Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline

Simnotrelvir as a potential treatment for COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Simnotrelvir is a selective 3-chymotrypsin-like oral protease inhibitor with activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

AREAS COVERED

On 18 January 2024, results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of simnotrelvir as a treatment for mild-to moderate COVID-19-were published, indicating the drug, when given in combination with ritonavir, shortened the time to resolution of symptoms.

EXPERT OPINION

Treatment options for most outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 are limited. The protease inhibitor nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir has proven effective in patients who are high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, but there are no approved therapies for standard-risk patients, who now comprise the majority of the population. Simnotrelvir appears to be effective in standard-risk patients, including those who have completed primary vaccination against COVID-19 and have received a booster dose. This manuscript examines the rationale for the development of simnotrelvir and explores how this drug may be used in the future to treat COVID-19.

Retrospective Cohort Study on Determinants of Mechanical Ventilation Duration of COVID-19 ICU Patients

Background In the face of the ongoing global health crisis posed by COVID-19, it becomes imperative to understand the disease's dynamics, particularly in specific regions. This study provides a detailed examination of the factors influencing mechanical ventilation (MV) duration among COVID-19 patients in an intensive care setting, focusing on a diverse patient cohort from the Al Hassa region of Saudi Arabia. The primary aim of this study was to identify key demographic factors, clinical outcomes, and comorbidities that affect the duration of MV among ICU patients with COVID-19. This understanding is crucial for enhancing patient care and informing healthcare strategies in the context of the pandemic. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to the ICU in the Al Hassa region. The total number of participants was 1,259. Using a systematic sampling method, these participants were chosen to create a representative sample that reflects the prevailing treatment protocols in ICUs across these hospitals. Data encompassed patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical outcomes, and MV duration. Statistical analyses were employed to explore the associations between these variables. Results Our findings reveal a total of 1,259 participants significant associations between MV duration and various factors, including nationality, legal status, travel history, and comorbidities like heart failure and immunocompromised status. These insights are instrumental in understanding the nuances of COVID-19 management in critical care. Conclusion The study provides valuable insights into the determinants of MV duration in severe COVID-19 cases, emphasizing the need for individualized patient care approaches. It highlights the complexity of managing COVID-19 in ICU settings and underscores the importance of tailored healthcare responses to this global health challenge, particularly in the Al Hassa region.

Bench-to-bedside: Innovation of small molecule anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs in China

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths globally, highlighting the need to develop potent prophylactic and therapeutic strategies against SARS-CoV-2. Small molecule inhibitors (remdesivir, Paxlovid, and molnupiravir) are essential complements to vaccines and play important roles in clinical treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Many advances have been made in development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors in China, but progress in discovery and characterization of pharmacological activity, antiviral mechanisms, and clinical efficacy are limited. We review development of small molecule anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs (azvudine [approved by the NMPA of China on July 25, 2022], VV116 [approved by the NMPA of China on January 29, 2023], FB2001, WPV01, pentarlandir, and cepharanthine) in China and summarize their pharmacological activity, potential mechanisms of action, clinical trials and use, and important milestones in their discovery. The role of structural biology in drug development is also reviewed. Future studies should focus on development of diverse second-generation inhibitors with excellent oral bioavailability, superior plasma half-life, increased antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, high target specificity, minimal side effects, reduced drug-drug interactions, and improved lung histopathology.

Expert Consensus: Main Risk Factors for Poor Prognosis in COVID-19 and the Implications for Targeted Measures against SARS-CoV-2

The clinical evolution of patients infected with the Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) depends on the complex interplay between viral and host factors. The evolution to less aggressive but better-transmitted viral variants, and the presence of immune memory responses in a growing number of vaccinated and/or virus-exposed individuals, has caused the pandemic to slowly wane in virulence. However, there are still patients with risk factors or comorbidities that put them at risk of poor outcomes in the event of having the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). Among the different treatment options for patients with COVID-19, virus-targeted measures include antiviral drugs or monoclonal antibodies that may be provided in the early days of infection. The present expert consensus is based on a review of all the literature published between 1 July 2021 and 15 February 2022 that was carried out to establish the characteristics of patients, in terms of presence of risk factors or comorbidities, that may make them candidates for receiving any of the virus-targeted measures available in order to prevent a fatal outcome, such as severe disease or death. A total of 119 studies were included from the review of the literature and 159 were from the additional independent review carried out by the panelists a posteriori. Conditions found related to strong recommendation of the use of virus-targeted measures in the first days of COVID-19 were age above 80 years, or above 65 years with another risk factor; antineoplastic chemotherapy or active malignancy; HIV infection with CD4+ cell counts < 200/mm³; and treatment with anti-CD20 immunosuppressive drugs. There is also a strong recommendation against using the studied interventions in HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ nadir <200/mm³ or treatment with other immunosuppressants. Indications of therapies against SARS-CoV-2, regardless of vaccination status or history of infection, may still exist for some populations, even after COVID-19 has been declared to no longer be a global health emergency by the WHO.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODOLOGY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Objective

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

Methodology

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Fewer COVID-19 Neurological Complications with Dexamethasone and Remdesivir

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of treatment with dexamethasone, remdesivir or both on neurological complications in acute coronavirus diease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We used observational data from the International Severe Acute and emerging Respiratory Infection Consortium World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterization Protocol, United Kingdom. Hospital inpatients aged ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection admitted between January 31, 2020, and June 29, 2021, were included. Treatment allocation was non-blinded and performed by reporting clinicians. A propensity scoring methodology was used to minimize confounding. Treatment with remdesivir, dexamethasone, or both was assessed against the standard of care. The primary outcome was a neurological complication occurring at the point of death, discharge, or resolution of the COVID-19 clinical episode.

RESULTS

Out of 89,297 hospital inpatients, 64,088 had severe COVID-19 and 25,209 had non-hypoxic COVID-19. Neurological complications developed in 4.8% and 4.5%, respectively. In both groups, neurological complications were associated with increased mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, worse self-care on discharge, and time to recovery. In patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with dexamethasone (n = 21,129), remdesivir (n = 1,428), and both combined (n = 10,846) were associated with a lower frequency of neurological complications: OR = 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-0.83), OR = 0.69 (95% CI = 0.51-0.90), and OR = 0.54 (95% CI = 0.47-0.61), respectively. In patients with non-hypoxic COVID-19, dexamethasone (n = 2,580) was associated with less neurological complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62-0.97), whereas the dexamethasone/remdesivir combination (n = 460) showed a similar trend (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.31-1.15).

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with dexamethasone, remdesivir, or both in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was associated with a lower frequency of neurological complications in an additive manner, such that the greatest benefit was observed in patients who received both drugs together. ANN NEUROL 2023;93:88-102.

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.

Remdesivir Treatment in Moderately Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Single Center Study

Almost two years after remdesivir was approved and extensively used in numerous clinical studies for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, there is still no clear recommendation for the time and phase of the disease of remdesivir administration. This retrospective observational study included adults (≥18 years) with severe COVID-19, radiologically confirmed pneumonia, a need for supplemental oxygen and an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 10 days or less. All patients were treated with remdesivir for 5 to 10 days, or with clinical improvement within that period. The primary goal was the outcome in patients treated with remdesivir during the early stage of the disease considering the different disease severity. The median time from symptom onset to treatment was 8.4 days (3−10). Clinical improvements and good outcomes were observed in 104 of 137 patients (75.9%); 33 (24.1%) of 137 patients died. Subgroup analyses showed that the mortality rate was significantly lower in moderately ill patients (3 out of 51 patients; 5.9%) than in the group of severely/critically ill patients (30 out of 86 patients; 34.8%; p < 0.005). Older age, rise of CRP and CT score were shown to be significant predictors of disease outcome. Overall, remdesivir was well tolerated, and the treatment was discontinued in only four patients. The results of this observational study in 137 patients with different disease severity contribute to the attitude concerning remdesivir administration in the early stage of COVID-19, at least in moderately ill patients with a high risk of progression, before the transition to a more severe stage.

Potentially inappropriate medications are negatively associated with functional recovery in patients with sarcopenia after stroke

BACKGROUND

Evidence is scarce for potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in rehabilitation medicine.

AIM

To examine the effect of PIMs on functional recovery in older patients with sarcopenia after stroke.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a post-acute rehabilitation hospital. All patients diagnosed with sarcopenia aged ≥ 65 years among all post-stroke patients hospitalized from 2015 to 2020 were included. PIMs were defined based on the 2019 Beers criteria. Sarcopenia was diagnosed using handgrip strength (HG) and skeletal muscle mass index (SMI), according to the criteria of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019. The outcomes included functional independence measure motor (FIM-motor), HG, and SMI values at discharge. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to determine whether PIMs used at admission were independently associated with outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the eligible patients, 361 were 65 years or older, of whom 196 (mean age 81.0 years, 44.4% male) presented with sarcopenia and were included in the analysis. Of these, 131 (66.8%) were prescribed PIMs at admission. The most frequently prescribed PIMs were proton pump inhibitors, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The number of PIMs on admission was independently associated with FIM-motor (β = - 0.132, P = 0.001) and HG (β = - 0.091, P = 0.048) at discharge, but not with SMI (β = - 0.055, P = 0.256).

CONCLUSIONS

High admission PIMs prescription numbers are negatively associated with favorable discharge functional status and muscle strength in older patients with sarcopenia after stroke.

Immunogenicity, effectiveness, safety and psychological impact of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines

In December 2019, a new single-stranded RNA coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, appeared in China and quickly spread around the world leading to a pandemic. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 generates symptoms ranging from asymptomatic to severe, occasionally requiring hospitalization in intensive care units, and, in more severe cases, leading to death. Scientists and researchers around the world have made a real race against time to develop various vaccines to slow down and stop the spread of the virus. In addition to conventional viral vector vaccines, new generation mRNA vaccines, BNT152b2 (Comirnaty) and mRNA-1273 (Spikevax), have been developed respectively by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. These vaccines act on immune cells to induce an immune response with the production of specific antibodies against Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, and to stimulate the differentiation of T and B memory cells. The objective of this review is to provide a detailed picture of the validity of these new vaccines and the safety of vaccination. Not only was the immunogenic effect of mRNA vaccines evaluated, but also the psychosocial impact they had on the population. The data collected show that this type of vaccine can also be an excellent candidate for future treatment and eradication of possible new pathologies with viral and non-viral etiology.

COVID-19 Infection in Renal Transplant Recipients at Dubai Hospital: Incidence, Clinical Profile, and Outcome

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Renal transplant recipients are at risk to acquire COVID-19 infection quite frequently, owing to their immunocompromized state. Nevertheless, data on the effects of this infection on patients and graft function are sparse from the Arab world. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Dubai Hospital from April 1, 2020, to August 1, 2021. We analyzed 42 COVID-19-positive renal transplant recipients’ data. Information concerning demographics, comorbidities, medications, clinical and laboratory data, and outcomes was collected from the electronic medical records. Univariate analyses were performed to determine the association of acute kidney injury (AKI) with in-hospital mortality. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Median age was 47.46 (17–66) years; about 59% of patients were male. Eleven (26.19%) patients developed AKI during hospitalization. On admission high ferritin, C-reactive protein, creatinine, and low absolute lymphocyte count are identified risk factors for in-hospital AKI. Seven (21.87%) patients had their calcineurin inhibitor levels touch a toxic peak possibly due to an interaction with antivirals. Mortality was 14.28%, and the same number of patients required mechanical ventilation during treatment. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> A significant number of renal transplant recipients suffered from AKI during COVID-19 infection, and the mortality rate in this study population was less than in studies from other countries in the region. More insights are required to manage this infection in renal transplant recipients.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir.

METHODS

Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed.

RESULTS

The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation.

INTERPRETATION

From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

COVID-19 and Kidney Transplantation: Epidemiology, Histopathological Presentation, Clinical Presentation and Outcomes, and Therapeutic Strategies

Multiple case series of kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 have shown increased mortality compared to nontransplant patients. To date, we do not have high-level evidence to inform immunosuppression minimization strategies in infected transplant recipients. Most centers, however, have adopted an early antimetabolite withdrawal in addition to other interventions. The epidemiological problem concerns also dialysis patients and waitlisted patients who have a higher COVID-19 infection diffusion with respect to kidney transplant recipients. Several factors influence mortality among kidney transplant recipients. Among these factors are the age, race, and comorbidity factors, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and previous respiratory problems. Treatment is still limited. The only effective antiviral drug is remdesivir that should be administered before the development of the cytokine storm. Vaccination seems to be useful, but due to the concomitant immunosuppression limiting its efficacy, at least three or four doses should be administered.

Will the Use of Pharmacogenetics Improve Treatment Efficiency in COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a global health crisis and the greatest challenge for scientists and doctors. The virus causes severe acute respiratory syndrome with an outcome that is fatal in more vulnerable populations. Due to the need to find an efficient treatment in a short time, there were several drugs that were repurposed or repositioned for COVID-19. There are many types of available COVID-19 therapies, including antiviral agents (remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, oseltamivir), antibiotics (azithromycin), antiparasitics (chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin), and corticosteroids (dexamethasone). A combination of antivirals with various mechanisms of action may be more efficient. However, the use of some of these medicines can be related to the occurrence of adverse effects. Some promising drug candidates have been found to be ineffective in clinical trials. The knowledge of pharmacogenetic issues, which translate into variability in drug conversion from prodrug into drug, metabolism as well as transport, could help to predict treatment efficiency and the occurrence of adverse effects in patients. However, many drugs used for the treatment of COVID-19 have not undergone pharmacogenetic studies, perhaps as a result of the lack of time.

Nanoformulated Remdesivir with Extremely Low Content of Poly(2-oxazoline) - Based Stabilizer for Aerosol Treatment of COVID-19

The rise of the novel virus SARS-CoV2 which causes the disease known as COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic claiming millions of lives. With no clinically approved treatment for COVID-19, physicians initially struggled to treat the disease, and a need remains for improved anti-viral therapies in this area. We conceived early in the pandemic that an inhalable formulation of the drug remdesivir which directly targets the virus at the site of infection could improve therapeutic outcomes in COVID-19. We developed a set of requirements that would be conducive to rapid drug approval: 1) try to use GRAS reagents 2) minimize excipient concentration and 3) achieve a working concentration of 5 mg/mL remdesivir to obtain a deliverable dose which is 5-10% of the IV dose. In this work, we discovered that Poly(2-oxazoline) block copolymers can stabilize drug nanocrystal suspensions and provide suitable formulation characteristics for aerosol delivery while maintaining anti-viral efficacy. We believe POx block copolymers can be used as a semi-ubiquitous stabilizer for the rapid development of nanocrystal formulations for new and existing diseases. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Assessment of Virological Contributions to COVID-19 Outcomes in a Longitudinal Cohort of Hospitalized Adults

BACKGROUND

While several demographic and clinical correlates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcome have been identified, their relationship to virological and immunological parameters remains poorly defined.

METHODS

To address this, we performed longitudinal collection of nasopharyngeal swabs and blood samples from a cohort of 58 hospitalized adults with COVID-19. Samples were assessed for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load, viral genotype, viral diversity, and antibody titer. Demographic and clinical information, including patient blood tests and several composite measures of disease severity, was extracted from electronic health records.

RESULTS

Several factors, including male sex, higher age, higher body mass index, higher 4C Mortality score, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, were associated with intensive care unit admission. Of all measured parameters, only the retrospectively calculated median Deterioration Index score was significantly associated with death. While quantitative polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold (Ct) values and genotype of SARS-CoV-2 were not significantly associated with outcome, Ct value did correlate positively with C-reactive protein levels and negatively with D-dimer, lymphocyte count, and antibody titer. Intrahost viral genetic diversity remained constant through the disease course and resulted in changes in viral genotype in some participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, these results suggest that worse outcomes are driven by immune dysfunction rather than by viral load and that SARS-CoV-2 evolution in hospital settings is relatively constant over time.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial

Background:

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems.

Methods:

We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation.

Results:

Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups.

Interpretation:

Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically identify and critically assess the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 with the AGREE II instrument.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and grey literature from November 2019 - November 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. One reviewer independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts, and a second reviewer confirmed the decisions. Full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We included any guideline that provided recommendations on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. We descriptively summarized CPGs characteristics. We assessed the quality with the AGREE II instrument and we summarized relevant therapeutic interventions.

RESULTS

We retrieved 3,907 records and 71 CPGs were included. Means (Standard Deviations) of the scores for the 6 domains of the AGREE II instrument were 65%(SD19.56%), 39%(SD19.64%), 27%(SD19.48%), 70%(SD15.74%), 26%(SD18.49%), 42%(SD34.91) for the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence domains, respectively. Most of the CPGs showed a low overall quality (less than 40%).

CONCLUSION

Future CPGs for COVID-19 need to rely, for their development, on standard evidence-based methods and tools.

Structure genomics of SARS-CoV-2 and its Omicron variant: drug design templates for COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has brought an unprecedented public health crisis and persistently threatens to humanity. With tireless efforts from scientists around the world, understanding of the biology of coronavirus has been greatly enhanced over the past 2 years. Structural biology has demonstrated its powerful impact on uncovering structures and functions for the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 proteins and guided the development of drugs and vaccines against COVID-19. In this review, we summarize current progress in the structural biology of SARS-CoV-2 and discuss important biological issues that remain to be addressed. We present the examples of structure-based design of Pfizer’s novel anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug PF-07321332 (Paxlovid), Merck’s nucleotide inhibitor molnupiravir (Lagevrio), and VV116, an oral drug candidate for COVID-19. These examples highlight the importance of structure in drug discovery to combat COVID-19. We also discussed the recent variants of Omicron and its implication in immunity escape from existing vaccines and antibody therapies.

Evaluation of early antibiotic use in patients with non-severe COVID-19 without bacterial infection

OBJECTIVES

The use of antibiotics was common in some countries during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but adequate evaluation remains lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of early antibiotic use in patients with non-severe COVID-19 admitted without bacterial infection.

METHODS

This multi-centre retrospective cohort study included 1,373 inpatients with non-severe COVID-19 admitted without bacterial infection. Patients were divided into two groups according to their exposure to antibiotics within 48 h of admission. The outcomes were progression to severe COVID-19, length of stay >15 days and mortality rate. A mixed-effect Cox model and random effect logistic regression were used to explore the association between early antibiotic use and outcomes.

RESULTS

During the 30-day follow-up period, the proportion of patients who progressed to severe COVID-19 in the early antibiotic use group was almost 1.4 times that of the comparison group. In the mixed-effect model, the early use of antibiotics was associated with higher probability of developing severe COVID-19 and staying in hospital for >15 days. However, there was no significant association between early use of antibiotics and mortality. Analysis with propensity-score-matched cohorts displayed similar results. In subgroup analysis, patients receiving any class of antibiotic were at increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Azithromycin did not improve disease progression and length of stay in patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that antibiotic use should be avoided unless absolutely necessary in patients with non-severe COVID-19, particularly in the early stages.

The Saudi Critical Care Society practice guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in the ICU: Therapy section

BACKGROUND

The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations.

RESULTS

The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

Critical Update on the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19 in Advanced Cirrhosis and Liver Transplant Recipients

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted health care worldwide, with specific patient populations, such as those with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic lung disease, at higher risk of infection and others at higher risk of disease progression. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis fall into the latter category and are a unique group that require specific treatment and management decisions because they can develop acute-on-chronic liver failure. In liver transplant recipients, the atypical immunity profile due to immunosuppression protects against downstream inflammatory responses triggered by COVID-19. This exhaustive review discusses the outcomes associated with COVID-19 in patients with advanced cirrhosis and in liver transplant recipients. We focus on the immunopathogenesis of COVID-19, its correlation with the pathogenesis of advanced liver disease, and the effect of immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients to provide insight into the outcomes of this unique patient population.

Adherence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pharmacologic Treatments of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 to Trustworthy Standards: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for rapid and urgent guidance for clinicians to manage COVID-19 among patients and prevent transmission.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to December 14, 2020, and a search of related articles to February 28, 2021, that included CPGs developed by societies or by government or nongovernment organizations that reported pharmacologic treatments of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed CPG quality using the 15-item National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument.

FINDINGS

Thirty-two CPGs were included in the review. Of these, 25 (78.1%) were developed by professional societies and emanated from a single World Health Organization (WHO) region. Overall, the CPGs were of low quality. Only 7 CPGs (21.9%) reported funding sources, and 12 (37.5%) reported conflicts of interest. Only 5 CPGs (15.6%) included a methodologist, described a search strategy or study selection process, or synthesized the evidence. Although 14 CPGs (43.8%) made recommendations or suggestions for or against treatments, they infrequently rated confidence in the quality of the evidence (6 of 32 [18.8%]), described potential benefits and harms (6 of 32 [18.8%]), or graded the strength of the recommendations (5 of 32 [15.6%]). External review, patient or public perspectives, or a process for updating were rare. High-quality CPGs included a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborations involving investigators from 2 or more WHO regions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this review, few COVID-19 CPGs met NAM standards for trustworthy guidelines. Approaches that prioritize engagement of a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborators from at least 2 WHO regions may lead to the production of fewer, high-quality CPGs that are poised for updates as new evidence emerges.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021245239.

Drug-based therapeutic strategies for COVID-19-infected patients and their challenges

Emerging epidemic-prone diseases have introduced numerous health and economic challenges in recent years. Given current knowledge of COVID-19, herd immunity through vaccines alone is unlikely. In addition, vaccination of the global population is an ongoing challenge. Besides, the questions regarding the prevalence and the timing of immunization are still under investigation. Therefore, medical treatment remains essential in the management of COVID-19. Herein, recent advances from beginning observations of COVID-19 outbreak to an understanding of the essential factors contributing to the spread and transmission of COVID-19 and its treatment are reviewed. Furthermore, an in-depth discussion on the epidemiological aspects, clinical symptoms and most efficient medical treatment strategies to mitigate the mortality and spread rates of COVID-19 is presented.

Cardiovascular events and safety outcomes associated with remdesivir using a World Health Organization international pharmacovigilance database

On October 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved remdesivir as the first drug for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), increasing remdesivir prescriptions worldwide. However, potential cardiovascular (CV) toxicities associated with remdesivir remain unknown. We aimed to characterize the CV adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with remdesivir using VigiBase, an individual case safety report database of the World Health Organization (WHO). Disproportionality analyses of CV-ADRs associated with remdesivir were performed using reported odds ratios and information components. We conducted in vitro experiments using cardiomyocytes derived from human pluripotent stem cell cardiomyocytes (hPSC-CMs) to confirm cardiotoxicity of remdesivir. To distinguish drug-induced CV-ADRs from COVID-19 effects, we restricted analyses to patients with COVID-19 and found that, after adjusting for multiple confounders, cardiac arrest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-3.29), bradycardia (aOR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.24-3.53), and hypotension (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.03-2.73) were associated with remdesivir. In vitro data demonstrated that remdesivir reduced the cell viability of hPSC-CMs in time- and dose-dependent manners. Physicians should be aware of potential CV consequences following remdesivir use and implement adequate CV monitoring to maintain a tolerable safety margin.

Early administration of remdesivir to COVID-19 patients associates with higher recovery rate and lower need for ICU admission: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Remdesivir is one of the most widely recommended and used medications for COVID-19 treatment. However, different outcomes have been reported for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir. Specifically, the effect of the timing of remdesivir initiation (from patient's symptom onset) on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients has not been investigated.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and treated with or without remdisivir. The primary outcome was patient's recovery rate, defined as clinical improvement and patient's discharge by day 14 of symptom onset. The secondary outcome was the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and mortality within 28 days of patient's symptom onset.

RESULTS

Out of 323 hospitalized adults with COVID-19, 107 (33.1%) received no remdesivir during their hospital stay, 107 (33.1%) received remdesivir early within 7 days of the symptom onset, and 109 (33.7%) received it at 8 days or later of symptom onset. At day 14 following symptom onset, higher proportion of patients recovered in the early remdesivir compared to the late remdesivir cohort, or patients who did not receive remdesivir (adjusted odds ratio, aOR, 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31 to 5.35). Moreover, early administration of remdesivir was associated with lower admission to intensive care unit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.64), less need for mechanical ventilation (aHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.51), and lower mortality at 28 days (aHR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.53), as compared to the late remdesivir cohort or patients who did not receive remdesivir.

CONCLUSION

Early administration of remdesivir within 7 days of symptom onset is associated with less need for mechanical ventilation and lower 28-days mortality.

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

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

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

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

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

Mesenchymal stromal cells as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19: a living systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have significant immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities, mediated partly by conditioned media or through secreted extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs). Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can cause mild to life-threatening illness due to activated immune responses that may be dampened by MSCs or their secretome. Many clinical studies of MSCs have been launched since the beginning of the global pandemic, however, few have been completed and most lack power to assess efficacy. Repeated systematic searches and meta-analyses are needed to understand, in real time, the extent of potential benefit in different patient populations as the evidence emerges.

METHODS

This living systematic review will be maintained to provide up-to-date information as the pandemic evolves. A systematic literature search of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed. All clinical studies (e.g., randomized, pseudorandomized and non-randomized controlled trials, uncontrolled trials, and case series) employing MSCs or their secretome as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19 will be included. Patients must have confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Study screening and data extraction will be performed in duplicate. Information concerning interventions, patient populations, methods of MSC isolation and characterization, primary and secondary clinical and/or laboratory outcomes, and adverse events will be extracted. Key clinical outcomes will be pooled through random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of MSCs and their secreted products for COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review and subsequent updates will inform the scientific, medical, and health policy communities as the pandemic evolves to guide decisions on the appropriate use of MSC-related products to treat COVID-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD 42021225431.

Repositioning HIV protease inhibitors and nucleos(t)ide RNA polymerase inhibitors for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19

AIMS

SARS-CoV-2 is a single-stranded RNA virus which is part of the ß-coronavirus family (like SARS 2002 and MERS 2012). The high prevalence of hospitalization and mortality, in addition to the lack of vaccines and therapeutics, forces scientists and clinicians around the world to evaluate new therapeutic options. One strategy is the repositioning of already known drugs, which were approved drugs for other indications.

SUBJECT AND METHOD

SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitors, RNA polymerase inhibitors, and protease inhibitors seem to be valuable targets of research. At the beginning of the pandemic, the ClinicalTrials.gov webpage listed n=479 clinical trials related to the antiviral treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (01.04.2020, "SARS-CoV-2," "COVID-19," "antivirals," "therapy"), of which n=376 are still accessible online in January 2021 (10.01.2021). Taking into account further studies not listed in the CTG webpage, this narrative review appraises HIV protease inhibitors and nucleos(t)ide RNA polymerase inhibitors as promising candidates for the treatment of COVID-19.

RESULTS

Lopinavir/ritonavir, darunavir/cobicistat, remdesivir, tenofovir-disoproxilfumarate, favipriravir, and sofosbuvir are evaluated in clinical studies worldwide. Study designs show a high variability and results often are contradictory. Remdesivir is the drug, which is deployed in nearly 70% of the reviewed clinical trials, followed by lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, ribavirine, and sofosbuvir.

DISCUSSION

This review discusses the pharmacological/clinical background and questions the rationale and study design of clinical trials with already approved HIV protease inhibitors and nucleos(t)ide RNA polymerase inhibitors which are repositioned during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic worldwide. Proposals are made for future study design and drug repositioning of approved antiretroviral compounds.

Natural Supplements for COVID19-Background, Rationale, and Clinical Trials

Worldwide, the turmoil of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has generated a burst of research efforts in search of effective prevention and treatment modalities. Current recommendations on natural supplements arise from mostly anecdotal evidence in other viral infections and expert opinion, and many clinical trials are ongoing. Here the authors review the evidence and rationale for the use of natural supplements for prevention and treatment of COVID-19, including those with potential benefit and those with potential harms. Specifically, the authors review probiotics, dietary patterns, micronutrients, antioxidants, polyphenols, melatonin, and cannabinoids. Authors critically evaluated and summarized the biomedical literature published in peer-reviewed journals, preprint servers, and current guidelines recommended by expert scientific governing bodies. Ongoing and future trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov were also recorded, appraised, and considered in conjunction with the literature findings. In light of the controversial issues surrounding the manufacturing and marketing of natural supplements and limited scientific evidence available, the authors assessed the available data and present this review to equip clinicians with the necessary information regarding the evidence for and potential harms of usage to promote open discussions with patients who are considering dietary supplements to prevent and treat COVID-19.

Critical Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations in COVID-19 Management Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the quality and potential impacts of the guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, guideline databases, and specialty society websites to evaluate the quality of the retrieved guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II.

RESULTS

A total of 66 guidelines were identified. Only 24% were categorized as "recommended" for clinical practice. The 211 identified recommendations for COVID-19 management were classified into 4 topics: respiratory support (27), acute respiratory distress syndrome management (31), antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy (95), or other medicines (58). Only 63% and 56% of recommendations were supported by, respectively, assessment of the strength of the recommendations or level of evidence. There were notable discrepancies between the different guidelines regarding the recommendations on COVID-19 management.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the guidelines for COVID-19 management is heterogeneous, and the recommendations are rarely supported by evidence.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of 32 pharmacological interventions recommended by guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 66 trials

BACKGROUND

The global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major public health problem and presents an unprecedented challenge. However, no specific drugs were currently proven. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/SARS-CoV. Random-effects network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was performed, followed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system assessing the quality of evidence. The primary outcome of interest includes mortality, cure, viral negative conversion, and overall adverse events (OAEs). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as the measure of effect size.

RESULTS

Sixty-six RCTs with 19,095 patients were included, involving standard of care (SOC), eight different antiviral agents, six different antibiotics, high and low dose chloroquine (CQ_HD, CQ_LD), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), corticosteroids (COR), and other treatments. Compared with SOC, a significant reduction of mortality was observed for TCM (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.56, moderate quality) and COR (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96, low quality) with improved cure rate (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.60-2.91, low quality for TCM; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05-1.30, low quality for COR). However, an increased risk of mortality was found for CQ_HD vs. SOC (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.18-8.73, low quality). TCM was associated with decreased risk of OAE (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.70, very low quality) but CQ_HD (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.20-5.24) and interferons (IFN) (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.02-7.08) vs. SOC with very low quality were associated with an increased risk.

CONCLUSIONS

COR and TCM may reduce mortality and increase cure rate with no increased risk of OAEs compared with standard care. CQ_HD might increase the risk of mortality. CQ, IFN, and other antiviral agents could increase the risk of OAEs. The current evidence is generally uncertain with low-quality and further high-quality trials are needed.

Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review

Background

Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published.

Methods

We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs.

Results

We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence.

Conclusions

Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.

Antiviral drugs arbidol and interferon alpha-1b contribute to reducing the severity of COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of antiviral drugs in reducing the risk of developing severe illness in patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 403 adult patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia who were admitted to Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital, China. The antiviral drugs arbidol, interferon alpha-1b, lopinavir–ritonavir and ribavirin were distributed to the patients for treatment. The primary endpoint of this study was the time to develop severe illness.

Results

Of the 462 patients admitted, 403 had moderate COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission and were included in this study. 90 of the 403 (22.3%) patients progressed to severe illness. The use of arbidol was associated with a lower severity rate 3.5% compared to control group 30.5%, p-value < 0.0001; the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.084–0.90, p = 0.033). The use of interferon alpha-1b was associated with a lower severity rate 15.5% compared to control group 29.3%, with p-value < 0.0001; the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.15–0.58, p =  0.0005). The use of lopinavir–itonavir and ribavirin did not show significant differences in adjusted regression models. Early use of arbidol within 7 days of symptom onset was significantly associated with a reduced recovery time of − 5.2 days (IQR − 3.0 to − 7.5, p = 4e−06) compared with the control group.

Conclusion

Treatment with arbidol and interferon alpha-1b contributes to reducing the severity of illness in patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. Early use of arbidol may reduce patients’ recovery time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12985-021-01617-w.

Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.

Post-COVID-19 Pulmonary Fibrosis: Novel Sequelae of the Current Pandemic

Since the initial identification of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has become a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. As effective vaccines and treatments begin to emerge, it will become increasingly important to identify and proactively manage the long-term respiratory complications of severe disease. The patterns of imaging abnormalities coupled with data from prior coronavirus outbreaks suggest that patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are likely at an increased risk of progression to interstitial lung disease (ILD) and chronic pulmonary vascular disease. In this paper, we briefly review the definition, classification, and underlying pathophysiology of interstitial lung disease (ILD). We then review the current literature on the proposed mechanisms of lung injury in severe COVID-19 infection, and outline potential viral- and immune-mediated processes implicated in the development of post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis (PCPF). Finally, we address patient-specific and iatrogenic risk factors that could lead to PCPF and discuss strategies for reducing risk of pulmonary complications/sequelae.

Evaluating Clinical Efficacy of Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19: A Surrogate Endpoint Approach

INTRODUCTION

Efficient evaluation with an early surrogate endpoint, taking into account the process of disease evolution, may not only clarify inconsistent or underpowered results but also provide a new insight into the exploration of a new antiviral therapy for treating COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We assessed the dynamics of COVID-19 disease spectrum, commencing from low-risk (no or low oxygen supplement), medium-risk (non-invasive ventilator or high oxygen supplement), and high-risk (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive ventilator) risk state on enrollment, and then the subsequent progression and regression of risk states until discharge or death. The efficacy of antiviral therapy in altering the dynamics was assessed by using the high-risk state as a surrogate endpoint based on the data retrieved from the two-arm Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial.

RESULTS

Using the high-risk state as a surrogate endpoint, remdesivir treatment led to a decrease in the high-risk COVID-19 state by 34.8% (95% CI 26.7-42.0%) for a 14-day period and 29.3% (95% CI 28.8-29.8%) up to 28 days, which were consistent with a statistically significant reduction of death by 30.5% (95% CI 6.6, 50.9%) up to a 28-day period. The estimates of numbers needed to be treated were 100.9 (95% CI 88.1, 115.7) for using the high-risk COVID-19 state as a surrogate endpoint for a 14-day period and 133.3 (95% CI 112.5, 158.0) were required for averting one death from COVID-19 up to 28 days.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate the expedient use of the high-risk COVID-19 disease status as a surrogate endpoint for evaluating the primary outcome of the earliest death.

Best Practice Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Management of Children With Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome Temporally Associated With SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS; Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children, MIS-C) in Switzerland

Background: Following the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic a new disease entity emerged, defined as Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19 (PIMS-TS), or Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). In the absence of trials, evidence for treatment remains scarce. Purpose: To develop best practice recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of children with PIMS-TS in Switzerland. It is acknowledged that the field is changing rapidly, and regular revisions in the coming months are pre-planned as evidence is increasing. Methods: Consensus guidelines for best practice were established by a multidisciplinary group of Swiss pediatric clinicians with expertise in intensive care, immunology/rheumatology, infectious diseases, hematology, and cardiology. Subsequent to literature review, four working groups established draft recommendations which were subsequently adapted in a modified Delphi process. Recommendations had to reach >80% agreement for acceptance. Results: The group achieved agreement on 26 recommendations, which specify diagnostic approaches and interventions across anti-inflammatory, anti-infectious, and support therapies, and follow-up for children with suspected PIMS-TS. A management algorithm was derived to guide treatment depending on the phenotype of presentation, categorized into PIMS-TS with (a) shock, (b) Kawasaki-disease like, and (c) undifferentiated inflammatory presentation. Conclusion: Available literature on PIMS-TS is limited to retrospective or prospective observational studies. Informed by these cohort studies and indirect evidence from other inflammatory conditions in children and adults, as well as guidelines from international health authorities, the Swiss PIMS-TS recommendations represent best practice guidelines based on currently available knowledge to standardize treatment of children with suspected PIMS-TS. Given the absence of high-grade evidence, regular updates of the recommendations will be warranted, and participation of patients in trials should be encouraged.

Anakinra in hospitalized non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Acute respiratory distress syndrome and cytokine release syndrome are the major complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with increased mortality risk.

Objectives

We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of anakinra in adult hospitalized non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

Search methods

Relevant trials were identified by searching literature until 24 April 2021 using the following terms: anakinra, interleukin 1, coronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2.

Selection criteria

Trials evaluating the effect of anakinra on the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality in hospitalized non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

Results

Nine studies (n = 1,119) were eligible for inclusion in the present meta-analysis. Their bias risk with reference to the assessed parameters was high. In pooled analyses, anakinra reduced the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, OR: 0·38, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0·17–0·85, p= 0.02, I²=67%; 6 studies, n = 587) and mortality risk (OR: 0·32, 95% CI: 0·23–0·45, p< 0·00001, I²=0%; 9 studies, n = 1,119) compared with standard of care therapy. There were no differences regarding the risk of adverse events, including liver dysfunction (OR: 0·75, 95% CI: 0·48–1·16, p> 0·05, I²=28%; 5 studies, n = 591) and bacteremia (OR: 1·07, 95% CI: 0·42–2·73, p> 0·05, I²=71%; 6 studies, n = 727).

Conclusions

Available evidence shows that treatment with anakinra reduces both the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality risk of hospitalized non-intubated patients with COVID-19 without increasing the risk of adverse events. Confirmation of efficacy and safety requires randomized placebo-controlled trials.

Absence of "Cytokine Storm" in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: A rapidly growing number of publications cite “cytokine storm” as a contributing factor in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathology. However, a few recent reports led to questioning of “cytokine storm” theory in COVID-19. This study’s primary goal is to determine if exaggerated cytokine response in the range of a “cytokine storm” develops during the initial weeks of hospitalization in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Five proinflammatory cytokines reported to be involved in “cytokine storm” and elevated in COVID-19 (IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α, MCP-1, and IP-10) were analyzed in COVID-19, influenza (with “cytokine storm”: CS), and burn injury patients. The effect of dexamethasone use on cytokine response in COVID-19 was also analyzed. Results: None of the five cytokines in COVID-19 patients reached the lower threshold (95% CI) of the influenza (CS) group at any point during the study period. Furthermore, mean concentrations of all five cytokines in the influenza (CS) group and IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α in the burn group were significantly greater than in COVID-19 patients (p < 0.01). Dexamethasone treatment did not significantly alter the concentrations of any of the cytokines analyzed. Conclusions: Exaggerated cytokine response similar to “cytokine storm” was not observed in COVID-19 patients during two weeks of hospitalization.

Health care of the elderly during Covid-19 pandemic-All a family physician should know

Elderly people account for more than 9% of the global population, and more than 6% of the Indian population. Covid-19 has badly affected the older population, identification of risk factors for severe disease and early intervention results in reduced mortality. Older adults may have a varied spectrum of presentation which ranges from mild to severe disease. Milder diseases are more in older adults without prior comorbidities whereas severity increases with increase in number of illness. Till date there is no definitive treatment and vaccines are also at different stages of trial only preventive methods and early detection of cases are important tools for fighting this pandemic. Dedicated centre's for elder care as well as trained geriatricians are very few in India. Prevention should be the most important strategy for older adults. Follow social distancing and maintain a distance of 1 meter from others even if you are healthy. Wash hands repeatedly with soap and water or use hand sanitizer and generous use of masks. Older adults should be encouraged to take their regular medication and the baseline disease should be under controlled. Frequent teleconsultation from the primary physician should be done repeatedly to identify the symptoms and also control of baseline disease. Considering Covid-19 increased mortality and severity in the older population we are providing practical suggestions for family physicians while managing elderly Covid patients.

Third force in the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV2) depends on RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzyme complex for its genomic replications and thus can be inhibited by nucleoside analogues. An example is Remdesivir, which is a non-obligate chain terminator of RdRp. Therefore, we investigate the activities of Remdesivir against COVID-19.

Method

This is a systematic-review and meta-analysis of the literature on the effectiveness of Remdesivir in the management of COVID-19 through MEDLINE (from Jan 2019 to January 2021), EMBASE (from Jan 2019 to January 2021), Publics Ovidius Naso (Ovoid), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in Issue 1 of 12, January 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was applied and the questions generated in conformity with the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). Statistical analysis was performed in Stata v. 12.1 (StataCorp, Texas USA).

Results

The outcome of the reviewed relevant journals and the cross-references including clinical trials, systematic reviews and metanalysis were documented. Out of 569,000 articles, 11 roundly-suited the inclusion criteria. The comparative effects of Remdesivir on death (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.08) and recovery (OR = 2.22; p5% CI = 1.80, 2.73) were calculated.

Conclusion

Remdesivir is useful in the treatment of COVID-19 especially the severe disease. However, it should be used with caution since all the adverse effects are not known. We recommend Remdesivir as an alternative/third-force in the treatment of severe and critical COVID-19.

Real-life use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Objective

Controversial results on remdesivir efficacy have been reported. We aimed to report our real-life experience with the use of remdesivir from its availability in Spain.

Methods

We performed a descriptive study of all patients admitted for ≥48 hours with confirmed COVID-19 who received remdesivir between the 1st of July and the 30th of September 2020.

Results

A total of 123 patients out of 242 admitted with COVID-19 at our hospital (50.8%) received remdesivir. Median age was 58 years, 61% were males and 56.9 % received at least one anti-inflammatory treatment. No adverse events requiring remdesivir discontinuation were reported. The need of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation and 30-days mortality were 19.5%, 7.3% and 4.1%, respectively.

Conclusion

In our real-life experience, the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was associated with a low mortality rate and good safety profile.

Pharmacogenetics Approach for the Improvement of COVID-19 Treatment

The treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a challenge. The efficacy of several drugs has been evaluated and variability in drug response has been observed. Pharmacogenetics could explain this variation and improve patients’ outcomes with this complex disease; nevertheless, several disease-related issues must be carefully reviewed in the pharmacogenetic study of COVID-19 treatment. We aimed to describe the pharmacogenetic variants reported for drugs used for COVID-19 treatment (remdesivir, oseltamivir, lopinavir, ritonavir, azithromycin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and dexamethasone). In addition, other factors relevant to the design of pharmacogenetic studies were mentioned. Variants in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2C8, CY2D6, ABCB1, ABCC2, and SLCO1B1, among other variants, could be included in pharmacogenetic studies of COVID-19 treatment. Besides, nongenetic factors such as drug–drug interactions and inflammation should be considered in the search for personalized therapy of COVID-19.

Beneficial effect of combinational methylprednisolone and remdesivir in hamster model of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Effective treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are urgently needed. Dexamethasone has been shown to confer survival benefits to certain groups of hospitalized patients, but whether glucocorticoids such as dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used together with antivirals to prevent a boost of SARS-CoV-2 replication remains to be determined. Here, we show the beneficial effect of methylprednisolone alone and in combination with remdesivir in the hamster model of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Treatment with methylprednisolone boosted RNA replication of SARS-CoV-2 but suppressed viral induction of proinflammatory cytokines in human monocyte-derived macrophages. Although methylprednisolone monotherapy alleviated body weight loss as well as nasal and pulmonary inflammation, viral loads increased and antibody response against the receptor-binding domain of spike protein attenuated. In contrast, a combination of methylprednisolone with remdesivir not only prevented body weight loss and inflammation, but also dampened viral protein expression and viral loads. In addition, the suppressive effect of methylprednisolone on antibody response was alleviated in the presence of remdesivir. Thus, combinational anti-inflammatory and antiviral therapy might be an effective, safer and more versatile treatment option for COVID-19. These data support testing of the efficacy of a combination of methylprednisolone and remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 in randomized controlled clinical trials.

Kidney transplantation and COVID-19 renal and patient prognosis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVD-19) emerged as a pandemic in December 2019. Infection has spread quickly and renal transplant recipients receiving chronic immunosuppression have been considered a population at high risk of infection, complications and infection-related death. During this year a large amount of information from nationwide registries, multicentre and single-centre studies have been reported. The number of renal transplant patients diagnosed with COVID-19 was higher than in the general population, but the lower threshold for testing may have contributed to its better identification. Major complications such as acute kidney injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome were very frequent in renal transplant patients, with a high comorbidity burden, but further studies are needed to support that organ transplant recipients receiving chronic immunosuppression are more prone to develop these complications than the general population. Kidney transplant recipients experience a high mortality rate compared with the general population, especially during the very early post-transplant period. Despite the fact that some studies report more favourable outcomes in patients with a kidney transplant than in patients on the kidney waiting list, the higher mortality described in the very early post-transplant period would advise against performing a kidney transplant in areas where the spread of infection is high, especially in recipients >60 years of age. Management of transplant recipients has been challenging for clinicians and strategies such as less use of lymphocyte-depleting agents for new transplants or anti-metabolite withdrawal and calcineurin inhibitor reduction for transplant patients with COVID-19 are not based on high-quality evidence.