga Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA
Justin Ritz Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA
Alexander L Greninger Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, USA
Arzhang Cyrus Javan National Institutes of Health, Rockville, 20852, USA Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, USA
Eric S Daar Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, 90502, USA David A Wohl, MD, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, 27599, USA
Judith S Currier Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 90024, USA
Joseph J Eron Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, 27599, USA
Davey M Smith Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, 92093, USA
Michael D Hughes Department of Biostatistics and Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA For the ACTIV-2/A5401 Study Team

Collapse

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Current and Emerging Therapies for COVID-19 in Lung Transplantation

Purpose of Review

The landscape of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly changed over the past 3 years. Paralleling this evolution, the scientific and medical communities have reported many novel findings relating to the infection's epidemiology, transmission, diagnosis, and treatment. We review pertinent studies of COVID-19 therapeutics with an emphasis on their application to lung transplant recipients.

Recent Findings

Agents that have been well-studied for treating COVID-19 include antivirals (remdesivir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, molnupiravir), monoclonal antibodies, and immunomodulators (for example, corticosteroids and tocilizumab).

Summary

Remdesivir remains an essential therapy for managing mild-moderate COVID-19. Though highly efficacious for mild-moderate COVID-19 for outpatient therapy, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir has limited use in lung transplant recipients due to significant drug-drug interactions. Monoclonal antibodies, though useful, are the most affected by the emergence of new viral variants.

Harnessing the Power of Venomous Animal-Derived Toxins against COVID-19

Animal-derived venoms are complex mixtures of toxins triggering important biological effects during envenomings. Although venom-derived toxins are known for their potential of causing harm to victims, toxins can also act as pharmacological agents. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was observed an increase in in-depth studies on antiviral agents, and since, to date, there has been no completely effective drug against the global disease. This review explores the crosstalk of animal toxins and COVID-19, aiming to map potential therapeutic agents derived from venoms (e.g., bees, snakes, scorpions, etc.) targeting COVID-19.

Characteristics and Outcomes by Ceiling of Care of Subjects Hospitalized with COVID-19 During Four Waves of the Pandemic in a Metropolitan Area: A Multicenter Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

The profiles of patients with COVID-19 have been widely studied, but little is known about differences in baseline characteristics and in outcomes between subjects with a ceiling of care assigned at hospital admission and subjects without a ceiling of care. The aim of this study is to compare, by ceiling of care, clinical features and outcomes of hospitalized subjects during four waves of COVID-19 in a metropolitan area in Catalonia.

METHODS

Observational study conducted during the first (March-April 2020), second (October-November 2020), third (January-February 2021), and fourth wave (July-August 2021) of COVID-19 in five centers of Catalonia. All subjects were adults (> 18 years old) hospitalized with a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and with therapeutic ceiling of care assessed by the attending physician at hospital admission.

RESULTS

A total of 5813 subjects were analyzed. Subjects with a ceiling of care were mainly older (difference in median age of 20 years), with more comorbidities (Charlson index 3 points higher) and with fewer clinical signs at baseline than patients without a ceiling of care. Some features of their clinical profiles changed among waves. There were differences in treatments received during hospital admission across waves, but not between subjects with and without a ceiling of care. Subjects with a ceiling of care had a death incidence more than four times the death incidence of subjects a without a ceiling of care (risk ratio (RR) ranging from 3.5 in the first wave to almost 6 in the third and fourth). Incidence of severe pneumonia and complications for subjects with a ceiling of care was around 1.5 times the incidence in subjects without a ceiling of care.

DISCUSSION

Analysis of hospitalized subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infection should be stratified according to therapeutic ceiling of care to avoid bias and outcome misestimation.

How We Have Treated Severe to Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Korea

Since 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic currently continues. In response to this unprecedented pandemic, several researchers and medical staff have struggled to find appropriate treatments for COVID-19. Patients with mild symptoms can recuperate with symptomatic care, however establishing treatment for severe to critically ill patients who can have a high mortality has been essential. Accordingly, the guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have evolved through numerous trials and errors and have been relatively well established to date. In the Republic of Korea, several evidence-based guidelines for COVID-19 treatment were released and revised, reflecting various research and regional medical conditions. To date, approximately 3 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are reflecting on the changes in the guidelines thus far and have summarized the treatment experience of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19. The Korean guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have been updated continuously as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines have changed. Dexamethasone is currently used as the backbone for the treatment of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab can be added depending on a patient's situation. In addition, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is one of the important adjunctive therapies for patients with severe COVID-19. In the clinical field, treatment of severely ill patients with COVID-19 based on guidelines is widely practiced by medical staff and established currently.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION

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

Using time-weighted average change from baseline of SARS-CoV-2 viral load to assess impact of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment for COVID-19

Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated no clinical benefit of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for either postexposure prophylaxis or early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using data from these studies, we calculated the time-weighted average change from baseline SARS-CoV-2 viral load and demonstrated that HCQ did not affect viral clearance.

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.

Review of Hydroxychloroquine Cardiotoxicity: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose of Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has popularized the usage of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine (HCQ/CQ) as treatments for COVID-19. Previously used as anti-malarial and now commonly used in rheumatologic conditions, preliminary in vitro studies have demonstrated these medications also have anti-viral properties. Retinopathy and neuromyopathy are well recognized complications of using these treatments; however, cardiotoxicity is under-recognized. This review will discuss the implications and cardiotoxicity of HCQ/CQ, their mechanisms of action, and their utility in COVID-19.

Recent Findings

Early clinical trials demonstrated a modest benefit of HCQ in COVID-19, causing a push for the usage of it. However, further large multi-center randomized control centers, demonstrated no benefit, and even a trend towards worse outcomes. The predominant cardiac complication observed with HCQ in COVID-19 was cardiac arrhythmias and prolonging of the QT interval. However, with chronic usage of HCQ/CQ, the development of heart failure (HF) and cardiomyopathy (CM) can occur.

Summary

Although, most adverse cardiac events related to HCQ/CQ usage in COVID-19 were secondary to conduction disorders given the short duration of treatment, HCQ/CQ can cause CM and HF, with chronic usage. Given the insufficient evidence, HCQ/CQ usage in COVID-19 is not routinely recommended, especially with novel therapies now being developed and used. Additionally, usage of HCQ/CQ should prompt initial cardiac evaluation with ECG, and yearly monitoring, with consideration for advanced imaging if clinically warranted. The diagnosis of HCQ/CQ cardiomyopathy is important, as prompt cessation can allow for recovery when these changes are still reversible.

Effects of COVID-19 on Arrhythmia

The World Health Organization announced that COVID-19, with SARS-CoV-2 as its pathogen, had become a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Today, the global epidemic situation is still serious. With the development of research, cardiovascular injury in patients with COVID-19, such as arrhythmia, myocardial injury, and heart failure, is the second major symptom in addition to respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular injury is related to the prognosis and mortality of patients. The incidence of arrhythmia in COVID-19 patients ranges from 10% to 20%. The potential mechanisms include viral infection-induced angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 expression change, myocarditis, cytokine storm, cardiac injury, electrophysiological effects, hypoxemia, myocardial strain, electrolyte abnormalities, intravascular volume imbalance, drug toxicities and interactions, and stress response caused by virus infection. COVID-19 complicated with arrhythmia needs to be accounted for and integrated in management. This article reviews the incidence, potential mechanisms, and related management measures of arrhythmia in COVID-19 patients.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.

The association of antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity: The retrospective analysis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort

Background and objectives

Although several repurposed antiviral drugs have been used for the treatment of COVID-19, only a few such as remdesivir and molnupiravir have shown promising effects. The objectives of our study were to investigate the association of repurposed antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity.

Methods

Patients admitted to 26 different hospitals located in 16 different provinces between March 11–July 18, 2020, were enrolled. Case definition was based on WHO criteria. Patients were managed according to the guidelines by Scientific Board of Ministry of Health of Turkey. Primary outcomes were length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and intubation.

Results

We retrospectively evaluated 1,472 COVID-19 adult patients; 57.1% were men (mean age = 51.9 ± 17.7years). A total of 210 (14.3%) had severe pneumonia, 115 (7.8%) were admitted to ICUs, and 69 (4.7%) were intubated during hospitalization. The median (interquartile range) of duration of hospitalization, including ICU admission, was 7 (5–12) days. Favipiravir (n = 328), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 55), and oseltamivir (n = 761) were administered as antiviral agents, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, n = 1,382) and azithromycin (n = 738) were used for their immunomodulatory activity. Lopinavir/ritonavir (β [95% CI]: 4.71 [2.31–7.11]; p = 0.001), favipiravir (β [95% CI]: 3.55 [2.56–4.55]; p = 0.001) and HCQ (β [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.02–1.67]; p = 0.046) were associated with increased risk of lengthy hospital stays. Furthermore, favipiravir was associated with increased risks of ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 3.02 [1.70–5.35]; p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (OR [95% CI]: 2.94 [1.28–6.75]; p = 0.011).

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrated that antiviral drugs including lopinavir, ritonavir, and favipiravir were associated with negative clinical outcomes such as increased risks for lengthy hospital stay, ICU admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. Therefore, repurposing such agents without proven clinical evidence might not be the best approach for COVID-19 treatment.

Outpatient Management of COVID-19: A Primer for the Dermatologist

Purpose of Review

To summarize diagnostic and therapeutic management of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting for dermatologists.

Recent Findings

Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) is the preferred treatment in patients with mild symptoms at high risk of progression to severe SARS-CoV2 infection. Additional options include monoclonal antibodies (bebtelovimab), remdesivir, and molnupiravir.

Summary

Dermatologists need to be aware of recent developments in diagnostic and therapeutic management of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, as their patients may rely on dermatologists to provide advice, particularly in cases where treatments for dermatological disease may impact the risk of COVID-19 and/or vaccine efficacy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13671-022-00368-3.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Background

Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540.

Findings

From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52–1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53–1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57–1·04]).

Interpretation

In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Funding

COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in healthcare professionals with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: Prospective, non-randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) compared with no treatment in healthcare workers with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

Prospective, non-randomized study. All health professionals with confirmed COVID-19 between April 7 and May 6, 2020, non-requiring initial hospitalization were asked to participate. Patients who accepted treatment were given HCQ for five days (loading dose of 400mg q12h the first day followed by200mg q12h). Control group included patients with contraindications for HCQ or who rejected treatment. Study outcomes were negative conversion and viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, symptoms duration and disease progression.

RESULT

Overall, 142 patients were enrolled: 87 in treatment group and 55 in control group. The median age was 37 years and 75% were female, with few comorbidities. There were no significant differences in time to negative conversion of PCR between both groups. The only significant difference in the probability of negative conversion of PCR was observed at day 21 (18.7%, 95%CI 2.0-35.4). The decrease of SARS-CoV-2 viral load during follow-up was similar in both groups. A non significant reduction in duration of some symptoms in HCQ group was observed. Two patients with HCQ and 4 without treatment developed pneumonia. No patients required admission to the Intensive Care Unit or died. About 50% of patients presented mild side effects of HCQ, mainly diarrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study failed to show a substantial benefit of HCQ in viral dynamics and in resolution of clinical symptoms in health care workers with mild COVID-19.

Safety of Short-Term Treatments with Oral Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with and without COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have recently become the focus of global attention as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current systematic review aims to assess their safety in short treatments (≤14 days), whether used alone or in combination with other drugs. Following the PRISMA and SWiM recommendations, a search was conducted using four health databases for all relevant English-, Chinese-, and Spanish-language studies from inception through 30 July 2021. Patients treated for any condition and with any comparator were included. The outcomes of interest were early drug adverse effects and their frequency. A total of 254 articles met the inclusion criteria, including case and case-control reports as well as cross-sectional, cohort, and randomised studies. The results were summarised either qualitatively in table or narrative form or, when possible (99 studies), quantitatively in terms of adverse event frequencies. Quality evaluation was conducted using the CARE, STROBE, and JADAD tools. This systematic review showed that safety depended on drug indication. In COVID-19 patients, cardiac adverse effects, such as corrected QT interval prolongation, were relatively frequent (0–27.3% and up to 33% if combined with azithromycin), though the risk of torsade de pointes was low. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients, COVID-19 patients experienced a higher frequency of cardiac adverse effects regardless of the regimen used. Dermatological adverse effects affected 0–10% of patients with autoimmune diseases and COVID-19. A broad spectrum of neuropsychiatric adverse effects affected patients treated with CQ for malaria with variable frequencies and some cases were reported in COVID-19 patients. Gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred regardless of drug indication affecting 0–50% of patients. In conclusion, CQ and HCQ are two safe drugs widely used in the treatment of malaria and autoimmune diseases. However, recent findings on their cardiac and neuropsychiatric adverse effects should be considered if these drugs were to be proposed as antivirals again.

Computational study on the affinity of potential drugs to SARS-CoV-2 main protease

Herein, we report a computational investigation of the binding affinity of dexamethasone, betamethasone, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to SARS-CoV-2 main protease using molecular and quantum mechanics as well as molecular docking methodologies. We aim to provide information on the anti-COVID-19 mechanism of the abovementioned potential drugs against SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Hence, the 6w63 structure of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease was selected as potential target site for the docking analysis. The study includes an initial conformational analysis of dexamethasone, betamethasone, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. For the most stable conformers, a spectroscopic analysis has been carried out. In addition, global and local reactivity indexes have been calculated to predict the chemical reactivity of these molecules. The molecular docking results indicate that dexamethasone and betamethasone have a higher affinity than chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for their theoretical 6w63 target. Additionally, dexamethasone and betamethasone show a hydrogen bond with the His41 residue of the 6w63 protein, while the interaction between chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine with this amino acid is weak. Thus, we confirm the importance of His41 amino acid as a target to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro activity.

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.

COVID-19 Medical and Pharmacological Management in the European Countries Compared to Italy: An Overview

(1) Background: Italy accounts for more than 150,000 deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading the top rank in SARS-CoV-2-caused deceases in Europe. A survey on the different ways by which the COVID-19 pandemic emergency was managed in the foreign European countries compared to Italy is the purpose of this paper. (2) Methods: A literature search and various mathematical algorithms to approach a rank scoring scale were used to describe in detail the different approaches used by European countries to manage the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. (3) Results: The study showed that Italy stands at the bottom ranking for COVID-19 management due to its high mortality rate. Possible causes of the observed huge numbers of hospitalization and deaths were (a) the demographic composition of the European country; (b) its decentralized healthcare system organization; (c) the role of correct pharmacology in the early stages before hospitalization. Post-mortem examinations were of paramount importance to elucidate the etiopathogenesis of COVID-19 and to tailor a suitable and proper therapy in the early symptomatic stages of COVID-19, preventing hospitalization. (4) Conclusions: Factors such as the significant impact on elderly people, the public health organization prevalently state-owned and represented mainly by hospitals, and criticism of the home therapy approach toward SARS-CoV-2-infected people, may have concurred in increasing the number of COVID-19 deaths in Italy.

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.

Impact of COVID-19 and malaria Coinfection on Clinical Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objectives

Despite the possibility of concurrent infection with COVID-19 and malaria, little is known about the clinical course of coinfected patients. We analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with concurrent COVID-19 and malaria infection.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study that assessed prospectively collected data of all patients who were admitted between May and December 2020 to the Universal COVID-19 treatment center (UCTC), Khartoum, Sudan. UCTC compiled demographic, clinical, laboratory (including testing for malaria), and outcome data in all patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized at that clinic. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during the hospital stay. We built proportional hazard Cox models with malaria status as the main exposure and stepwise adjustment for age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, diabetes, and hypertension.

Results

We included 591 patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who were also tested for malaria. Mean (SD) age was 58 (16.2) years, 446/591 (75.5%) were males. Malaria was diagnosed in 270/591 (45.7%) patients. Most malaria patients were infected by Plasmodium falciparum (140/270; 51.9%), while 121/270 (44.8%) were coinfected with Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. Median follow-up was 29 days. Crude mortality rates were 10.71 and 5.87 per 1000 person-days for patients with and without concurrent malaria, respectively. In the fully adjusted Cox model, patients with concurrent malaria and COVID-19 had a greater mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.69).

Discussion

Coinfection with COVID-19 and malaria is associated with increased all-cause in-hospital mortality compared to monoinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and the risk of acute kidney injury in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine has been widely used as part of the standard treatment for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine increases the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

PubMed and Embase were searched for related publications from inception to Dec 31, 2021, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing the risk of AKI and/or increased creatinine in COVID-19 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and other controls (active treatment and placebo). We conducted separate meta-analyses for RCTs and NRSIs based on fixed-effect model, with odds ratios (ORs) being considered as effect sizes.

Results

We included 21 studies in the analysis, with 12 were RCTs. Based on the RCTs, compared to placebo, the OR was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86, 1.64; p = .30, n = 4, moderate quality) for AKI and 1.00 (95%CI: 0.64, 1.56; p = .99, n = 5, moderate quality) for increased creatinine for patients received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine treatment; compared to active treatment, the odds was 1.28 (95%CI: 0.65, 2.53; p = .47, n = 2, low quality) for AKI and 0.64 (95%CI: 0.13, 3.20; p = .59, n = 1, low quality) for increased creatine. Evidence from NRSIs showed slightly increased odds of AKI, with low quality.

Conclusion

Based on current available studies which were graded as low to moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine use is associated with increased risk of AKI or raised creatinine. Abbreviations: AKI: acute kidney injury; COVID-19: Coronavirus Disease 2019; RCT: randomized controlled trials; NRSI: non-randomized studies of interventions; OR: odds ratios; ROBIS-I: Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions

Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: Rapid updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to grow and spread throughout the world since being declared a pandemic. Despite extensive scientific research globally including repurposing of several existing drugs, there is no effective or proven therapy for this enigmatic disease which is still largely managed empirically This systematic review evaluated the role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 infection and was conducted using Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews of interventional studies including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Only prospective clinical trials randomly assigning COVID-19 patients to HCQ plus standard of care therapy (test arm) versus placebo/standard of care (control arm) were included. Data were pooled using the random-effects model and expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 10,492 patients from 19 randomised controlled trials were included. The use of HCQ was not associated with higher rates of clinical improvement (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.96-1.03, p = 0.79) or reduction in all-cause mortality by Day14 (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.97-1.19, p = 0.19) or Day28 (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.99-1.19, p = 0.09) compared to placebo/standard of care. There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between the two arms (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.85-1.19, p = 0.95). There is low-to-moderate certainty evidence that HCQ therapy is generally safe but does not reduce mortality or enhance recovery in patients with COVID-19 infection.

Outpatient Therapies for COVID-19: How Do We Choose?

BACKGROUND

Several outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies have reduced hospitalization in randomized controlled trials. The choice of therapy may depend on drug efficacy, toxicity, pricing, availability, and available infrastructure. To facilitate comparative decision-making, we evaluated the efficacy of each treatment in clinical trials and estimated the cost per hospitalization prevented.

METHODS

Wherever possible, we obtained relative risk for hospitalization from published randomized controlled trials. Otherwise, we extracted data from press releases, conference abstracts, government submissions, or preprints. If there was >1 study, the results were meta-analyzed. Using relative risk, we estimated the number needed to treat (NNT), assuming a baseline hospitalization risk of 5%, and compared the cost per hospitalization prevented with the estimate for an average Medicare COVID-19 hospitalization ($21 752). Drug pricing was estimated from GoodRx, from government purchases, or manufacturer estimates. Administrative and societal costs were not included. Results will be updated online as new studies emerge and/or final numbers become available.

RESULTS

At a 5% risk of hospitalization, the estimated NNT was 80 for fluvoxamine, 91 for colchicine, 72 for inhaled corticosteroids, 24 for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 50 for molnupiravir, 28 for remdesivir, 25 for sotrovimab, 29 for casirivimab/imdevimab, and 29 for bamlanivimab/etesevimab. For drug cost per hospitalization prevented, colchicine, fluvoxamine, inhaled corticosteroids, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were below the Medicare estimated hospitalization cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Many countries are fortunate to have access to several effective outpatient therapies to prevent COVID-19 hospitalization. Given differences in efficacy, toxicity, cost, and administration complexity, this assessment serves as one means to frame treatment selection.

NF-κB Signaling and Inflammation-Drug Repurposing to Treat Inflammatory Disorders?

NF-κB is a central mediator of inflammation, response to DNA damage and oxidative stress. As a result of its central role in so many important cellular processes, NF-κB dysregulation has been implicated in the pathology of important human diseases. NF-κB activation causes inappropriate inflammatory responses in diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and multiple sclerosis (MS). Thus, modulation of NF-κB signaling is being widely investigated as an approach to treat chronic inflammatory diseases, autoimmunity and cancer. The emergence of COVID-19 in late 2019, the subsequent pandemic and the huge clinical burden of patients with life-threatening SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia led to a massive scramble to repurpose existing medicines to treat lung inflammation in a wide range of healthcare systems. These efforts continue and have proven to be controversial. Drug repurposing strategies are a promising alternative to de novo drug development, as they minimize drug development timelines and reduce the risk of failure due to unexpected side effects. Different experimental approaches have been applied to identify existing medicines which inhibit NF-κB that could be repurposed as anti-inflammatory drugs.

Organoid technology and lung injury mouse models evaluating effects of hydroxychloroquine on lung epithelial regeneration

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) damages lung epithelial stem/progenitor cells. Ideal anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug candidates should be screened to prevent secondary injury to the lungs. Here, we propose that in vitro three-dimensional organoid and lung injury repair mouse models are powerful models for the screening antiviral drugs. Lung epithelial progenitor cells, including airway club cells and alveolar type 2 (AT2) cells, were co-cultured with supportive fibroblast cells in transwell inserts. The organoid model was used to evaluate the possible effects of hydroxychloroquine, which is administered as a symptomatic therapy to COVID-19 patients, on the function of mouse lung stem/progenitor cells. Hydroxychloroquine was observed to promote the self-renewal of club cells and differentiation of ciliated and goblet cells in vitro. Additionally, it inhibited the self-renewal ability of AT2 cells in vitro. Naphthalene- or bleomycin-induced lung injury repair mouse models were used to investigate the in vivo effects of hydroxychloroquine on the regeneration of club and AT2 cells, respectively. The naphthalene model indicated that the proliferative ability and differentiation potential of club cells were unaffected in the presence of hydroxychloroquine. The bleomycin model suggested that hydroxychloroquine had a limited effect on the proliferation and differentiation abilities of AT2 cells. These findings suggest that hydroxychloroquine has limited effects on the regenerative ability of epithelial stem/progenitor cells. Thus, stem/progenitor cell-derived organoid technology and lung epithelial injury repair mouse models provide a powerful platform for drug screening, which could possibly help end the pandemic.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Hydroxychloroquine and 3 Metabolites in COVID-19 Patients and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Application

We develop a population pharmacokinetic model for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and three of its metabolites (desethylhydroxychloroquine, Des HCQ; desethylchloroquine, DesCQ; and didesethylchloroquine, didesCQ) in COVID-19 patients in order to determine whether a pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) relationship was present. The population PK of HCQ was described using non-linear mixed effects modelling. The duration of hospitalization, the number of deaths, and poor clinical outcomes (death, transfer to ICU, or hospitalization ≥ 10 d) were evaluated as PD parameters. From 100 hospitalized patients (age = 60.7 ± 16 y), 333 BHCQ and M were available for analysis. The data for BHCQ were best described by a four-compartment model with a first-order input (KA) and a first-order output. For M, the better model of the data used one compartment for each metabolite with a first-order input from HCQ and a first-order output. The fraction of HCQ converted to the metabolites was 75%. A significant relationship was observed between the duration of hospitalization and BHCQ at 48 h (r² = 0.12; p = 0.0052) or 72 h (r² = 0.16; p = 0.0012). At 48 h or 72 h, 87% or 91% of patients vs. 63% or 62% had a duration < 25 d with a BHCQ higher or below 200 μg/L, respectively. Clinical outcome was significantly related to BHCQ at 48 h (good outcome 369 +/- 181 μg/L vs. poor 285 +/- 144 μg/L; p = 0.0441) but not at 72 h (407 +/- 207 μg/L vs. 311 +/- 174 μg/L; p = 0.0502). The number of deaths was not significantly different according to the trough concentration (p = 0.972 and 0.836 for 48 h and 72 h, respectively).

Justificativa e Desenho do Ensaio Clínico Randomizado COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE - Coalition V): Hidroxicloroquina vs. Placebo em Pacientes Não Hospitalizados

Fundamento

Apesar da necessidade de opções terapêuticas específicas para a doença do coronavírus 2019 (covid-19), ainda não há evidências da eficácia de tratamentos específicos no contexto ambulatorial. Há poucos estudos randomizados que avaliam a hidroxicloroquina (HCQ) em pacientes não hospitalizados. Esses estudos não indicaram benefício com o uso da HCQ; no entanto, avaliaram desfechos primários diferentes e apresentaram vieses importantes na avaliação dos desfechos.

Objetivo

Investigar se a HCQ possui o potencial de prevenir hospitalizações por covid-19 quando comparada ao placebo correspondente.

Métodos

O estudo COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE) é um ensaio clínico randomizado, pragmático, duplo-cego, multicêntrico e controlado por placebo que avalia o uso da HCQ (800 mg no dia 1 e 400 mg do dia 2 ao dia 7) ou placebo correspondente na prevenção de hospitalizações por covid-19 em casos precoces confirmados ou suspeitos de pacientes não hospitalizados. Os critérios de inclusão são adultos (≥ 18 anos) que procuraram atendimento médico com sintomas leves de covid-19, com randomização ≤ 7 dias após o início dos sintomas, sem indicação de hospitalização na triagem do estudo e com pelo menos um fator de risco para complicações (> 65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes melito, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). Todos os testes de hipótese serão bilaterais. Um valor de p < 0,05 será considerado estatisticamente significativo em todas as análises. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04466540.

Resultados

Os desfechos clínicos serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente cegado para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. O desfecho primário de eficácia será avaliado de acordo com o princípio da intenção de tratar.

Conclusão

Este estudo apresenta o potencial de responder de forma confiável a questão científica do uso da HCQ em pacientes ambulatoriais com covid-19. Do nosso conhecimento, este é o maior estudo avaliando o uso de HCQ em indivíduos com covid-19 não hospitalizados.

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.

Impact of computational approaches in the fight against COVID-19: an AI guided review of 17 000 studies

SARS-CoV-2 caused the first severe pandemic of the digital era. Computational approaches have been ubiquitously used in an attempt to timely and effectively cope with the resulting global health crisis. In order to extensively assess such contribution, we collected, categorized and prioritized over 17 000 COVID-19-related research articles including both peer-reviewed and preprint publications that make a relevant use of computational approaches. Using machine learning methods, we identified six broad application areas i.e. Molecular Pharmacology and Biomarkers, Molecular Virology, Epidemiology, Healthcare, Clinical Medicine and Clinical Imaging. We then used our prioritization model as a guidance through an extensive, systematic review of the most relevant studies. We believe that the remarkable contribution provided by computational applications during the ongoing pandemic motivates additional efforts toward their further development and adoption, with the aim of enhancing preparedness and critical response for current and future emergencies.