Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Implication of Admission Eosinophil Count and Prognosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Elderly Patients With COPD: A Territory-Wide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the association between elderly patients with COPD with different blood eosinophil on admission and those without COPD and the prognosis of COVID-19.

METHOD

A territory-wide retrospective study was conducted to investigate the association between elderly COPD patients with different blood eosinophil on admission and the prognosis of COVID-19. Elderly patients admitted to public hospitals and community treatment facility in Hong Kong for COVID-19 from January 23, 2020, to September 31, 2021, were included in the study. Severe diseases were defined as those who develop respiratory complications, systemic complications and death.

RESULTS

Among the 1925 patients included, 133 had COPD. Forty had admission blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL, and 93 had blood eosinophil count < 150 cells/μL. Patients with COPD and admission blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL, but not those with admission blood eosinophil count < 150 cells/μL, had severe COVID-19 with the development of respiratory and systemic complications. They were more likely to develop respiratory failure (OR = 5.235, 95% CI = 2.088-13.122, p < 0.001) and require invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 2.433, 95% CI = 1.022-5.791, p = 0.045) and intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.214, 95% CI = 1.004-4.881, p = 0.049).

DISCUSSION

Our study suggested that the blood eosinophil count on admission could have significant prognostic implications among elderly patients with COPD. Patients with COPD and admission blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL, but not those with admission blood eosinophil count < 150 cells/μL, have significantly increased risks of developing respiratory and systemic complications from COVID-19, when compared with non-COPD patients.

Differences in biomarker levels and proteomic survival prediction across two COVID-19 cohorts with distinct treatments

Prognostic biomarkers have been widely studied in COVID-19, but their levels may be influenced by treatment strategies. This study examined plasma biomarkers and proteomic survival prediction in two unvaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 cohorts receiving different treatments. In a derivation cohort (n = 126) from early 2020, we performed plasma proteomic profiling and evaluated innate and complement system immune markers. A proteomic model based on differentially expressed proteins predicted 30-day mortality with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81. The model was tested in a validation cohort (n = 80) from late 2020, where patients received remdesivir and dexamethasone, and performed with an AUC of 0.75. Biomarker levels varied considerably between cohorts, sometimes in opposite directions, highlighting the impact of treatment regimens on biomarker expression. These findings underscore the need to account for treatment effects when developing prognostic models, as treatment differences may limit their generalizability across populations.

Evaluating imatinib in severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the potential antiviral and immunomodulatory properties of imatinib, this drug has been investigated in several studies as a potential treatment option for severe cases of COVID-19, given that treatment modalities available remain limited.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits or otherwise of imatinib for COVID-19 in severely ill patients, we performed a systematic review of studies that tested the efficacy and the safety of imatinib for COVID-19 and executed a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane with the following search terms: 'coronavirus', 'SARS-Cov2', 'covid', 'covid-19' and 'imatinib'. The latest search date was November 2023. We used Cochrane Collaboration's tool to assess bias in randomized trials.

RESULTS

We included three randomized controlled trials with 561 participants. A total of 276 patients received imatinib and 285 received placebo. The mortality results showed no statistically significant differences between imatinib and controls (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; p=0.06). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay or severe adverse events occurring between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that the potential benefits of imatinib should be further evaluated in randomized controlled trials in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Introduction to network meta-analysis: understanding what it is, how it is done, and how it can be used for decision-making

Network meta-analysis (NMA), a statistical technique that allows systematic reviewers to simultaneously compare more than 2 alternatives, makes use of indirect evidence from studies comparing interventions of interest to a common comparator. The capacity for multiple simultaneous comparisons makes NMA appealing for evidence-based decision-makers. This article, aimed at users of systematic reviews (SRs) with NMAs and at those who are considering conducting SRs with NMAs, provides an introductory level overview of this topic. We describe the main considerations that those conducting systematic reviews with NMA should bear in mind, including decisions regarding grouping interventions into analysis nodes, and testing the assumptions that assure the validity of NMA. We explain and illustrate how both systematic reviewers and users should draw conclusions from NMA that are appropriate and useful for decision-making. Finally, we provide a list of tools that facilitate the conduct and interpretation of NMAs.

Exploring the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and HIV Co-infection: Mutation risks, therapeutic efficacy, and future variant prevention

High mutation rates in SARS-CoV-2, particularly among immunocompromised patients living with HIV, continue to complicate the current COVID-19 pandemic. The threshold for severe COVID-19 and a greater risk of mortality have increased in many immunocompromised individuals due to a weakened immune system. Low CD4+ T-cell counts in people living with both HIV and COVID-19 lead to prolonged disease duration and, therefore, an increased likelihood of viral infection with SARS-CoV-2 mutations in such individuals. These mutations could decrease the efficiency of ongoing vaccines and cause new outbreaks. Recently, the rise of new mutations in this patient population has created increasing concern; however, few data are currently available on the direct association of HIV infection with SARS-CoV-2 mutations. This review highlights the implications of SARS-CoV-2 and HIV co-infection, highlighting the need for extra caution and monitoring of the immune-compromised population during a pandemic. Access to HIV care and COVID-19 treatments, careful surveillance, and adapted health strategies are key to reducing risks and protecting these populations. Further research is required to elucidate the dynamics of mutations and develop intervention methods to manage COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients.

Clinicians' experience with infographic summaries from the BMJ Rapid Recommendations: a qualitative user-testing study among residents and interns at a large teaching hospital in Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

Clinicians need trustworthy clinical practice guidelines to succeed with evidence-based diagnosis and treatment at the bedside. The BMJ Rapid Recommendations explore innovative ways to enhance dissemination and uptake, including multilayered interactive infographics linked to a digitally structured authoring and publication platform (the MAGICapp). We aimed to assess user experiences of physicians in training in various specialties when they interact with these infographics.

DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative user-testing study to assess user experience of a convenience sample of physicians in training. User testing was carried out through guided think-aloud sessions. We assessed six facets of user experience using a revised version of Morville's framework: usefulness, understandability, usability, credibility, desirability and identification.

SETTING

Setting include Geneva's University Hospital, a large teaching hospital in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants include a convenience sample of residents and interns without restriction regarding medical field or division of care.

RESULTS

Most users reported a positive experience. The infographics were understandable and useful to rapidly grasp the key elements of the recommendation, its rationale and supporting evidence, in a credible way. Some users felt intimidated by numbers or the amount of information, although they perceived there could be a learning curve while using generic formats. Plain language summaries helped complement the visuals but could be further highlighted. Despite their generally positive experience, several users had limited understanding of key GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) domains of the quality of evidence and remained uncertain by the implication of weak or conditional recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Our study allowed to identify several aspects of guideline formats that improve their understandability and usefulness. Guideline organisations can use our findings to adapt their presentation format to enhance their dissemination and uptake in clinical practice. Avenues for research include the interplay between infographics and the digital authoring platform, multiple comparisons and living guidelines.

Interventions for the management of post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID): protocol for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Up to 15% of survivors of COVID-19 infection experience long-term health effects, including fatigue, myalgia and impaired cognitive function, termed post-COVID-19 condition or long COVID. Several trials that study the benefits and harms of various interventions to manage long COVID have been published and hundreds more are planned or are ongoing. Trustworthy systematic reviews that clarify the benefits and harms of interventions are critical to promote evidence-based practice.

OBJECTIVE

To create and maintain a living systematic review and network meta-analysis addressing the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID.

METHODS

Eligible trials will randomise adults with long COVID to pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions, placebo, sham or usual care. We will identify eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED and CENTRAL from inception, without language restrictions.Reviewers will work independently and in duplicate to screen search records, collect data from eligible trials, including trial and patient characteristics and outcomes of interest and assess risk of bias. Our outcomes of interest will include patient-reported fatigue, pain, postexertional malaise, changes in education or employment status, cognitive function, mental health, dyspnoea, quality of life, physical function, recovery and serious adverse events.For each outcome, when possible, we will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. When there are compelling reasons to suspect that certain interventions are only applicable or effective for a subtype of long COVID, we will perform separate network meta-analyses. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will guide our assessment of the certainty of evidence.We will update our living review biannually, on the publication of a seminal trial, or when new evidence emerges that may change clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

This living systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide comprehensive, trustworthy and up-to-date summaries of the evidence addressing the benefits and harms of interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. We will make our findings available publicly and work with guideline-producing organisations to inform their recommendations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study describes the protocol for a systematic review that uses data from published trial reports. Therefore, the study is exempt from ethics review. We intend to deposit all data in a public repository and publish each iteration of the living review online.

Antisense therapy to block the Kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19: The ASKCOV randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of antisense therapy to block kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19 patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind, controlled trial enrolling hospitalized COVID-19 patients that required supplementary oxygen to sustain peripheral oxygen saturation. Key exclusion criteria included use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and patients with more than 10 days since symptom onset or more than 48 h of oxygen use. Patients were randomized to either one subcutaneous dose of ISIS721744, an antisense that blocks prekallikrein, or placebo. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of oxygen support up to 15 days (DAFOR15). Secondary endpoints included organ failure score, need and duration of mechanical ventilation up to 15 days, and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Exploratory endpoints included physiological parameters, biomarkers, and quality of life.

RESULTS

From October 10, 2020, to December 09, 2020, 111 patients were randomized at thirteen sites in Brazil (56 to treatment and 55 to control group). Average age was 57.5 years, and most patients were male (68.5%). There were no significant differences in DAFOR15 between groups (5.9 ± 5.2 days for the intervention arm and 7.7 ± 5.1 for the control group; mean difference - 0.65, 95% confidence intervals from -2.95 to 1.36, p = 0.520).

CONCLUSION

Antisense therapy designed to block the kallikrein-kinin pathway did not demonstrate clinical benefits in increasing days-alive without respiratory support at 15 days in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT04549922.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments in Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives: Examining the cumulative evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of COVID-19 infections in patients with critical illness. Data Sources: Databases Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were RCTs that enrolled patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection who are critically ill. Only RCTs that examined therapeutic agents against one another or no intervention, placebo, or standard of care, were included. Data Extraction: Pairs of reviewers extracted data independently. Outcomes of interest included the overall reported mortality defined as either the ICU mortality, hospital mortality, mortality within 28 days or mortality within 90 days. Data Synthesis: A total of 40 studies (11,613 patients) evaluated 50 therapeutic intervention arms divided into five main therapy categories; steroids, antiviral medications, immunomodulators, plasma therapies [intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), convalescent plasma and/or, therapeutic plasma exchange], and therapeutic anticoagulation. Immunomodulators was the only group with possible mortality benefit, risk ratio (RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.73; 0.95), with nonsignificant heterogeneity (I 2 = 8%, p=0.36). In contrast, the other therapy groups showed no significant impact on mortality, as indicated by their respective pooled RRs: steroids [RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82; 1.01), I 2 = 31%], antiviral medications [RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.82; 1.49), I 2 = 57%], plasma therapies [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.58; 1.01), I 2 = 36%], and anticoagulation [RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.95; 1.18), I 2 = 0%]. Conclusions: This meta-analysis highlights both the heterogeneity and a lack of benefit from therapies evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the RCTs were developed based on limited observational data. Future RCTs investigating pharmaceutical interventions in critically ill patients during pandemics need to be designed based on better evidence.

Paracetamol Use and COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, paracetamol was widely recommended in different clinical settings, and sometimes advised over non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These recommendations sparked a strong debate, with reports suggesting either potential benefits or harms for the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. As no systematic review is available, we performed a meta-analysis to estimate the impact of paracetamol on COVID-19 clinical outcomes compared to a placebo, no use, or NSAIDs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials or observational studies evaluating any COVID-19 clinical outcome. Data were combined using a generic inverse-variance approach. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

One randomized trial and five observational studies, enrolling over 34,000 patients, were included. Overall, as compared to the patients using NSAIDs or receiving no treatment, the individuals who received paracetamol showed no significant differences in the risk of death (summary relative risks 0.93 and 0.91, respectively: both p > 0.05), need to transfer to the intensive care unit, need for respiratory support, or cardiovascular or renal complications. All studies showed a high risk of bias, with a low overall quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no evidence of harmful or beneficial effects of paracetamol on main COVID-19-related outcomes. Also, the current literature does not provide sufficient data to support a preferential choice between paracetamol and NSAIDs for COVID-19 symptoms management. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings and provide critical insights on the policies to adopt in the case of future pandemics.

Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine therapies for the treatment of mild/moderate acute COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence has emerged for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) to treat COVID-19 which requires systematic summaries of the net benefits of interventions against standard care and one another. The study aims to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) regarding TCIM therapies for treating mild/moderate acute COVID-19, potentially informing the WHO guideline development and clinical decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Embase, MEDLINE, Virtual Health Library on Traditional Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform with additional searches of Chinese and Korean literature sources for randomised controlled trials comparing TCIM with placebo, standard care, no treatment or with an alternate type of TCIM to treat COVID-19. We will limit the search dates from 2020 to 28 March 2024. Reviewers will, in duplicate, screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the risk of bias. We will conduct frequentist network meta-analyses for network comparisons and each outcome. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach and classify interventions from most to least effective or harmful.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This NMA is based on the existing trials and data which is not subject to ethical approval. We will publish the NMA in a peer-reviewed journal. This may provide methodological reference and clinical evidence for TCIM on future epidemic-prone diseases.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024517321.

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of biologic drugs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, and psoriasis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To address the efficacy and safety of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of biologic drugs for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, and psoriasis.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, Central, and CINAHL, from database inception to 23 May 2024.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Trials including people with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, and psoriasis were selected. Selected trials also randomly assigned people to either proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors or other biologic drugs in the intervention group, and to either no therapeutic drug monitoring or standard care in the control group. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen search records and collect data from eligible trials. For each outcome, a frequentist, pairwise, random effects meta-analysis was done and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations).

Results

Of 10 eligible trials identified, reporting on 2383 patients, two investigated induction with infliximab (533 patients), four assessed maintenance with infliximab (901 patients), and three assessed maintenance with adalimumab (710 patients). One trial was of maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept (239 patients). For patients who had induction with infliximab, the effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring on remission and adverse events were uncertain. Low certainty evidence suggested that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring may have little or no effect on disease activity, physical function, mental health, and quality of life. For patients who had maintenance with infliximab, low certainty evidence suggested that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring may increase the proportion of patients who had sustained disease control or remission (relative risk 1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.40), absolute risk difference of 146 more per 1000 patients treated for one year (95% CI 78 to 224). Additionally, this treatment and monitoring may reduce disease worsening, and may have little or no effect on disease activity, physical function, mental health, and quality of life. The effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab on adverse events and formation of anti-drug antibodies were uncertain. For patients who had maintenance with adalimumab, the effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring were uncertain.

Conclusion

Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab during maintenance may help patients to have sustained disease control or remission. No compelling evidence supported the effectiveness of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab during induction or proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab during maintenance.

Systematic review registration

https://osf.io/x4m28/.

Controlling the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malawi: Results from a multi-round study

We investigated behavioral responses to COVID-19 in Malawi, where a first wave of the pandemic occurred between June and August 2020. Contrary to many countries on the African continent, the Government of Malawi did not impose a lockdown or a stay-at-home order in response to the initial spread of SARS-CoV-2. We hypothesized that, in the absence of such requirements to restrict social interactions, individuals would primarily seek to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during contacts, rather than reduce the extent of their social contacts. We analyzed 4 rounds of a panel survey spanning time periods before, during and after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malawi. Five hundred and forty-three participants completed 4 survey interviews between April and November 2020. We found that the likelihood of attending various places and events where individuals work and/or socialize remained largely unchanged during that time. Over the same time frame, however, participants reported adopting on a large scale several behaviors that reduce the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 during contacts. The percentage of panel participants who reported practicing physical distancing thus increased from 9.8% to 47.0% in rural areas between April-May 2020 and June-July 2020, and from 11.4% to 59.4% in urban areas. The percentage of respondents who reported wearing a facial mask to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 also increased, reaching 67.7% among rural residents in August-September 2020, and 89.6% among urban residents. The pace at which these behaviors were adopted varied between population groups, with early adopters of mask use more commonly found among more educated office workers, residing in urban areas. The adoption of mask use was also initially slower among women, but later caught up with mask use among men. These findings stress the importance of behavioral changes in containing future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in settings where access to vaccination remains low. They also highlight the need for targeted outreach to members of socioeconomic groups in which the adoption of protective behaviors, such as mask use, might be delayed.

Unveiling the Value of Meta-Analysis in Disease Prevention and Control: A Comprehensive Review

Given the plethora of studies today that focus on the same topic, clinicians and other healthcare professionals increasingly rely on meta-analysis to aid in their evidence-based decision-making. This research method, which combines data from multiple studies to produce a single, more precise estimate of effect size, is invaluable for synthesizing evidence, resolving inconsistencies and guiding clinical practice and public health policies. Especially in disease prevention and control, meta-analysis has emerged as a critical tool. Meta-analysis is particularly valuable in assessing the effectiveness of preventive interventions such as vaccines, lifestyle modifications and screening programs. It provides robust evidence that supports the implementation of effective preventive measures and the discontinuation of ineffective or harmful ones. Furthermore, meta-analysis provides evidence to develop clinical practice guidelines, ensuring patients receive evidence-based treatments. In addition, public health policies aimed at disease prevention and control often rely on evidence from meta-analyses, which provide the data needed to justify and design large-scale public health initiatives. This comprehensive review delves into the role of meta-analysis in disease prevention and control, exploring its advantages, applications, challenges and overall impact on guiding clinical practice and public health policies. Through case studies and an examination of future directions, this paper underscores the pivotal role of meta-analysis in disease prevention and control.

A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in the global research production and has also increased research waste. Living evidence syntheses (LESs) seek to regularly update a body of evidence addressing a specific question. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and dissemination of LESs emerged as a cornerstone of the evidence infrastructure. This critical interpretive synthesis answers the questions: What constitutes an LES to support decision-making?; when should one be produced, updated, and discontinued?; and how should one be disseminated?

METHODS

Searches included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science up to 23 April 2024 and included articles that provide any insights on addressing the compass questions on LESs. Articles were selected and appraised, and their insights extracted. An interpretive and iterative coding process was used to identify relevant thematic categories and create a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Among the 16,630 non-duplicate records identified, 208 publications proved eligible. Most were non-empirical articles, followed by actual LESs. Approximately one in three articles were published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework addresses six thematic categories: (1) what is an LES; (2) what methodological approaches facilitate LESs production; (3) when to produce an LES; (4) when to update an LES; (5) how to make available the findings of an LES; and (6) when to discontinue LES updates.

CONCLUSION

LESs can play a critical role in reducing research waste and ensuring alignment with advisory and decision-making processes. This critical interpretive synthesis provides relevant insights on how to better organize the global evidence architecture to support their production.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241875.

Long-term effect of corticosteroid treatment during acute COVID-19 infection on pulmonary function test results

Background

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus 19 has led to unprecedented clinical challenges globally. Various therapeutic and pharmacologic interventions have been proposed, yet evidence of their long-term efficacy remains limited. Corticosteroids (CS) have shown efficacy in the sub-acute phase of the pandemic. This study aims to evaluate the long-term effects on pulmonary function tests (PFTs) in patients treated with CS during acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted from February 2020 to March 2021. Clinical and demographic data were extracted from electronic medical records of patients attending the post-COVID outpatient clinic at the Pulmonary Institute of Soroka University Medical Center. A multivariate linear mixed effects model was employed to obtain adjusted estimates for the impact over time.

Results

The study included 405 patients, of whom 155 (38.3%) received CS treatment. Approximately 60% completed two or more follow-up visits. PFTs [forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC)] returned to baseline more rapidly (0.9% and 0.85% per month, respectively) in patients treated with CS. This accelerated recovery was observed across all patients, including those with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m2 and those with known chronic lung disease.

Conclusions

Systemic CS treatment during acute COVID-19 infection was associated with a faster recovery of PFTs during long-term follow-up, even among subgroups at higher risk of long-term pulmonary damage.

Enhanced Treatment in Severe-Critical COVID-19 With Tocilizumab, Remdesivir, Dexamethasone: A Jordanian Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Several medications have been proposed to manage COVID-19, with controversial data regarding their clinical benefits. We aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of using remdesivir (RDV) with and without tocilizumab (TCZ) and standard therapy in treating severe COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a Jordanian tertiary hospital (September 26th, 2020 - August 28th, 2021) and included adult COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support. Patients were categorized into three groups based on treatment: TCZ+RDV and standard therapy; RDV and standard therapy; and standard therapy alone, which included dexamethasone, vitamins, anticoagulants, and ceftriaxone.

RESULTS

Of 1,556 screened, 1,244 patients (mean age 62.33, 60.8% men) were included. Distribution was 106 in TCZ+RDV, 520 in RDV, and 618 in standard therapy. No significant differences were observed in age, gender, or BMI. Mortality was lowest in TCZ+RDV (32.1%), followed by RDV (40.6%) and standard therapy (47.1%) (p=0.005). Among ICU patients, TCZ+RDV showed significantly lower mortality (51.1%) compared to RDV (75%) and standard therapy (85.8%) (p<0.001). The ICU stays and invasive mandatory ventilation (IMV) durations were significantly shorter with TCZ+RDV (4.30 and 2.69 days, respectively) compared to RDV (7.61 and 4.52 days) and standard therapy (7.98 and 5.32 days) (p<0.001 for ICU stays, p=0.025 for IMV durations).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining TCZ, RDV, and dexamethasone shows promise in reducing mortality and ICU/IMV duration for severe COVID-19.

Interventions to Improve Adherence to Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

For people at risk of HIV infection, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can reduce the risk of infection in anticipation of exposure to HIV. The effectiveness of PrEP relies upon a user's adherence to their PrEP regimen. We sought to assess the effect of PrEP adherence interventions compared to usual care or another intervention for people at risk of HIV. We searched electronic databases from 2010 onwards for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving persons at risk of HIV randomized to an adherence promoting intervention vs usual care or another intervention. We used network meta-analyses to compare PrEP adherence for all participant populations. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). 21 trials (N = 4917) were included in qualitative analysis (19 in network meta-analyses (N = 4101)). HIV self-testing interventions with adherence feedback elements improved adherence compared to usual care (risk ratio (RR): 1.83, 95%CI 1.19, 2.82). In contrast, HIV self-testing alone was inferior to HIV self-testing with adherence feedback (RR: 0.58, 95%CI 0.37-0.92). Reminders alone also were inferior to HIV self-testing with adherence feedback on adherence (RR: 0.53, 95%CI 0.34-0.84) and had similar effects on adherence as usual care (RR: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.86-1.11). Interventions with only one component were inferior for adherence than those with two components (RR: 0.74, 95%CI 0.62-0.88) and those with three components (RR: 0.78, 95%CI 0.65-0.93). The certainty of evidence was moderate for HIV self-testing plus adherence feedback and interventions with two or three components. When designing future PrEP adherence interventions, we recommend strategies with more than one but no more than three components.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with 7,035 participants

INTRODUCTION

We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19.

METHODS

Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs (n = 7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.64-1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 4: propranolol

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing propranolol for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

We report methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared propranolol with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. The outcomes of interest were informed by the Core outcome set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the reduction of monthly migraine days, and the number of adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB (risk of bias) 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Our search yielded twenty trials (n = 1291 patients) eligible for data synthesis and analysis. The analysis revealed a moderate certainty evidence that propranolol leads to a reduction in monthly migraine days versus placebo (-1.27; 95% CI: -2.25 to -0.3). We found moderate certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo with a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93); absolute risk difference: 179 more per 1,000 (95% CI 113 to 256). We found high certainty evidence that propranolol increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo with a risk difference of 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.03); absolute risk difference: 20 more per 1,000 (95% CI 0 to 30).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis shows that propranolol has a prophylactic role in migraine, with an overall acceptable tolerability profile. Combining these results with its long-standing use and its global availability at a low cost confirms its role as a first line agent in the prophylaxis of migraine.

Cost-effectiveness of COVID rapid diagnostic tests for patients with severe/critical illness in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study

BACKGROUND

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for coronavirus disease (COVID) are used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform treatment decisions. However, to date, it is unclear when this use is cost-effective. Existing analyses are limited to a narrow set of countries and uses. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID RDTs to inform the treatment of patients with severe illness in LMICs, considering real world practice.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COVID testing across LMICs using a decision tree model, differentiating results by country income level, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence, and testing scenario (none, RDTs, polymerase chain reaction tests-PCRs and combinations). LMIC experts defined realistic care pathways and treatment options. Using a healthcare provider perspective and net monetary benefit approach, we assessed both intended (COVID symptom alleviation) and unintended (treatment side effects) health and economic impacts for each testing scenario. We included the side effects of corticosteroids, which are often the only available treatment for COVID. Because side effects depend both on the treatment and the patient's underlying illness (COVID or COVID-like illnesses, such as influenza), we considered the prevalence of COVID-like illnesses in our analyses. We found that SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with severe COVID-like illness can be cost-effective in all LMICs, though only in some circumstances. High influenza prevalence among suspected COVID cases improves cost-effectiveness, since incorrectly provided corticosteroids may worsen influenza outcomes. In low- and some lower-middle-income countries, only patients with a high index of suspicion for COVID should be tested with RDTs, while other patients should be presumed to not have COVID. In some lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries, suspected severe COVID cases should almost always be tested. Further, in these settings, negative test results in patients with a high initial index of suspicion should be confirmed through PCR and, during influenza outbreaks, positive results in patients with a low initial index of suspicion should also be confirmed with a PCR. The use of interleukin-6 receptor blockers, when supported by testing, may also be cost-effective in higher-income LMICs. The cost at which they would be cost-effective in low-income countries ($162 to $406 per treatment course) is below current prices. The primary limitation of our analysis is substantial uncertainty around some of the parameters in our model due to limited data, most notably on current COVID mortality with standard of care, and insufficient evidence on the impact of corticosteroids on patients with severe influenza.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID testing can be cost-effective to inform treatment of LMIC patients with severe COVID-like disease. The optimal algorithm is driven by country income level and health budgets, the level of suspicion that the patient may have COVID, and influenza prevalence. Further research to better characterize the unintended effects of corticosteroids, particularly on influenza cases, could improve decision making around the treatment of those with COVID-like symptoms in LMICs.

Kinetics of pro- and anti-inflammatory spike-specific cellular immune responses in long-term care facility residents after COVID-19 mRNA primary and booster vaccination: a prospective longitudinal study in Japan

BACKGROUND

The magnitude and durability of cell-mediated immunity in older and severely frail individuals following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination remain unclear. A controlled immune response could be the key to preventing severe COVID-19; however, it is uncertain whether vaccination induces an anti-inflammatory cellular immune response. To address these issues, a 48-week-long prospective longitudinal study was conducted. A total of 106 infection-naive participants (57 long-term care facility [LTCF] residents [median age; 89.0 years], 28 outpatients [median age; 72.0 years], and 21 healthcare workers [median age; 51.0 years]) provided peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples for the assessment of spike-specific PBMC responses before primary vaccination, 24 weeks after primary vaccination, and three months after booster vaccination. Cellular immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike protein were examined by measuring interferon (IFN)-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-2, IL-4, IL-6, and IL-10 levels secreted from the spike protein peptide-stimulated PBMCs of participants.

RESULTS

LTCF residents exhibited significantly lower IFN-γ, TNF, IL-2, and IL-6 levels than healthcare workers after the primary vaccination. Booster vaccination increased IL-2 and IL-6 levels in LTCF residents comparable to those in healthcare workers, whereas IFN-γ and TNF levels in LTCF residents remained significantly lower than those in healthcare workers. IL-10 levels were not significantly different from the initial values after primary vaccination but increased significantly after booster vaccination in all subgroups. Multivariate analysis showed that age was negatively associated with IFN-γ, TNF, IL-2, and IL-6 levels but not with IL-10 levels. The levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IFN-γ, TNF, IL-2, and IL-6, were positively correlated with humoral immune responses, whereas IL-10 levels were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Older and severely frail individuals may exhibit diminished spike-specific PBMC responses following COVID-19 vaccination compared to the general population. A single booster vaccination may not adequately enhance cell-mediated immunity in older and severely frail individuals to a level comparable to that in the general population. Furthermore, booster vaccination may induce not only a pro-inflammatory cellular immune response but also an anti-inflammatory cellular immune response, potentially mitigating detrimental hyperinflammation.

Medication Use Among Pregnant Women With SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Risk of Hospitalization-A Study in Two Brazilian Hospitals

There is limited evidence about the use of medications among pregnant women with COVID-19, as well as risk factors for hospitalization due to COVID-19 in pregnancy. We aimed to describe the use of medications among SARS-CoV-2-positive pregnant women at the time around infection and identify predictors for hospitalization due to COVID-19 in two hospitals in Brazil. This is a hospital record-based study among pregnant women with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests between March 2020 and August 2022 from two Brazilian hospitals. Characteristics of sociodemographic, obstetrical, and COVID-19 symptoms were extracted retrospectively. The prevalence use of medications was based on self-reported use, and this was administered at the hospital. Logistic regression was used to estimate predictors of hospitalization due to COVID-19. There were 278 pregnant women included in the study, of which 41 (14.7%) required hospitalization due to COVID-19. The remaining 237 (85.3%) had mild symptoms or were asymptomatic. Most of the women had the infection in the third trimester (n = 149; 53.6%). The most prevalent medications used across all trimesters were analgesics (2.4% to 20.0%), antibacterials (15.0% to 23.1%), and corticosteroids (7.2% to 10.4%). Pre- or gestational hypertensive disorder (odds ratio (OR) 4.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.65, 14.87) and having at least one dose of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04, 0.39) were associated with hospitalization due to COVID-19. Analgesics, antibacterials, and corticosteroids were the most frequently used medications among pregnant women with COVID-19. Women with hypertensive disorders have almost a five-fold increased risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19. Vaccination was the strongest protective factor for severe COVID-19. The COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women should be promoted, and pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19 who have hypertensive disorders should be closely monitored.

Effect of treatment with original or biosimilar adalimumab on SARS-CoV2 vaccination antibody titers

The technological process of production of biosimilars determines the degree of biosimilarity to the original biological drug. In particular, the focus is on the similarity of immunogenic responses. The primary endpoint of our retrospective study was to find the differences in SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between patients treated with original adalimumab and biosimilar adalimumab MSB11022 (Idacio) and the differences in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between patients treated with and without biological treatment. We collected the gender, autoimmune disease type, age, and treatment data of the patients in the outpatient clinic MEDICAL PLUS, s.r.o., Uherske Hradiste. These patients suffer from autoimmune rheumatic diseases. All patients received the mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech - BNT162b2), with a 21-day (interquartile range, 21-24) gap between the two vaccinations. Patients receiving adalimumab were able to develop cellular immune responses after the second vaccination dose, as well as the individuals without adalimumab. In the period of 6-23 weeks after the second vaccination dose (D63 - D182), the SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels did not change significantly in the patients receiving the original adalimumab, while in the patients receiving biosimilar adalimumab a significant decrease was revealed. A statistically significant difference in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between the patients without biological treatment (median: 504.3 U/mL) and with biological treatment (Original and Biosimilar - median: 47.2 and 28.2 U/mL, respectively) was confirmed on day 182. According to our observation, the effect of the treatment type on the increase/decrease of antibodies over time is dominant, while the impact of other variables (gender, methotrexate treatment, autoimmune disease type, and age) was confirmed as insignificant or minor.

Assessing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials With Large Language Models

Importance

Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate the labor-intensive process of systematic reviews. However, the exact methods and reliability remain uncertain.

Objective

To explore the feasibility and reliability of using LLMs to assess risk of bias (ROB) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Design, Setting, and Participants

A survey study was conducted between August 10, 2023, and October 30, 2023. Thirty RCTs were selected from published systematic reviews.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A structured prompt was developed to guide ChatGPT (LLM 1) and Claude (LLM 2) in assessing the ROB in these RCTs using a modified version of the Cochrane ROB tool developed by the CLARITY group at McMaster University. Each RCT was assessed twice by both models, and the results were documented. The results were compared with an assessment by 3 experts, which was considered a criterion standard. Correct assessment rates, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 scores were calculated to reflect accuracy, both overall and for each domain of the Cochrane ROB tool; consistent assessment rates and Cohen κ were calculated to gauge consistency; and assessment time was calculated to measure efficiency. Performance between the 2 models was compared using risk differences.

Results

Both models demonstrated high correct assessment rates. LLM 1 reached a mean correct assessment rate of 84.5% (95% CI, 81.5%-87.3%), and LLM 2 reached a significantly higher rate of 89.5% (95% CI, 87.0%-91.8%). The risk difference between the 2 models was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.09). In most domains, domain-specific correct rates were around 80% to 90%; however, sensitivity below 0.80 was observed in domains 1 (random sequence generation), 2 (allocation concealment), and 6 (other concerns). Domains 4 (missing outcome data), 5 (selective outcome reporting), and 6 had F1 scores below 0.50. The consistent rates between the 2 assessments were 84.0% for LLM 1 and 87.3% for LLM 2. LLM 1's κ exceeded 0.80 in 7 and LLM 2's in 8 domains. The mean (SD) time needed for assessment was 77 (16) seconds for LLM 1 and 53 (12) seconds for LLM 2.

Conclusions

In this survey study of applying LLMs for ROB assessment, LLM 1 and LLM 2 demonstrated substantial accuracy and consistency in evaluating RCTs, suggesting their potential as supportive tools in systematic review processes.

Plasma Exchange for Refractory Pruritus Due to Drug-Induced Chronic Cholestasis Following Azithromycin Misuse in COVID-19 Infection

Azithromycin can result in severe cholestatic liver disease. We describe two cases of intractable pruritus secondary to drug-induced cholestatic liver injury, unresponsive to symptomatic medical therapy, necessitating and responding well to therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). The first is a case of a 60-year-old male known to have stable chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the second is a 46-year-old female known to have primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) who presented at six weeks and two weeks, respectively, post-mild-COVID-19 pneumonia. Their drug histories were positive for over-the-counter (OCT) azithromycin use during the COVID-19 pneumonia period. They presented with a two-week history of severe itching, associated with sleep deprivation and impaired quality of life. Liver function tests revealed a cholestatic pattern of liver injury. Pruritus remained refractory to multiple lines of treatment including bile acid sequestrants and antihistamines. Rapid and long-lasting relief of the patient's symptoms was observed after three sessions of TPE. Our cases highlight medically recalcitrant cholestatic pruritus as an adverse effect of antibiotic misuse during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Sustained symptomatic improvements were seen after TPE.

Design and Application of Biosafe Coronavirus Engineering Systems without Virulence

In the last twenty years, three deadly zoonotic coronaviruses (CoVs)-namely, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and SARS-CoV-2-have emerged. They are considered highly pathogenic for humans, particularly SARS-CoV-2, which caused the 2019 CoV disease pandemic (COVID-19), endangering the lives and health of people globally and causing unpredictable economic losses. Experiments on wild-type viruses require biosafety level 3 or 4 laboratories (BSL-3 or BSL-4), which significantly hinders basic virological research. Therefore, the development of various biosafe CoV systems without virulence is urgently needed to meet the requirements of different research fields, such as antiviral and vaccine evaluation. This review aimed to comprehensively summarize the biosafety of CoV engineering systems. These systems combine virological foundations with synthetic genomics techniques, enabling the development of efficient tools for attenuated or non-virulent vaccines, the screening of antiviral drugs, and the investigation of the pathogenic mechanisms of novel microorganisms.

Confidence score: a data-driven measure for inclusive systematic reviews considering unpublished preprints

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19, since its emergence in December 2019, has globally impacted research. Over 360 000 COVID-19-related manuscripts have been published on PubMed and preprint servers like medRxiv and bioRxiv, with preprints comprising about 15% of all manuscripts. Yet, the role and impact of preprints on COVID-19 research and evidence synthesis remain uncertain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We propose a novel data-driven method for assigning weights to individual preprints in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This weight termed the "confidence score" is obtained using the survival cure model, also known as the survival mixture model, which takes into account the time elapsed between posting and publication of a preprint, as well as metadata such as the number of first 2-week citations, sample size, and study type.

RESULTS

Using 146 preprints on COVID-19 therapeutics posted from the beginning of the pandemic through April 30, 2021, we validated the confidence scores, showing an area under the curve of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98). Through a use case on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, we demonstrated how these scores can be incorporated practically into meta-analyses to properly weigh preprints.

DISCUSSION

It is important to note that our method does not aim to replace existing measures of study quality but rather serves as a supplementary measure that overcomes some limitations of current approaches.

CONCLUSION

Our proposed confidence score has the potential to improve systematic reviews of evidence related to COVID-19 and other clinical conditions by providing a data-driven approach to including unpublished manuscripts.

Ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of ivermectin (IVM) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial, yet the drug has been widely used in the world. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of IVM in patients with COVID-19. From inception to June 22, 2023, the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science (WOS), and scopus databases were searched for relevant observational studies on the risk of RA in migraineurs. We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv to collect all relevant publications from inception to June 22, 2023. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, mechanical ventilation (MV) requirement, PCR negative conversion, and adverse events (AEs). Revman 5.4 was used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) and quality of evidence. Thirty-three RCTs (n = 10,489) were included. No significant difference in all-cause mortality rates or PCR negative conversion between IVM and controls. There were significant differences in MV requirement (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.96) and AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95) between the two groups. Ivermectin could reduce the risk of MV requirement and AEs in patients with COVID-19, without increasing other risks. In the absence of a better alternative, clinicians could use it with caution.

The Scope and Impact of Viral Infections in Common Variable Immunodeficiency (CVID) and CVID-like Disorders: A Literature Review

Common Variable Immunodeficiency (CVID) is a heterogeneous primary immunodeficiency disorder characterised by impaired antibody production, leading to recurrent infections and an increased susceptibility to viral pathogens. This literature review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of CVID's relationship with viral infections, encompassing disease pathogenesis, key presenting features, specific monogenic susceptibilities, the impact of COVID-19, and existing treatment options. The pathogenesis of CVID involves complex immunological dysregulation, including defects in B cell development, antibody class switching, and plasma cell differentiation. These abnormalities contribute to an impaired humoral immune response against viral agents, predisposing individuals with CVID to a broad range of viral infections. Genetic factors play a prominent role in CVID, and monogenic drivers of CVID-like disease are increasingly identified through advanced genomic studies. Some monogenic causes of the CVID-like phenotype appear to cause specific viral susceptibilities, and these are explored in the review. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted CVID patients' heightened predisposition to severe outcomes with viral infections. This review explores the clinical manifestations, outcomes, and potential therapeutic approaches for COVID-19 in CVID patients. It assesses the efficacy of prophylactic measures for COVID-19, including vaccination and immunoglobulin replacement therapy, as well as trialled therapies.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) related to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Sixteen SRs with meta-analysis published between 2020 and 2023 were included in this overview. The SRs reported data from 108 overlapping reports, based on 43 individual primary studies [3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 40 non-RCTs]. In outpatient settings the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced overall mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease compared with controls (from moderate to low certainty of evidence); nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduced mortality, hospital admission and progression of disease in both immunized and non-immunized patients. No differences in the occurrence of any adverse events between groups were observed in the large majority of SRs; serious adverse events, including adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, were reported with lower prevalence in nirmatrelvir recipients compared with controls (from low to moderate certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate certainty of evidence from SRs that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces mortality, clinical progression and hospitalization rate in COVID-19 patients compared with controls, without increasing the occurrence of overall and serious adverse events. Based on the overall methodological assessment, on average we can have high confidence in the quality of results generated by the SRs.

Small-molecule antiviral treatments for COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of small-molecule antivirals for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from their inception to 01 June 2023. The risk of bias in randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies was evaluated individually using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

In total, 160 studies involving 933 409 COVID-19 patients were evaluated. Compared with placebo or standard of care, proxalutamide demonstrated remarkable efficacy in reducing mortality rates, hospitalisation rates, serious adverse events, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, it significantly enhanced both the rate of clinical improvement and expedited the duration of clinical recovery when compared with control groups. In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, proxalutamide exhibited the above advantages, except for mortality reduction. Triazavirin was the most effective treatment for reducing the time required for viral clearance and improving the discharge rate. Leritrelvir and VV116 were ranked first in terms of enhancing the viral clearance rate on days 7 and 14, respectively. Molnupiravir was the most effective treatment for reducing the need for oxygen support. Overall, these findings remained consistent across the various subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

A thorough evaluation of effectiveness, applicable to both mild-to-moderate and unstratified populations, highlights the specific advantages of proxalutamide, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, triazavirin, azvudine, molnupiravir, and VV116 in combating COVID-19. Additional clinical data are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of simnotrelvir/ritonavir and leritrelvir. The safety profiles of these antivirals were deemed acceptable.

Analysis and clinical determinants of post-COVID-19 syndrome in the Lombardy region: evidence from a longitudinal cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To define macro symptoms of long COVID and to identify predictive factors, with the aim of preventing the development of the long COVID syndrome.

DESIGN

A single-centre longitudinal prospective cohort study conducted from May 2020 to October 2022.

SETTING

The study was conducted at Luigi Sacco University Hospital in Milan (Italy). In May 2020, we activated the ARCOVID (Ambulatorio Rivalutazione COVID) outpatient service for the follow-up of long COVID.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients previously affected by COVID-19 were either referred by specialists or general practitioners or self-referred.

INTERVENTION

During the first visit, a set of questions investigated the presence and the duration of 11 symptoms (palpitations, amnesia, headache, anxiety/panic, insomnia, loss of smell, loss of taste, dyspnoea, asthenia, myalgia and telogen effluvium). The follow-up has continued until the present time, by sending email questionnaires every 3 months to monitor symptoms and health-related quality of life.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Measurement of synthetic scores (aggregation of symptoms based on occurrence and duration) that may reveal the presence of long COVID in different clinical macro symptoms. To this end, a mixed supervised and empirical strategy was adopted. Moreover, we aimed to identify predictive factors for post-COVID-19 macro symptoms.

RESULTS

In the first and second waves of COVID-19, 575 and 793 patients (respectively) were enrolled. Three different post-COVID-19 macro symptoms (neurological, sensorial and physical) were identified. We found significant associations between post-COVID-19 symptoms and (1) the patients' comorbidities, and (2) the medications used during the COVID-19 acute phase. ACE inhibitors (OR=2.039, 95% CI: 1.095 to 3.892), inhaled steroids (OR=4.08, 95% CI: 1.17 to 19.19) and COVID therapies were associated with increased incidence of the neurological macro symptoms. Age (OR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04), COVID-19 severity (OR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.82), number of comorbidities (OR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.5), metabolic (OR=2.52, 95% CI: 1.25 to 5.27), pulmonary (OR=1.87, 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.32) and autoimmune diseases (OR=4.57, 95% CI: 1.57 to 19.41) increased the risk of the physical macro symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Being male was the unique protective factor in both waves. Other factors reflected different medical behaviours and the impact of comorbidities. Evidence of the effect of therapies adds valuable information that may drive future medical choices.

Designing tailored maintenance strategies for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines using the Portfolio Maintenance by Test-Treatment (POMBYTT) framework

BACKGROUND

Organizations face diverse contexts and requirements when updating and maintaining their portfolio, or pool, of systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines they need to manage. We aimed to develop a comprehensive, theoretical framework that might enable the design and tailoring of maintenance strategies for portfolios containing systematic reviews and guidelines.

METHODS

We employed a conceptual approach combined with a literature review. Components of the diagnostic test-treatment pathway used in clinical healthcare were transferred to develop a framework specifically for systematic review and guideline portfolio maintenance strategies.

RESULTS

We developed the Portfolio Maintenance by Test-Treatment (POMBYTT) framework comprising diagnosis, staging, management, and monitoring components. To illustrate the framework's components and their elements, we provided examples from both a clinical healthcare test-treatment pathway and a clinical practice guideline maintenance scenario. Additionally, our literature review provided possible examples for the elements in the framework, such as detection variables, detection tests, and detection thresholds. We furthermore provide three example strategies using the framework, of which one was based on living recommendations strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed framework might support the design of maintenance strategies that could contain multiple options besides updating to manage a portfolio (e.g. withdrawing and archiving), even in the absence of the target condition. By making different choices for variables, tests, test protocols, indications, management options, and monitoring, organizations might tailor their maintenance strategy to suit specific contexts and needs. The framework's elements could potentially aid in the design by being explicit about the operational aspects of maintenance strategies. This might also be helpful for end-users and other stakeholders of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

Safety and effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with end-stage renal disease: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir has been used to treat severe coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19); however, its safety and effectiveness in patients remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) and extracted data from 21,621 adult patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between April 2021 and September 2022. The patients were divided into groups based on their remdesivir use and the presence of ESRD. The adverse effects of remdesivir and their outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

To compare the adverse effects of remdesivir, propensity scores were used for one-to-one matching between patients with and without ESRD treated with remdesivir (N = 110). There were no statistically significant differences in heart rates, blood glucose levels, variations in hemoglobin levels before and after remdesivir use, or liver function between the two groups after remdesivir use. A comparison was made between patients with ESRD using remdesivir and those not using remdesivir after propensity score matching (N = 44). Although a shorter length of stay (LOS), lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, and lower intubation rate were noted in the ESRD group treated with remdesivir, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir is safe for use in patients with COVID-19 and ESRD; no increased adverse effects were noted compared with patients without ESRD. However, the effectiveness of remdesivir use in patients with COVID-19 and ESRD remains uncertain.

Conduct and reporting of multivariate network meta-analyses: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Combining multivariate and network meta-analysis methods simultaneously in a multivariate network meta-analysis (MVNMA) provides the methodological framework to analyze the largest amount of evidence relevant to decision-makers (i.e., from indirect evidence and correlated outcomes). The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize the characteristics of MVNMAs published in the health sciences literature and map the methodological guidance available for MVNMA.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to 28 August 2023, along with citations of included studies, for quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and articles addressing MVNMA methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies. Collected data included bibliographic, methodological, and analytical characteristics of included studies. We reported results as total numbers, frequencies, and percentages for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables that were not normally distributed.

RESULTS

After screening 1,075 titles and abstracts, and 112 full texts, we included 38 unique studies, of which, 10 were quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and 28 were articles addressing MVNMA methods. Among the 10 MVNMAs, the first was published in 2013, four used studies identified from already published systematic reviews, and eight addressed pharmacological interventions, which were the most common interventions. They evaluated interventions for metastatic melanoma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, oral hygiene, disruptive behavior disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, narcolepsy, type 2 diabetes, and overactive bladder syndrome. Five MVNMAs analyzed two outcomes simultaneously, and four MVNMAs analyzed three outcomes simultaneously. Among the articles addressing MVNMA methods, the first was published in 2007 and the majority provided methodological frameworks for conducting MVNMAs (26/28, 93%). One study proposed criteria to standardize reporting of MVNMAs and two proposed items relevant to the quality assessment of MVNMAs. Study authors used data from 18 different illnesses to provide illustrative examples within their methodological guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of MVNMA in the health sciences literature is uncommon. Many methodological frameworks are published; however, standardization and specific criteria to guide reporting and quality assessment are lacking. This overview of the current landscape may help inform future conduct of MVNMAs and research on MVNMA methods.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir on severe outcomes of COVID-19 in the era of vaccination and Omicron: An updated meta-analysis

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (NR) was approved to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive outpatients at high risk of progression to severe disease, based on a randomized trial in unvaccinated patients. Effectiveness in vaccinated patients and against Omicron has not yet been confirmed by clinical trial data, but a recent meta-analysis suggested good real-world effectiveness based on 12 studies. We updated this meta-analysis by searching Medline and Embase databases for studies assessing effectiveness of NR on mortality, hospitalization, composite outcome of hospitalization and/or death, and progression to severe disease, published between October 1, 2022 and May 22, 2023. Random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis for vaccinated patients was performed. A total of 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR for the effect of NR on mortality, hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, and progression to severe disease were 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.52), 0.43 (CI: 0.37-0.51), 0.52 (CI: 0.45-0.61) and 0.54 (CI: 0.41-0.73), respectively. A subgroup analysis on vaccinated patients indicated lower effectiveness of NR on mortality (RR: 0.55, CI: 0.45-0.68), but similar effectiveness for hospitalization, hospitalization and/or mortality, or progression to severe disease (RR: 0.52, 0.58, and 0.66, respectively). This updated meta-analysis robustly confirms the protective effects of NR on severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Evaluating in vivo effectiveness of sotrovimab for the treatment of Omicron subvariant BA.2 versus BA.1: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In vitro data suggested reduced neutralizing capacity of sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody, against Omicron BA.2 subvariant. However, limited in vivo data exist regarding clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to Omicron BA.2.

METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted at three Canadian academic tertiary centres. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥ 18 years with mild COVID-19 (sequencing-confirmed Omicron BA.1 or BA.2) treated with sotrovimab between February 1 to April 1, 2022. Thirty-day co-primary outcomes included hospitalization due to moderate or severe COVID-19; all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality. Risk differences (BA.2 minus BA.1 group) for co-primary outcomes were adjusted with propensity score matching (e.g., age, sex, vaccination, immunocompromised status).

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were included (15 BA.2, 70 BA.1) with similar baseline characteristics between groups. Adjusted risk differences were non-statistically significant between groups for 30-day hospitalization (- 14.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 32.6 to 4.0%), ICU admission (- 7.1%; 95%CI: - 20.6 to 6.3%), and mortality (- 7.1%; 95%CI: - 20.6 to 6.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were demonstrated in hospitalization, ICU admission, or mortality rates within 30 days between sotrovimab-treated patients with BA.1 versus BA.2 infection. More real-world data may be helpful to properly assess sotrovimab's effectiveness against infections due to specific emerging COVID-19 variants.

Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials

BACKGROUND

Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article.

RESULTS

The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint-article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73-187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71-464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint-article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.

Pro-Inflammatory and Anti-Inflammatory Interleukins in Infectious Diseases: A Comprehensive Review

Interleukins (ILs) are signaling molecules that are crucial in regulating immune responses during infectious diseases. Pro-inflammatory ILs contribute to the activation and recruitment of immune cells, whereas anti-inflammatory ILs help to suppress excessive inflammation and promote tissue repair. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the role of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory ILs in infectious diseases, with a focus on the mechanisms underlying their effects, their diagnostic and therapeutic potential, and emerging trends in IL-based therapies.

Building capacity for network meta-analysis in Sub-Saharan Africa: reflections and future direction

Robust, relevant, comprehensive, and up-to-date evidence syntheses are the cornerstone for evidence-informed healthcare decisions. When considering multiple treatment options, network meta-analysis (NMA) systematic reviews play a key role in informing impactful decisions and clinical practice guidelines. However, the capacity and literacy to conduct NMA systematic reviews and interpret its results remains out of reach for many clinicians and review authors, especially in low-to-middle-income countries. Despite ample resources and guides, NMA capacity and training opportunities remain limited to non-existent in Sub-Saharan Africa. Towards solutions and strengthening evidence synthesis and NMA capacity in the Sub-Saharan African region, we describe and reflect on two courses that build NMA capacity and aim to address NMA literacy in Sub-Saharan Africa.The Primer in NMA systematic reviews aimed for participants to be able to find, appraise, interpret, and consider the use of NMA SRs of intervention effects. It is a 6-week online course for clinicians, policy-makers, and researchers wanting to learn more about using NMA systematic reviews. The Global NMA Masterclass workshop aimed for participants to be able to understand and apply pairwise and NMA in STATA and R, evaluate NMA assumptions and confidence in NMA results, and appropriately report NMA results. This course was offered over 5 weeks to clinicians, biostatisticians, and researchers with basic knowledge of epidemiology and biostatics. Although the bulk of learning occurred through self-study, we had weekly, synchronous question-and-answer sessions for both courses. Using relevant examples throughout the courses helped to enable an authentic learning environment.This was the first NMA training developed in Africa for Africa. Development of the courses was a collaborative effort from a multi-disciplinary team. Both NMA courses were well received and attended by a diverse group of participants spread across Sub-Saharan African countries. Participants felt the courses were applicable to their setting. Although most participants appreciated the benefits of online learning, we also experienced some challenges. There is great potential to conduct NMA systematic reviews in Sub-Saharan Africa. The NMA Primer and NMA workshop can play an essential role in expanding and developing NMA SR capacity and literacy in SSA.

Trends in Research on Patients With COVID-19 in Korean Medical Journals

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to systematically summarize trends in research concerning patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as reported in Korean medical journals.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of KoreaMed from January 2020 to September 2022. We included only primary studies of patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then performed full-text screening, both independently and in duplicate. We first identified the 5 journals with the greatest numbers of eligible publications, then extracted data pertaining to the general characteristics, study population attributes, and research features of papers published in these journals.

RESULTS

Our analysis encompassed 142 primary studies. Of these, approximately 41.0% reported a funding source, while 3.5% disclosed a conflict of interest. In 2020, 42.9% of studies included fewer than 10 participants; however, by 2022, the proportion of studies with over 200 participants had increased to 40.6%. The most common design was the cohort study (48.6%), followed by case reports/series (35.2%). Only 3 randomized controlled trials were identified. Studies most frequently focused on prognosis (58.5%), followed by therapy/intervention (20.4%). Regarding the type of intervention/exposure, therapeutic clinical interventions comprised 26.1%, while studies of morbidity accounted for 13.4%. As for the outcomes measured, 50.7% of studies assessed symptoms/clinical status/improvement, and 14.1% evaluated mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Employing a systematic approach, we examined the characteristics of research involving patients with COVID-19 that was published in Korean medical journals from 2020 onward. Subsequent research should assess not only publication trends over a longer timeframe but also the quality of evidence provided.

Evaluation of Global Post-Outbreak COVID-19 Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic with millions of cases and deaths. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to establish effective therapies. However, the methodological quality of these trials is paramount, as it directly impacts the reliability of results. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to assess the methodological approach, execution diversity, global trends, and distribution of COVID-19 treatment RCTs post-outbreak, covering the period from the second wave and onward up to the present.

Methods

We utilize articles from three electronic databases published from September 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant RCTs. Data extraction involved the collection of various study details. Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool assessed methodological quality, while implementation variability was evaluated against registration information. Bibliometric analysis, including keyword co-occurrence and country distribution, used VOSviewer and Tableau software.

Results

Initially, 501 studies were identified, but only 22 met the inclusion criteria, of which 19 had registration information. The methodological quality assessment revealed deficiencies in five main domains: randomization process (36%), deviations from intended interventions (9%), missing outcome data (4%), measurement of the outcome (18%), and selection of reported results (4%). An analysis of alignment between research protocols and registration data revealed common deviations in eight critical aspects. Bibliometric findings showcased global collaboration in COVID-19 treatment RCTs, with Iran and Brazil prominently contributing, while keyword co-occurrence analysis illuminated prominent research trends and terms in study titles and abstracts.

Conclusion

This study offers valuable insights into the evaluation of COVID-19 treatment RCTs. The scarcity of high-quality RCTs highlights the importance of enhancing trial rigor and transparency in global health emergencies.

The use of network meta-analysis in updating WHO living maternal and perinatal health recommendations

Drawing on two recent examples of WHO living guidelines in maternal and perinatal health, this paper elucidates a pragmatic, stepwise approach to using network meta-analysis (NMA) in guideline development in the presence of multiple treatment options. NMA has important advantages. These include the ability to compare multiple interventions in a single coherent analysis, provide direct estimates of the relative effects of all available interventions, infer indirect effect estimates for interventions not directly compared and generate rankings of the available treatment options. It can be difficult to harness these advantages in the face of a lack of current guidance on using NMA evidence in guideline development, with several challenges emerging. Challenges include the choice of conceptual approach, the volume and complexity of the evidence, the contribution of treatment rankings, and the fact that the preferable treatment is not always obvious. This paper describes a layered approach to resolving these challenges, which supports systematic guideline decision-making and development of trustworthy clinical guidelines when multiple treatment options are available.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Response to Hypoxia

Louis, Alexandre, Charlotte Pröpper, Yann Savina, Corentin Tanne, Guy Duperrex, Paul Robach, Pascal Zellner, Stéphane Doutreleau, Jean-Michel Boulet, Alain Frey, Fabien Pillard, Cristina Pistea, Mathias Poussel, Thomas Thuet, Jean-Paul Richalet, and François Lecoq-Jammes. The impact of COVID-19 on the response to hypoxia. High Alt Med Biol. 24:321-328, 2023. Background: Severe high-altitude illness (SHAI) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while differing in most aspects of pathophysiology, both involve respiratory capacity. We examined the long-term impact of COVID-19 on response to hypoxia in individuals free of symptoms but having tested positive during the pandemic. The need for recommendations for such individuals planning a stay at high altitude are discussed. Methods: This multicenter study recruited participants from the multiSHAI cohort, all of whom had previously undergone a hypoxic exercise test. These participants were classified into two groups depending on whether they had since suffered mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (COVID+) or not (Control) and then asked to retake the test. Primary outcomes were: desaturation induced by hypoxia at exercise (ΔSpE), hypoxic cardiac response at exercise, hypoxic ventilatory response at exercise, and SHAI risk score. Results: A total of 68 participants retook the test, 36 classified in the COVID+ group. Analyses of primary outcomes showed no significant differences between groups. However, the COVID+ group showed significantly increased ventilation (VE) parameters during both hypoxic (p = 0.003) and normoxic exercise (p = 0.007). However, only the VE/oxygen consumption relationship during hypoxic exercise was significantly different. Conclusion: This study demonstrates no negative impact of COVID-19 on response to hypoxia as evaluated by the Richalet test. Clinical Trial Registration: NTC number: NCT05167357.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments.

METHODS

For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s).

RESULTS

The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments.

METHODS

For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna).

RESULTS

The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain.

CONCLUSIONS

Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

Clinical, epidemiological and laboratory characteristics of cases of Covid-19-related maternal near miss and death at referral units in northeastern Brazil: a cohort study

Objective: Covid-19 poses a major risk during pregnancy and postpartum, resulting in an increase in maternal mortality worldwide, including in Brazil; however, little research has been conducted into cases of a near miss. This study aimed to describe the frequency of COVID-19-related near miss and deaths during pregnancy or in the postpartum in referral centers in northeastern Brazil, as well as the clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory characteristics of the women who experienced a severe maternal outcome.Methods: A retrospective and prospective cohort study was performed between April 2020 and June 2021 with hospitalized pregnant and postpartum women with a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Data from five tertiary hospitals in northeastern Brazil were evaluated. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Epi Info, version 7.2.5.0.Results: A total of 463 patients were included. Of these, 64 (14% of the sample) had a severe maternal outcome, with 42 cases of near miss (9%) and 22 maternal deaths (5%). Patients who had a severe maternal outcome were predominantly young (median age 30 years) and 65.6% were black or brown-skinned. The women had between 6 and 16 years of schooling; 45.3% had a stable partner; 81.3% were pregnant at the time of admission to the study; and 76.6% required a Cesarean section. The great majority (82.8%) had severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Other complications included hypertensive syndromes (40.6%), pneumonia (37.5%), urinary tract infections (29.7%), acute renal failure (25.0%) and postpartum hemorrhage (21.9%). Sepsis developed in 18.8% of cases, neurological dysfunction in 15.6%, and hepatic dysfunction and septic shock in 14.1% of cases each. The relative frequency of admission to an intensive care unit was 87.5%, while 67.2% of the patients required assisted mechanical ventilation, and 54.7% required noninvasive ventilation. Antibiotics were prescribed in 93.8% of cases and corticosteroids in 71.9%, while blood transfusion was required in 25.0% of cases and renal replacement therapy in 15.6%. Therapeutic anticoagulants were administered to 12.5% of the patients. Of the patients who had a severe maternal outcome, the frequency of respiratory dysfunction was 93.8%, with 50.0% developing neurological dysfunction and 37.5% cardiovascular dysfunction. Hematological dysfunction was found in 29.7%, renal dysfunction in 18.8%, and uterine dysfunction in 14.1%. Hepatic dysfunction occurred in 7.8% of the sample. The near-miss ratio for Covid-19 was 1.6/1000 live births and the maternal mortality ratio for Covid-19 was 84.8/100,000 live births, with a mortality index of 34.4% in the sample.Conclusion: This study revealed a low Covid-19-related maternal near miss (MNM) ratio of 1.6/1000 live births and a high Covid-19-related maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 84.81/100,000 live births. The mortality index was also high. Most of the patients were admitted while pregnant, were young, married and black or brown-skinned, and none had completed university education. The majority had SARS and required admission to an intensive care unit and mechanical ventilation. Most were submitted to a Cesarean section.