1
|
Pacheco G, Lopes ALF, Oliveira APD, Corrêa WDRM, Lima LDB, Souza MHLPD, Teles AS, Nicolau LAD, Medeiros JVR. Comprehensive analysis of gastrointestinal side effects in COVID-19 patients undergoing combined pharmacological treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Crit Rev Toxicol 2024; 54:345-358. [PMID: 38860720 DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2348169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 06/12/2024]
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, several drugs were repositioned and combined to quickly find a way to mitigate the effects of the infection. However, the adverse effects of these combinations on the gastrointestinal tract are unknown. We aimed investigate whether Hydroxychloroquine (HD), Azithromycin (AZ), and Ivermectin (IV) used in combination for the treatment of COVID-19, can lead to the development of gastrointestinal disorders. This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted using Stata and Revman software, respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023372802). A search of clinical trials in Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov conducted on November 26, 2023. The eligibility of the studies was assessed based on PICO criteria, including trials that compared different treatments and control group. The analysis of the quality of the evidence was carried out according to the GRADE. Six trials involving 1,686 COVID-19 patients were included. No trials on the association of HD or AZ with IV met the inclusion criteria, only studies on the association between HD and AZ were included. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and increased transaminases were related. The symptoms of vomiting and nausea were evaluated through a network meta-analysis, while the symptom of abdominal pain was evaluated through a meta-analysis. No significant associations with these symptoms were observed for HD, AZ, or their combination, compared to control. Low heterogeneity and absence of inconsistency in indirect and direct comparisons were noted. Limitations included small sample sizes, varied drug dosages, and potential publication bias during the pandemic peak. This review unveils that there are no associations between gastrointestinal adverse effects and the combined treatment of HD with AZ in the management of COVID-19, as compared to either the use of a control group or the administration of the drugs individually, on the other hand, highlighting the very low or low certainty of evidence for the evaluated outcomes. To accurately conclude the absence of side effects, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriella Pacheco
- Medicinal Plants Research Center (NPPM), Post-graduation Program in Pharmacology, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil
| | - André Luis Fernandes Lopes
- Biotechnology and Biodiversity Research Center (BIOTEC), Post-graduation Program in Biotechnology, Parnaíba Delta Federal University (UFDPar), Parnaíba, PI, Brazil
| | | | | | - Lucas Daniel Batista Lima
- Biotechnology and Biodiversity Research Center (BIOTEC), Post-graduation Program in Biotechnology, Parnaíba Delta Federal University (UFDPar), Parnaíba, PI, Brazil
| | | | - Ariel Soares Teles
- Biotechnology and Biodiversity Research Center (BIOTEC), Post-graduation Program in Biotechnology, Parnaíba Delta Federal University (UFDPar), Parnaíba, PI, Brazil
- Federal Institute of Maranhão (IFMA), Araioses, MA, Brazil
| | - Lucas Antonio Duarte Nicolau
- Biotechnology and Biodiversity Research Center (BIOTEC), Post-graduation Program in Biotechnology, Parnaíba Delta Federal University (UFDPar), Parnaíba, PI, Brazil
| | - Jand Venes Rolim Medeiros
- Medicinal Plants Research Center (NPPM), Post-graduation Program in Pharmacology, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil
- Biotechnology and Biodiversity Research Center (BIOTEC), Post-graduation Program in Biotechnology, Parnaíba Delta Federal University (UFDPar), Parnaíba, PI, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wüstner S, Hogger S, Gartner-Freyer D, Lebioda A, Schley K, Leverkus F. Clinical Evidence Informing Treatment Guidelines on Repurposed Drugs for Hospitalized Patients During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic: Corticosteroids, Anticoagulants, (Hydroxy)chloroquine. Front Public Health 2022; 10:804404. [PMID: 35252090 PMCID: PMC8896497 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.804404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In early 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread worldwide, overwhelming hospitals with severely ill patients and posing the urgent need for clinical evidence to guide patient care. First treatment options available were repurposed drugs to fight inflammation, coagulopathy, and viral replication. A vast number of clinical studies were launched globally to test their efficacy and safety. Our analysis describes the development of global evidence on repurposed drugs, in particular corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients based on different study types. We track the incorporation of clinical data in international and national treatment guidelines and identify factors that characterize studies and analyses with the greatest impact on treatment recommendations. METHODS A literature search in MEDLINE was conducted to assess the clinical evidence on treatment with corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the first year of the pandemic. Adoption of the evidence from this clinical data in treatment guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO), Germany, and United States (US) was evaluated over time. RESULTS We identified 106 studies on corticosteroids, 141 studies on anticoagulants, and 115 studies on (hydroxy)chloroquine. Most studies were retrospective cohort studies; some were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and a few were platform trials. These studies were compared to studies directly and indirectly referred to in WHO (7 versions), German (5 versions), and US (21 versions) guidelines. We found that initially large, well-adjusted, mainly retrospective cohort studies and ultimately large platform trials or coordinated meta-analyses of RCTs provided best available clinical evidence supporting treatment recommendations. DISCUSSION Particularly early in the pandemic, evidence for the efficacy and safety of repurposed drugs was of low quality, since time and scientific rigor seemed to be competing factors. Pandemic preparedness, coordinated efforts, and combined analyses were crucial to generating timely and robust clinical evidence that informed national and international treatment guidelines on corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine. Multi-arm platform trials with master protocols and coordinated meta-analyses proved particularly successful, with researchers joining forces to answer the most pressing questions as quickly as possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sara Hogger
- AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH, Munich, Germany
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vegivinti CTR, Evanson KW, Lyons H, Akosman I, Barrett A, Hardy N, Kane B, Keesari PR, Pulakurthi YS, Sheffels E, Balasubramanian P, Chibbar R, Chittajallu S, Cowie K, Karon J, Siegel L, Tarchand R, Zinn C, Gupta N, Kallmes KM, Saravu K, Touchette J. Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Infect Dis 2022; 22:107. [PMID: 35100985 PMCID: PMC8802260 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07068-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2021] [Accepted: 01/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics. RESULTS Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials. CONCLUSIONS Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charan Thej Reddy Vegivinti
- Department of Internal Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1400 Pelham Pkwy S, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Kirk W Evanson
- Superior Medical Experts, 1425 Minnehaha Ave E, P.O. Box 6000545, St Paul, MN, 55106, USA
| | - Hannah Lyons
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
- Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, 6775 Bobcat Way, Dublin, OH, 43016, USA
| | - Izzet Akosman
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
- Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - Averi Barrett
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
| | - Nicole Hardy
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
| | - Bernadette Kane
- Superior Medical Experts, 1425 Minnehaha Ave E, P.O. Box 6000545, St Paul, MN, 55106, USA
| | - Praneeth Reddy Keesari
- Kamineni Academy of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500068, India
| | | | - Erin Sheffels
- Superior Medical Experts, 1425 Minnehaha Ave E, P.O. Box 6000545, St Paul, MN, 55106, USA.
| | - Prasanth Balasubramanian
- Department of Internal Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1400 Pelham Pkwy S, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Richa Chibbar
- Department of Medicine, Lakeridge Health, 1 Hospital Crt, Oshawa, ON, L1G 2B9, Canada
| | | | - Kathryn Cowie
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
| | - J Karon
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
| | - Lauren Siegel
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
| | - Ranita Tarchand
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
| | - Caleb Zinn
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
| | - Nitin Gupta
- Department of Infectious Disease, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
- Manipal Center for Infectious Diseases, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
| | - Kevin M Kallmes
- Nested Knowledge, 1430 Avon Street N, Saint Paul, MN, 55117, USA
| | - Kavitha Saravu
- Department of Infectious Disease, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
- Manipal Center for Infectious Diseases, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
| | - Jillienne Touchette
- Superior Medical Experts, 1425 Minnehaha Ave E, P.O. Box 6000545, St Paul, MN, 55106, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zou H, Yang Y, Dai H, Xiong Y, Wang JQ, Lin L, Chen ZS. Recent Updates in Experimental Research and Clinical Evaluation on Drugs for COVID-19 Treatment. Front Pharmacol 2021; 12:732403. [PMID: 34880750 PMCID: PMC8646041 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.732403] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2021] [Accepted: 10/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Since the outbreak of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan (China) in December 2019, the epidemic has rapidly spread to many countries around the world, posing a huge threat to global public health. In response to the pandemic, a number of clinical studies have been initiated to evaluate the effect of various treatments against COVID-19, combining medical strategies and clinical trial data from around the globe. Herein, we summarize the clinical evaluation about the drugs mentioned in this review for COVID-19 treatment. This review discusses the recent data regarding the efficacy of various treatments in COVID-19 patients, to control and prevent the outbreak.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Yuqi Yang
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, St. John's University, Queens, NY, United States
| | - Huiqiang Dai
- Cell Research Center, Shenzhen Bolun Institute of Biotechnology, Shenzhen, China
| | - Yunchuang Xiong
- Cell Research Center, Shenzhen Bolun Institute of Biotechnology, Shenzhen, China
| | - Jing-Quan Wang
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, St. John's University, Queens, NY, United States
| | - Lusheng Lin
- Cell Research Center, Shenzhen Bolun Institute of Biotechnology, Shenzhen, China
| | - Zhe-Sheng Chen
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, St. John's University, Queens, NY, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Popp M, Stegemann M, Riemer M, Metzendorf MI, Romero CS, Mikolajewska A, Kranke P, Meybohm P, Skoetz N, Weibel S. Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 10:CD015025. [PMID: 34679203 PMCID: PMC8536098 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias. MAIN RESULTS We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Popp
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Miriam Stegemann
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Respiratory Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Manuel Riemer
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Maria-Inti Metzendorf
- Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group, Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Carolina S Romero
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, General University Hospital Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| | - Agata Mikolajewska
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Respiratory Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Peter Kranke
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Patrick Meybohm
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Cochrane Cancer, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Stephanie Weibel
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|