Azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19: a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial

SLC38A9 regulates SARS-CoV-2 viral entry

SARS-CoV-2 viral entry into host cells depends on the cleavage of spike (S) protein into S1 and S2 proteins. Such proteolytic cleavage by furin results in the exposure of a multibasic motif on S1, which is critical for SARS-CoV-2 viral infection and transmission; however, how such a multibasic motif contributes to the infection of SARS-CoV-2 remains elusive. Here, we demonstrate that the multibasic motif on S1 is critical for its interaction with SLC38A9, an endolysosome-resident arginine sensor. SLC38A9 knockdown prevents S1-induced endolysosome de-acidification and blocks the S protein-mediated entry of pseudo-SARS-CoV-2 in Calu-3, U87MG, Caco-2, and A549 cells. Our findings provide a novel mechanism in regulating SARS-CoV-2 viral entry; S1 present in endolysosome lumen could interact with SLC38A9, which mediates S1-induced endolysosome de-acidification and dysfunction, facilitating the escape of SARS-CoV-2 from endolysosomes and enhancing viral entry.

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

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.

Hydroxychloroquine and the associated risk of arrhythmias

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which was initially used as an antimalarial drug, is now being used to treat other illnesses, especially rheumatic autoimmune disorders  such as systemic lupus erythematosus, primary Sjögren's syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis, because it is safe, effective, and cost efficient. This drug has shown high efficacy and has become the first-line treatment for many of these diseases. Although HCQ has many therapeutic effects, it has unfortunately shown some complications, especially with its long-term use. One of these side effects is arrhythmia through prolongation of the QT interval. This narrative literature review focuses on the effects of HCQ on the QT interval in patients with rheumatologic diseases who have been prescribed this drug. In particular, we will focus on the increased risk of arrhythmia when HCQ is administered with other drugs, such as azithromycin and many others, along with drug-drug interactions. In addition, we investigated the safety of this drug in pregnant women.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

Effect of anti-inflammatory drugs on the storm of inflammatory factors in respiratory tract infection caused by SARS-CoV-2: an updated meta-analysis

Background

New reports suggest that anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to treat respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. Anti-inflammatory drugs were the most frequently used treatment for the COVID-19-related cytokine storm in China. However, the efficacy of anti-inflammatory drugs has yet to be systematically analyzed, and clinicians are often uncertain which class of anti-inflammatory drug is the most effective in treating patients with respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2, especially those with severe disease.

Methods

From 1 October 2022, relevant studies were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. A total of 16,268 publications were retrieved and collated according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sensitivity analyses were performed using STATA 14 software. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and the combined advantage ratio was expressed as a 95% confidence interval (CI). In total, 19 randomized controlled trials were included in the study. STATA 14 software was used for all random effects model analyses, and the results are expressed as relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI.

Results

Quantitative analyses were performed on 14,514 patients from 19 relevant randomized controlled clinical trials. Pooled estimates (RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) revealed that the use of anti-inflammatory drugs resulted in a significant reduction in mortality in patients with respiratory tract infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 compared with controls, and methylprednisolone (RR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.56) was more effective than other anti-inflammatory drugs. Anti-inflammatory drugs were effective in reducing mortality in critically ill patients (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.98) compared with non-critically ill patients (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.76); however, more clinical evidence is needed to confirm these findings.

Conclusion

The use of anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with respiratory infections caused by SARS-CoV-2 reduces patient mortality, especially in severe cases. In individual studies, methylprednisolone was more effective than other drugs.

Drugs for COVID-19: An Update

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was the seventh known human coronavirus, and it was identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, in 2020. It caused the highly contagious disease called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020. A great number of studies in the search of new therapies and vaccines have been carried out in these three long years, producing a series of successes; however, the need for more effective vaccines, therapies and other solutions is still being pursued. This review represents a tracking shot of the current pharmacological therapies used for the treatment of COVID-19.

Antibiotics Use in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Literature Review

The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of the pandemic. We performed a literature review to assess the reasons, evidence and practices on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. Published articles providing data on antibiotics use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches on the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Searching the MEDLINE database, the following search terms were adopted: ((antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)). Searching the SCOPUS database, the following search terms were used: ((antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)). The risk of bias in the included studies was not assessed. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five-hundred-ninety-three studies were identified, published from January 2020 to 30 October 2022. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, 32 studies were on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 inpatients and 4 on antibiotic use in COVID-19 outpatients. Apart from the studies identified and included in the review, the main recommendations on antibiotic treatment from 5 guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19 were also summarized in a separate paragraph. Antibiotics should not be prescribed during COVID-19 unless there is a strong clinical suspicion of bacterial coinfection or superinfection.

Pharmacological therapies and drug development targeting SARS-CoV-2 infection

The development of therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on virus biology and pathology, and of large- and small-scale randomized controlled trials, have brought forward several antiviral and immunomodulatory drugs targeting the disease severity. Casirivimab/Imdevimab monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma to prevent virus entry, Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, and Paxlovid nucleotide analogs to prevent viral replication, a variety of repurposed JAK-STAT signaling pathway inhibitors, corticosteroids, and recombinant agonists/antagonists of cytokine and interferons have been found to provide clinical benefits in terms of mortality and hospitalization. However, current treatment options face multiple clinical needs, and therefore, in this review, we provide an update on the challenges of the existing therapeutics and highlight drug development strategies for COVID-19 therapy, based on ongoing clinical trials, meta-analyses, and clinical case reports.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Dimethoxycurcumin Acidifies Endolysosomes and Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Entry

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to take a huge toll on global health. Although improving, currently there are only limited therapies against SARS-CoV-2. Curcumin, a natural polyphenol, exerts antiviral effects against a wide variety of viruses and can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 entry. However, undesirable physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of curcumin limit its clinical application. Here, we determined the effects of dimethoxycurcumin (DiMC), a methylated analog of curcumin with improved bioavailability, on the entry of SARS-CoV-2. DiMC blocked entry of pseudo-SARS-CoV-2 into Calu-3 human non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma cells and Vero E6 green monkey kidney epithelial cells. Mechanistically, DiMC acidified lysosomes, enhanced lysosome degradation capabilities, and promoted lysosome degradation of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a major receptor for SARS-CoV-2 entry, as well as pseudo-SARS-CoV-2 and the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein. Furthermore, other lysosome acidifying agents, including the TRPML1 agonist ML-SA1 and the BK channel activator NS1619, also blocked the entry of pseudo-SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 potential of DiMC and lysosome acidifying agents might be explored further as possible effective therapeutic strategies against COVID-19.

Differences in clinical features and mortality in very old unvaccinated patients (≥ 80 years) hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first and successive waves from the multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry (Spain)

Background

Old age is one of the most important risk factors for severe COVID-19. Few studies have analyzed changes in the clinical characteristics and prognosis of COVID-19 among older adults before the availability of vaccines. This work analyzes differences in clinical features and mortality in unvaccinated very old adults during the first and successive COVID-19 waves in Spain.

Methods

This nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzes unvaccinated patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Patients were classified according to whether they were admitted in the first wave (March 1-June 30, 2020) or successive waves (July 1-December 31, 2020). The endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality, expressed as the case fatality rate (CFR).

Results

Of the 21,461 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 5,953 (27.7%) were ≥ 80 years (mean age [IQR]: 85.6 [82.3–89.2] years). Of them, 4,545 (76.3%) were admitted during the first wave and 1,408 (23.7%) during successive waves. Patients hospitalized in successive waves were older, had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index and dependency, less cough and fever, and met fewer severity criteria at admission (qSOFA index, PO2/FiO2 ratio, inflammatory parameters). Significant differences were observed in treatments used in the first (greater use of antimalarials, lopinavir, and macrolides) and successive waves (greater use of corticosteroids, tocilizumab and remdesivir). In-hospital complications, especially acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia, were less frequent in patients hospitalized in successive waves, except for heart failure. The CFR was significantly higher in the first wave (44.1% vs. 33.3%; -10.8%; p < 0.001) and was higher among patients ≥ 95 years (54.4% vs. 38.5%; -15.9%; p < 0.001). After adjustments to the model, the probability of death was 33% lower in successive waves (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.57–0.79).

Conclusions

Mortality declined significantly between the first and successive waves in very old unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Spain. This decline could be explained by a greater availability of hospital resources and more effective treatments as the pandemic progressed, although other factors such as changes in SARS-CoV-2 virulence cannot be ruled out.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03191-4.

Update March 2022: management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

Since the identification of SARS-CoV-2 at the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected more than 410 million people worldwide and killed almost 6 million [1, 2]. The predecessors of COVID-19, i.e. the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) outbreaks, had been relatively self-limiting, preventing clinicians and researchers from establishing evidence-based specific therapeutic strategies [3]. Conversely, COVID-19 rapidly proved to be extremely fast spreading, which led stakeholders to encourage, guide, build or fund multidirectional therapeutic research strategies based on both repurposing and development of new agents [4–8]. In parallel, considerable efforts were directed at describing the disease and understanding the underlying mechanisms [9–13]. As a result, there has been a huge generation of evidence, as highlighted by the impressive number of COVID-19 publications (more than 200 000 since the end of 2019). As a consequence, it proved rapidly impossible for any clinician, researcher or decision-maker to gather and analyse all the corresponding literature to derive appropriate guidance [14]. The first step of such a process is to select the relevant high-quality research that can be used to answer the question(s) of interest [15]. Even if limiting the search to clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, almost 4000 papers appear in the PubMed database, as of mid-February 2022. In June and July 2020, the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) released early guidance on several aspects of COVID-19 management (i.e. rehabilitation, palliative care and acute management); at that time, direct specific evidence was sparse or absent [16–18]. Simultaneously, the ERS launched a living guideline on the management of COVID-19. The format was that of a “short” guideline, as per ERS standards [19, 20], in that the purpose was to release the first iteration within 12 months. However, the number of PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) questions to be addressed (n=12) already exceeded markedly what the ERS considers as being feasible during such a short timeframe (i.e. n=1–2), which was a direct consequence of the high number of unanswered issues in the field of acute COVID-19 management, all corresponding to outstanding clinical needs. The first version of these guidelines was published in March 2021 and addressed the following potential therapeutic options: corticosteroids, interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonists, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and both combined, colchicine, lopinavir-ritonavir, remdesivir, interferon-β, anticoagulation and non-invasive ventilatory support [6, 21]. An update of the mortality meta-analyses for corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β was published in December 2021 [22].

The ERS COVID-19 guidelines make recommendations for corticosteroids, anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, baricitinib, anticoagulation and non-invasive respiratory support for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 https://bit.ly/3QgHH7U

COVID-19 therapies: do we see substantial progress?

The appearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its spread all over the world is the cause of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has recently resulted in almost 400 million confirmed cases and 6 million deaths, not to mention unknown long-term or persistent side effects in convalescent individuals. In this short review, we discuss approaches to treat COVID-19 that are based on current knowledge of the mechanisms of viral cell receptor recognition, virus–host membrane fusion, and inhibition of viral RNA and viral assembly. Despite enormous progress in antiviral therapy and prevention, new effective therapies are still in great demand.

Azithromycin Misuse During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan

Objective

Since coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became a global pandemic, repurposing known drugs was the quickest way to combat the disease. The initial screening revealed that azithromycin (AZM) might have potential against COVID-19. Although clinical trials did not prove such efficacy, many countries have put AZM within their guidelines for treating COVID-19. Therefore, the present study was designed to assess the misuse of AZM in Jordan during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods and Results

A cross-sectional study was conducted among community pharmacies in Jordan from March 27 to May 8, 2021, and 184 pharmacies data were collected from the Google forms. During COVID-19, 42.9% of pharmacies sold more than 20 packs of prescribed AZM per month compared to 46.7% of pharmacies used to sell 0-5 packs AZM prescriptions per month before the pandemic. During COVID-19, pharmacists significantly dispensed AZM with and without prescriptions 107% and 127%, respectively, more than before the pandemic (p < 0.0001). Overall, pharmacists stocked 121% more AZM packs during COVID-19 than before the pandemic (p < 0.0001). Additionally, most pharmacists (59.7%) believed that AZM could cure COVID-19 patients. However, using multinomial logistic regression analysis, low-experienced pharmacists were unsure if AZM could positively affect COVID-19 patients (p < 0.05, OR = 3.76, 95% CI = 1.23-11.52). Furthermore, low-experienced pharmacists believed that increased use of AZM for the treatment of viral infections could lead to negative consequences (p < 0.001, OR = 0.161, 95% CI 0.063-0.414).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that AZM is misused by physicians, pharmacists, and the public in Jordan. Since AZM efficacy on SARS-CoV-2 is scarce, there is a need for new guidelines by governmental health authorities to implement strict enforcement of AZM dispensing during COVID-19 to avoid negative consequences of bacterial resistance.

2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To update the EULAR points to consider (PtCs) on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

METHODS

According to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review up to 14 July 2021 was conducted and followed by a consensus meeting of an international multidisciplinary task force. The new statements were consolidated by formal voting.

RESULTS

We updated 2 overarching principles and 12 PtC. Evidence was only available in moderate to severe and critical patients. Glucocorticoids alone or in combination with tocilizumab are beneficial in COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen therapy and in critical COVID-19. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib and tofacitinib) is promising in the same populations of severe and critical COVID-19. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma may find application in early phases of the disease and in selected subgroups of immunosuppressed patients. There was insufficient robust evidence for the efficacy of other immunomodulators with further work being needed in relation to biomarker-based stratification for IL-1 therapy CONCLUSIONS: Growing evidence supports incremental efficacy of glucocorticoids alone or combined with tocilizumab/Janus kinase inhibitors in moderate to severe and critical COVID-19. Ongoing studies may unmask the potential application of other therapeutic approaches. Involvement of rheumatologists, as systemic inflammatory diseases experts, should be encouraged in clinical trials of immunomodulatory therapy in COVID-19.

The impact of therapeutics on mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analyses informing the European Respiratory Society living guideline

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high mortality rate. There are an increasing number of published randomised controlled trials for anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and other treatments. The European Respiratory Society Living Guidelines for the Management of Hospitalised Adults with COVID-19 were published recently, providing recommendations on appropriate pharmacotherapy.Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes questions for key interventions were identified by an international panel and systematic reviews were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The importance of end-points were rated, and mortality was identified as the key "critical" outcome for all interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies and provide effect estimates for the impact of treatments on mortality.Corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β have been reviewed.Our results found further evidence in support of the use of corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, and anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. These data support the need to identify additional therapies with beneficial effects on mortality.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update of the systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

OBJECTIVE

To update the EULAR 2020 systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

As part of a EULAR taskforce, a systematic literature search update was conducted from 11 December 2020 to 14 July 2021. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage of disease. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with validated tools.

RESULTS

Of the 26 959 records, 520 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were mainly at high or unclear RoB. New randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab clarified its benefit in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, mainly if associated with glucocorticoids. There are emergent data on the usefulness of baricitinib and tofacitinib in severe COVID-19. Other therapeutic strategies such as the use of convalescent plasma and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies showed efficacy in subjects not mounting normal anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses.

CONCLUSION

This new SLR confirms that some immunomodulators (tocilizumab and JAK inhibitors) have a role for treating severe and critical COVID-19. Although better evidence is available compared with the previous SLR, the need of RCT with combination therapy (glucocorticoids+anti-cytokines) versus monotherapy with glucocorticoids still remains alongside the need for standardisation of inclusion criteria and outcomes to ultimately improve the care and prognosis of affected people. This SLR informed the 2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

Antirheumatic Drug Intake Influence on Occurrence of COVID-19 Infection in Ambulatory Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Cohort Study

Introduction

We aimed to study the prevalence of a history of COVID-19 infection among patients suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Sjögren’s syndrome (SjS) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and the potential influence of long-term hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) intake.

Methods

We performed an observational monocentric cohort study at the Adolphe de Rothschild Foundation Hospital ophthalmology division (Paris, France). Electronic medical records (EMR) data were searched for keywords associated with SLE, RA, SjS, or PsA. Patients were contacted by phone and were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a positive COVID-19 test result during the study period. We determined the adjusted association between various antirheumatic drugs intake, COVID-19 risk factors, and occurrence of COVID-19 using a logistic regression model. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04345159).

Results

Patients were recruited between Apr 17, 2020, and Apr 30, 2020 and were recontacted between Oct 6, 2020, and Nov 2, 2020. A total of 569 patients were included, of whom 459 patients were eligible for data analysis. One hundred and eighty-one patients were treated with long-term HCQ and 18 patients had tested positive for COVID-19. No antirheumatic drug intake, including HCQ intake, was significantly associated with an increased or decreased risk of developing COVID-19 infection.

Conclusions

No antirheumatic drug intake was associated with an increased or decreased risk of developing COVID-19 infection in our cohort of patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Efficacy and safety of current medications for treating severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients: an updated network meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Many recent studies have investigated the role of drug interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, an important question has been raised about how to select the effective and secure medications for COVID-19 patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the various medications available for severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs).

METHODS

We did an updated network meta-analysis. We searched the databases from inception until July 31, 2021, with no language restrictions. We included RPCTs comparing 49 medications and placebo in the treatment of severe and non-severe patients (aged 18 years or older) with COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on the trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, the ratios of virological cure, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect estimates.

RESULTS

From 3,869 publications, we included 61 articles related to 73 RPCTs (57 in non-severe COVID-19 patients and 16 in severe COVID-19 patients), comprising 20,680 patients. The mean sample size was 160 (interquartile range 96-393) in this study. The median duration of follow-up drugs intervention was 28 days (interquartile range 21-30). For increase in virological cure, we only found that proxalutamide (OR 9.16, 95% CI 3.15-18.30), ivermectin (OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.22-32.86), and low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.12-24.99) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo, in which proxalutamide seemed to be better than low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.69, 95% CI 2.43-17.65). For decrease in all-cause mortality, we found that proxalutamide (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.09-0.19), imatinib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96), and baricitinib (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.82) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we only found that immunoglobulin gamma (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.89) was related to severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo. For change in treatment-emergent adverse events, we only found that sotrovimab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.34) was associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we did not find any medications that presented a statistical difference when compared with placebo among severe COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that marked variations exist in the efficacy and safety of medications between severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. It seems that monoclonal antibodies (e.g., low dosage bamlanivimab, baricitinib, imatinib, and sotrovimab) are a better choice for treating severe or non-severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical decisions to use preferentially medications should carefully consider the risk-benefit profile based on efficacy and safety of all active interventions in patients with COVID-19 at different levels of infection.

Lessons learnt from hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin in treatment of COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still exerting a great influence on global health and economy. The initial fight against COVID-19 relied mainly on non-pharmacological measures, including social distancing, facial masks, active screening and isolation, etc. In terms of pharmacological interventions, huge progress has been made in the development of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), although the appearance of several mutant variants has raised concerns for lasting immunity. The repurposing of established drugs has been another strategy to search for weapons in treatment or prophylaxis against COVID-19. Although immuno-modulating drugs, including corticosteroids, have been demonstrated to have therapeutic effects, no anti-viral medications have so far been shown to be protective.

Solid pre-clinical investigations serve as the basis for clinical research. High quality clinical trials remain the definitive measure to evaluate an interventional therapy. Clinical decisions should be independent from media and political propaganda.https://bit.ly/3iaNBsB