Treatment of patients with nonsevere and severe coronavirus disease 2019: an evidence-based guideline

Fine-Grained Assessment of COVID-19 Severity Based on Clinico-Radiological Data Using Machine Learning

BACKGROUND

The severe and critical cases of COVID-19 had high mortality rates. Clinical features, laboratory data, and radiological features provided important references for the assessment of COVID-19 severity. The machine learning analysis of clinico-radiological features, especially the quantitative computed tomography (CT) image analysis results, may achieve early, accurate, and fine-grained assessment of COVID-19 severity, which is an urgent clinical need.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if machine learning algorithms using CT-based clinico-radiological features could achieve the accurate fine-grained assessment of COVID-19 severity.

METHODS

The clinico-radiological features were collected from 78 COVID-19 patients with different severities. A neural network was developed to automatically measure the lesion volume from CT images. The severity was clinically diagnosed using two-type (severe and non-severe) and fine-grained four-type (mild, regular, severe, critical) classifications, respectively. To investigate the key features of COVID-19 severity, statistical analyses were performed between patients' clinico-radiological features and severity. Four machine learning algorithms (decision tree, random forest, SVM, and XGBoost) were trained and applied in the assessment of COVID-19 severity using clinico-radiological features.

RESULTS

The CT imaging features (CTscore and lesion volume) were significantly related with COVID-19 severity (p < 0.05 in statistical analysis for both in two-type and fine-grained four-type classifications). The CT imaging features significantly improved the accuracy of machine learning algorithms in assessing COVID-19 severity in the fine-grained four-type classification. With CT analysis results added, the four-type classification achieved comparable performance to the two-type one.

CONCLUSIONS

CT-based clinico-radiological features can provide an important reference for the accurate fine-grained assessment of illness severity using machine learning to achieve the early triage of COVID-19 patients.

Supplemental Medicines-Nutritions Used by Health Personnel in their own Covid-19 Treatment Schedule

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE. İn this study, with a view to investigate drug use behaviors of healthcare personnels who had Covid 19 infection in the first 1 year of the pandemic, it was aimed to determine the additional drugs and nutritional supplements they used in their own treatment. MATERIAL METHOD This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. The data were obtained through an online survey voluntarily completed under pandemic conditions by doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists and other health personnel who declared that they had Covid-19. RESULTS The study consisted of 405 individuals. 98% of healthcare personnels preferred to support their treatment. The medicines and herbal products that the participants started to use by their own decisions, without the advice of the physician who examined them, and the frequency of their use were vitamin C 53.3%, vitamin D 48.1%, acetylsalicylic acid 26.7%, paracetamol 23%, zinc 26.4%, multivitamin 19%, acetylcysteine 14.8%, famotidine 14.3%, subcutaneous heparin 12.6%. As for herbal products, inhaling thyme oil was noted in 11.6%, drinking thyme oil 10.1%, consuming ginger 14.3% of the participants. Non-prescription support products were found to be beneficial in 44.4%. CONCLUSION Almost all of the participants took a supplement with an intention to support the treatment. The fact that one out of two participants declared that they benefited from over-the-counter supplements reveals that further studies are needed to support the rational use of over-the-counter products in the treatment of Covid 19.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

"MATH+" Multi-Modal Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 Infection: Clinical and Scientific Rationale

In December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a severe respiratory illness caused by the new coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China. The greatest impact that COVID-19 had was on intensive care units (ICUs), given that approximately 20% of hospitalized cases developed acute respiratory failure (ARF) requiring ICU admission. Based on the assumption that COVID-19 represented a viral pneumonia and no anti-coronaviral therapy existed, nearly all national and international health care societies recommended "supportive care only" avoiding other therapies outside of randomized controlled trials, with a specific prohibition against the use of corticosteroids in treatment. However, early studies of COVID-19-associated ARF reported inexplicably high mortality rates, with frequent prolonged durations of mechanical ventilation (MV), even from centers expert in such supportive care strategies. These reports led the authors to form a clinical expert panel called the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (www.flccc.net). The panel collaboratively reviewed the emerging clinical, radiographic, and pathological reports of COVID-19 while initiating multiple discussions among a wide clinical network of front-line clinical ICU experts from initial outbreak areas in China, Italy, and New York. Based on the shared early impressions of "what was working and what wasn't working", the increasing medical journal publications and the rapidly accumulating personal clinical experiences with COVID-19 patients, a treatment protocol was created for the hospitalized patients based on the core therapies of methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin and non-antiviral co-interventions (MATH+). This manuscript reviews the scientific and clinical rationale behind MATH+ based on published in-vitro, pre-clinical, and clinical data in support of each medicine, with a special emphasis of studies supporting their use in the treatment of patients with viral syndromes and COVID-19 specifically.

Administration of parenteral vitamin C in patients with severe infection: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Severe infections are characterized by inflammation and oxidative damage. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) administration may attenuate oxidative damage and, in turn, reduce vascular endothelial injury in pulmonary and systemic vasculature.

Objective

We aim to describe a protocol for a living systematic review that will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parenteral vitamin C administration in adults with severe infections, including those with COVID-19.

Methods

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 30, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating parenteral vitamin C versus no parenteral vitamin C in hospitalized adults with severe infection. Eligible studies will include at least 1 arm involving any dose of parenteral vitamin C alone or in combination with other cointerventions and at least 1 arm not involving parenteral vitamin C. The primary outcomes of interest will include in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation via a modified Risk of Bias 2.0 tool will be conducted independently and in pairs. We will perform random effects modeling for meta-analyses, in which study weights will be generated by using the inverse variance method. We will assess certainty in effect estimates by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses will be updated iteratively as new trial evidence becomes available.

Results

Among the 1386 citations identified as of March 30, 2021, a total of 17 eligible randomized controlled trials have been identified as of September 2021. We are in the process of updating the search strategy and associated data analyses.

Conclusions

The results will be of importance to critical care physicians and hospitalists who manage severe infection and COVID-19 in daily practice, and they may directly inform international clinical guidance. Although our systematic review will incorporate the most recent trial evidence, ongoing trials may change our confidence in the estimates of effects, thereby necessitating iterative updates in the form of a living review.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020209187; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=209187

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/33989

Discordant and inappropriate discordant recommendations in consensus and evidence based guidelines: empirical analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines.

DESIGN

Empirical analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Recommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Paired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness).

RESULTS

The study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach.

CONCLUSION

Consensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Validation of an internationally derived patient severity phenotype to support COVID-19 analytics from electronic health record data

OBJECTIVE

The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve 4CE sites participated. First, we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of 6 code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity with the 4CE phenotype at 1 site.

RESULTS

The full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability-up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean area under the curve of 0.903 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.921), compared with an area under the curve of 0.956 (95% confidence interval, 0.952-0.959) for the machine learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared with chart review.

DISCUSSION

We developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly owing to heterogeneous pandemic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Efficacy of corticosteroid in patients with COVID-19: A multi-center retrospective study and meta-analysis

To evaluate the efficacy of corticosteroids on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with different levels of disease severity. In our multicenter study, 543 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were classified as non-severe group and severe group, and then were compared respectively for all-cause mortality and length of hospital stay between those who received corticosteroids and not. By searching in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and CNKI, we identified 13 retrospective studies and 6 random control trials eligible for criteria of inclusion, and conducted comprehensive meta-analyses assessing the impacts of corticosteroids on mortality, length of stay, duration of RNA clearance and duration of fever. Our multicenter study demonstrated that low-dose corticosteroids can reduce mortality in the multivariable Cox regression analysis for severe patients (p = .03), while presented no influence in univariable analysis for non-severe patients (p = .14). From multivariable analyses, patients with corticosteroids in non-severe group had longer duration of hospitalization (p = .003), but did not in severe group (p = .18). Moreover, for severe patients, corticosteroids can evidently shorten duration of fever. The same results were summarized in the meta-analyses supplemented with the result that corticosteroids delayed viral clearing in non-severe patients. Corticosteroids should be considered based on patient's condition. For patients with non-severe COVID-19, corticosteroid was not recommended as a routine therapeutic initiative as that presented prolonged duration of hospitalization and delayed viral clearing, as well as no positive impact on prognosis. While low-dose corticosteroids may benefit patients with severe COVID-19 for it can manifestly lower risk of death and improve the clinical status to some extent.

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

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

Convalescent Plasma Transfusion for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Adults: A Global Perspective

More than one year into the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare systems across the world continue to be overwhelmed with soaring daily cases. The treatment spectrum primarily includes ventilation support augmented with repurposed drugs and/or convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) from recovered COVID-19 patients. Despite vaccine variants being recently developed and administered in several countries, challenges in global supply chain logistics limit their timely availability to the wider world population, particularly in developing countries. Given the measured success of conventional CPT in treating several infections over the past decade, recent studies have reported its effectiveness in decreasing the duration and severity of COVID-19 symptoms. In this review, we conduct a literature search of published studies investigating the use of CPT to treat COVID-19 patients from January 2020 to January 2021. The literature search identified 181 records of which 39 were included in this review. A random-effects model was used to aggregate data across studies, and mortality rates of 17 vs. 32% were estimated for the CPT and control patient groups, respectively, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.49. The findings indicate that CPT shows potential in reducing the severity and duration of COVID-19 symptoms. However, early intervention (preferably within 3 days), recruitment of donors, and plasma potency introduce major challenges for its scaled-up implementation. Given the low number of existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs, four with a total of 319 patients), unanticipated risks to CPT recipients are highlighted and discussed. Nevertheless, CPT remains a promising COVID-19 therapeutic option that merits internationally coordinated RCTs to achieve a scientific risk-benefit consensus.

COVID-19 in Children: Respiratory Involvement and Some Differences With the Adults

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a health problem with multidimensional impacts and heterogeneous respiratory involvement in children, probably due to the interaction between different and complex mechanisms that could explain its variable degrees of severity. Although the majority of reports reveal that children develop less severe cases, the number of patients is increasing with more morbidity. Most serious respiratory manifestations are acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pneumonia. By understanding the key aspects that can be used to differentiate between pediatric and adult respiratory compromise by COVID-19, we can improve our knowledge, and thus decrease the negative impact of the disease in the pediatric population. In this mini review, we summarize some of the mechanisms and findings that distinguish between adult and pediatric COVID-19 and respiratory involvement, taking into account some issues related to the physiopathology, diagnosis, clinical and paraclinical presentation, severity, treatment, and control of the disease.

All-cause mortality among patients treated with repurposed antivirals and antibiotics for COVID-19 in Mexico City: A real-world observational study

The aim of our study was to evaluate all-cause mortality risk in patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Mexico City treated with repurposed antivirals and antibiotics. This real-world retrospective cohort study contemplated 395,343 patients evaluated for suspected COVID-19 between February 24 and September 14, 2020 in 688 primary-to-tertiary medical units in Mexico City. Patients were included with a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2; those receiving unspecified antivirals, excluded; and groups of antivirals prescribed in < 30 patients, eliminated. Survival and mortality risks were determined for patients receiving antivirals, antibiotics, both, or none. We assessed the effect of early (<2 days) versus late (>2 days) use of antivirals on mortality in a sub-cohort of patients. Multivariable adjustment, propensity score matching, generalized estimating equations, and calculation of E-values were performed to limit confounding. 136,855 patients were analyzed; mean age 44.2 (SD:16.8) years; 51.3 % were men. 16.6 % received antivirals (3 %), antibiotics (10 %), or both (3.6 %). Antivirals studied were Oseltamivir (n=8414), Amantadine (n=319), Lopinavir-Ritonavir (n=100), Rimantadine (n=61), Zanamivir (n=39), and Acyclovir (n=36). Survival with antivirals (73.7 %, p<0.0001) and antibiotics (85.8 %, p<0.0001) was lower than no antiviral/antibiotic (93.6 %). After multivariable adjustment, increased risk of death occurred with antivirals (HR=1.72, 95 % CI: 1.61-1.84) in ambulatory (HR=4.7, 95 % CI: 3.94-5.62) and non-critical (HR=2.03, 95 % CI: 1.86-2.21) patients. Oseltamivir increased mortality risk in the general population (HR=1.72, 95 % CI: 1.61-1.84), ambulatory (HR=4.79, 95 % CI: 4.01-5.75), non-critical (HR=2.05, 95 % CI: 1.88-2.23), and pregnancy (HR=8.35, 95 % CI: 1.77-39.30); as well as hospitalized (HR=1.13, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.26) and critical patients (HR=1.22, 95 % CI: 1.05-1.43) after propensity score-matching. Early versus late oseltamivir did not modify the risk. Antibiotics were a risk factor in general population (HR=1.13, 95 % CI: 1.08-1.19) and pediatrics (HR=4.22, 95 % CI: 2.01-8.86), but a protective factor in hospitalized (HR=0.81, 95 % CI: 0.77-0.86) and critical patients (HR=0.67, 95 % CI: 0.63-0.72). No significant benefit for repurposed antivirals was observed; oseltamivir was associated with increased mortality. Antibiotics increased mortality risk in the general population but may increase survival in hospitalized and critical patients.

Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines.

METHODS

We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID-19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID-19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19 across the included guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X-rays, lung ultrasound, RT-PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID-19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID-19 are RT-PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID-19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.

Pregnancy and COVID-19: pharmacologic considerations

In this review, we summarize evidence regarding the use of routine and investigational pharmacologic interventions for pregnant and lactating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Antenatal corticosteroids may be used routinely for fetal lung maturation between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation, but decisions in those with critical illness and those < 24 or > 34 weeks' gestation should be made on a case-by-case basis. Magnesium sulfate may be used for seizure prophylaxis and fetal neuroprotection, albeit cautiously in those with hypoxia and renal compromise. There are no contraindications to using low-dose aspirin to prevent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications when indicated. An algorithm for thromboprophylaxis in pregnant patients with COVID-19 is presented, which considers disease severity, timing of delivery in relation to disease onset, inpatient vs outpatient status, underlying comorbidities and contraindications to the use of anticoagulation. Nitrous oxide may be administered for labor analgesia while using appropriate personal protective equipment. Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia should be used with caution in patients with respiratory depression. Liberal use of neuraxial labor analgesia may reduce the need for emergency general anesthesia which results in aerosolization. Short courses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be administered for postpartum analgesia, but opioids should be used with caution due to the risk of respiratory depression. For mechanically ventilated pregnant patients, neuromuscular blockade should be used for the shortest duration possible and reversal agents should be available on hand if delivery is imminent. To date, dexamethasone is the only proven and recommended experimental treatment for pregnant patients with COVID-19 who are mechanically ventilated or who require supplemental oxygen. Although hydroxycholoroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir may be used during pregnancy and lactation within the context of clinical trials, data from non-pregnant populations have not shown benefit. The role of monoclonal antibodies (tocilizumab), immunomodulators (tacrolimus), interferon, inhaled nitric oxide and convalescent plasma in pregnancy and lactation needs further evaluation. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

COVID-19 Treatment: Drug Safety Prior to Conception and During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding

In December 2019, a new viral respiratory infection known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first diagnosed in the city of Wuhan, China. COVID-19 quickly spread across the world, leading the World Health Organization to declare it a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The disease is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a similar virus to those involved in other epidemics such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Epidemiological studies have shown that COVID-19 frequently affects young adults of reproductive age and that the elderly and patients with chronic disease have high mortality rates. Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy and breastfeeding. Most COVID-19 cases present with mild flu-like symptoms and only require treatment with symptomatic relief medications, whereas other cases with COVID-19 require treatment in an intensive care unit. There is currently no specific effective treatment for COVID-19. A large number of drugs are being used to fight infection by SARS-CoV-2. Experience with this therapeutic arsenal has been gained over the years in the treatment of other viral, autoimmune, parasitic, and bacterial diseases. Importantly, the search for an effective treatment for COVID-19 cannot expose pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 to the potential teratogenic risks of these drugs. Therefore, it is necessary to determine and understand the safety of anti-COVID-19 therapies prior to conception and during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Prediction and follow-up of risk factors for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and application of CT visual scoring

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia infection is associated with high rates of hospitalization and mortality and this has placed healthcare systems under strain. Our study provides a novel method for the progress prediction, clinical treatment and prognosis of NCP, and has important clinical value for timely treatment of severe NCP patients.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the clinical features and severe illness risk factors of the patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP), in order to provide support for the progression prediction, clinical treatment and prognosis of NCP patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 196 NCP patients treated in our hospital from January 25, 2020 to June 21, 2020 were divided into the severe group and the mild group. The clinical features of the two groups were analyzed and compared. The risk factors were explored by using multivariate logistic regression, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was obtained. The correlations of the risk factors with the prognosis of NCP were investigated combined with the lung function test.

RESULTS

The primary clinical symptoms of 196 cases of NCP included fever in 167 cases (85.2%) and cough in 121 cases (61.73%). The chest computed tomography (CT) scans of the 178 cases (90.81%) showed a typical ground-glass opacification. In 149 cases, the lymphocyte count was decreased, while the levels of creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), c-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and D-dimer (D-D) increased. 44 cases (22.45%) were found to be severely ill. The multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that age, underlying disease, length of hospital stay, body mass index (BMI), LDH, chest CT visual score, absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and CRP were risk factors for severe.

Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the "MATH+" Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19

In December 2019, COVID-19, a severe respiratory illness caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan, China. The greatest impact that COVID-19 had was on intensive care units (ICUs), given that approximately 20% of hospitalized cases developed acute respiratory failure (ARF) requiring ICU admission. Based on the assumption that COVID-19 represented a viral pneumonia and no anti-coronaviral therapy existed, nearly all national and international health care societies' recommended "supportive care only" avoiding other therapies outside of randomized controlled trials, with a specific prohibition against the use of corticosteroids in treatment. However, early studies of COVID-19-associated ARF reported inexplicably high mortality rates, with frequent prolonged durations of mechanical ventilation (MV), even from centers expert in such supportive care strategies. These reports led the authors to form a clinical expert panel called the Front-Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (www.flccc.net). The panel collaboratively reviewed the emerging clinical, radiographic, and pathological reports of COVID-19 while initiating multiple discussions among a wide clinical network of front-line clinical ICU experts from initial outbreak areas in China, Italy, and New York. Based on the shared early impressions of "what was working and what wasn't working," the increasing medical journal publications and the rapidly accumulating personal clinical experiences with COVID-19 patients, a treatment protocol was created for the hospitalized patients based on the core therapies of methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, heparin and co-interventions (MATH+). This manuscript reviews the scientific and clinical rationale behind MATH+ based on published in-vitro, pre-clinical, and clinical data in support of each medicine, with a special emphasis of studies supporting their use in the treatment of patients with viral syndromes and COVID-19 specifically. The review concludes with a comparison of published multi-national mortality data with MATH+ center outcomes.

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in a Time of COVID-19

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a serious illness with significant morbidity and mortality, characterized by hypoxemic respiratory failure most commonly due to pneumonia, sepsis, and aspiration. Early and accurate diagnosis of ARDS depends upon clinical suspicion and chest imaging. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an important novel cause of ARDS with a distinct time course, imaging and laboratory features from the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection to hypoxemic respiratory failure, which may allow diagnosis and management prior to or at earlier stages of ARDS. Treatment of ARDS remains largely supportive, and consists of incremental respiratory support (high flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive respiratory support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), and avoidance of iatrogenic complications, all of which improve clinical outcomes. COVID-19-associated ARDS is largely similar to other causes of ARDS with respect to pathology and respiratory physiology, and as such, COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure should typically be managed as other patients with ARDS. Non-invasive respiratory support may be beneficial in avoiding intubation in COVID-19 respiratory failure including mild ARDS, especially under conditions of resource constraints or to avoid overwhelming critical care resources. Compared to other causes of ARDS, medical therapies may improve outcomes in COVID-19-associated ARDS, such as dexamethasone and remdesivir. Future improved clinical outcomes in ARDS of all causes depends upon individual patient physiological and biological endotyping in order to improve accuracy and timeliness of diagnosis as well as optimal targeting of future therapies in the right patient at the right time in their disease.

Efficacité et innocuité du plasma de convalescent en cas de forme grave de COVID-19, extrapolée de données relatives à d’autres formes graves d’infections respiratoires virales : revue systématique et méta-analyse

CONTEXTE:

On ne connaît pas encore avec certitude l’innocuité et l’efficacité du plasma de convalescent comme traitement de la forme grave de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-2019). Afin d’appuyer la conception de lignes directrices sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons effectué une revue systématique et une méta-analyse sur l’utilisation du plasma de convalescent pour le traitement de cette maladie et d’autres formes graves d’infections respiratoires virales.

MÉTHODES:

En mars 2020, nous avons effectué des recherches dans des bases de données biomédicales internationales et chinoises, des registres d’essais cliniques et des sources prépubliées afin de recenser des essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et des études non randomisées comparant les issues de patients ayant reçu du plasma de convalescent à celles de patients n’en ayant pas reçu. Ont été inclus les patients ayant une infection aiguë attribuable à un coronavirus, au virus de l’influenza ou au virus Ebola. Nous avons également réalisé une méta-analyse à l’aide d’un modèle à effets aléatoires et évalué la qualité des données probantes au moyen de l’approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation ).

RÉSULTATS:

Sur les 1099 études uniques initialement repérées, 6 étaient admissibles, et aucune d’entre elles ne portait sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19. Une étude non randomisée (n = 40) sur l’administration de plasma de convalescent à des patients atteints du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS-CoV) a fourni des données peu concluantes sur le taux de mortalité (risque relatif [RR] 0,10; intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,01 à 1,70). Des estimations regroupées provenant de 4 ERC sur l’influenza (n = 572) n’ont pas montré d’effet manifeste sur le taux de mortalité (4 ERC; RR 0,94; IC de 95 % 0,49 à 1,81), le rétablissement complet (2 ERC; rapports de cotes [RC] 1,04; IC de 95 % 0,69 à 1,64) et la durée d’hospitalisation (3 ERC; différence moyenne [DM] −1,62; IC de 95 % −3,82 à 0,58 jours). La qualité des données était très faible pour tous les paramètres relatifs à l’efficacité. Dans les ERC sur l’influenza, aucun ou peu d’événements indésirables graves ont été associés au plasma de convalescent (RR 0,85; IC de 95 % 0,56 à 1,29; données de faible qualité).

INTERPRÉTATION:

Les études portant sur des formes graves d’infections respiratoires virales autres que la COVID-19 ont fourni des données indirectes de très faible qualité semblant indiquer que le plasma de convalescent n’offre aucun bénéfice ou offre des bénéfices minimes pour le traitement de la COVID-19, de même que des données de faible qualité montrant qu’il n’entraîne pas d’événements indésirables graves.

Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis-Immune Hyperresponse-Inflammation Triad in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact of Pharmacological and Nutraceutical Approaches

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic infection caused by a novel coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Patients present a complex clinical picture that, in severe cases, evolves to respiratory, hepatic, gastrointestinal, and neurological complications, and eventually death. The underlying pathophysiological mechanisms are complex and multifactorial and have been summarized as a hyperresponse of the immune system that originates an inflammatory/cytokine storm. In elderly patients, particularly in those with pre-existing cardiovascular, metabolic, renal, and pulmonary disorders, the disease is particularly severe, causing prolonged hospitalization at intensive care units (ICU) and an increased mortality rate. Curiously, the same populations have been described as more prone to a gut microbiota (GM) dysbiosis profile. Intestinal microflora plays a major role in many metabolic and immune functions of the host, including to educate and strengthen the immune system to fight infections, namely of viral origin. Notably, recent studies suggest the existence of GM dysbiosis in COVID-19 patients. This review article highlights the interplay between the triad GM dysbiosis-immune hyperresponse-inflammation in the individual resilience/fragility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and presents the putative impact of pharmacological and nutraceutical approaches on the triumvirate, with focus on GM.

Differences between Clinical Protocols for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Andalusia, Spain

Our objective was to compare clinical protocols for the treatment of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among different hospitals in Andalusia, Spain. We reviewed the current COVID-19 protocols of the 15 largest hospitals in Andalusia. Antiviral treatment, empirical antibacterial agents, adjunctive therapies, anticoagulant treatment, supportive care, hospital organization, and discharge recommendations were analyzed. All protocols included were the latest updates as of July 2020. Hydroxychloroquine in monotherapy was the most frequent antiviral drug recommended for mild respiratory illness with clinical risk factors (33.3%). Combined hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin or lopinavir/ritonavir was found in 40% of protocols. The recommended treatment for patients with mild and moderate pneumonias was different antiviral combinations including hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (93.3%) or hydroxychloroquine plus lopinavir/ritonavir (79.9%). Different combinations of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir (46.7%) and triple therapy with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir (40%) were the most recommended treatments for patients with severe pneumonia. There were five corticosteroid regimens, which used dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, or prednisone, with different doses and treatment durations. Anakinra was included in seven protocols with six different regimens. All protocols included prophylactic heparin and therapeutic doses for thromboembolism. Higher prophylactic doses of heparin for high-risk patients and therapeutic doses for patients in critical condition were included in 53.3% and 33.3% of protocols, respectively. This study showed that COVID-19 protocols varied widely in several aspects (antiviral treatment, corticosteroids, anakinra, and anticoagulation for high risk of thrombosis or critical situation). Rigorous randomized clinical trials on the proposed treatments are needed to provide consistent evidence.

Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Remdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems.

THE EVIDENCE

The linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

Most patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials.

Lopinavir-ritonavir for COVID-19: A living systematic review

Objective

Provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and other 33 sources. We searched for randomized trials and non-randomized studies evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies, according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data using a predesigned standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Our search strategy yielded 862 references. Finally, we identified 12 studies, including two randomized trials, evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir, in addition to standard care versus standard care alone in 250 adult inpatients with COVID-19. The evidence from randomized trials shows lopinavir/ritonavir may reduce mortality (relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 1.3; low certainty evidence), but the anticipated magnitude of the absolute reduction in mortality, varies across different risk groups. Lopinavir/ritonavir also had a slight reduction in the risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, developing respiratory failure, or acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it did not lead to any difference in the duration of hospitalization and may lead to an increase in the number of total adverse effects. The overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low.

Conclusions

For severe and critical patients with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir might play a role in improving outcomes, but the available evidence is still limited. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers soon.

Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma for severe COVID-19 based on evidence in other severe respiratory viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. To support a guideline on COVID-19 management, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory viral infections.

METHODS

In March 2020, we searched international and Chinese biomedical literature databases, clinical trial registries and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing patients receiving and not receiving convalescent plasma. We included patients with acute coronavirus, influenza and Ebola virus infections. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Of 1099 unique records, 6 studies were eligible, and none of these included patients with COVID-19. One nonrandomized study (n = 40) on convalescent plasma in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) provided uninformative results regarding mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.01 to 1.70). Pooled estimates from 4 RCTs on influenza (n = 572) showed no convincing effects on deaths (4 RCTs, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81), complete recovery (2 RCTs, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.64) or length of stay (3 RCTs, mean difference -1.62, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.58, d). The quality of evidence was very low for all efficacy outcomes. Convalescent plasma caused few or no serious adverse events in influenza RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29, low-quality evidence).

INTERPRETATION

Studies of non-COVID-19 severe respiratory viral infections provide indirect, very low-quality evidence that raises the possibility that convalescent plasma has minimal or no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and low-quality evidence that it does not cause serious adverse events.

First case of convalescent plasma transfusion in a child with COVID-19-associated severe aplastic anemia

We present the case of a six-year-old girl with severe COVID-19, in whom SARS-CoV-2 was successfully eliminated after convalescent plasma transfusion. Children show a variable clinical course of COVID-19, from asymptomatic to critical. In our patient, we diagnosed COVID-19-associated aplastic anemia with severe pancytopenia. The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 infection with aplastic anemia remains unclear. At the beginning of the disease, we used antiviral drugs and immune modulators as therapy but without any positive results. After providing a transfusion of convalescent plasma, the elimination of SARS-CoV-2 was observed. We did not observe any adverse events of this treatment. The girl still has a diagnosis of aplastic anemia and requires specialist therapy.

Role of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in the Treatment of Covid-19: A Review of Current Evidence, Guideline Recommendations, and Perspectives

A life-threatening respiratory illness (COVID-19) due to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 coronavirus was first described in December 2019 in Wuhan (China), rapidly evolving into a pandemic. In the first phase, when the viral replication plays a pivotal pathogenetic role, antiviral drugs could be crucial in limiting viral-induced organ damage. Unfortunately, there are no specific antivirals of proven efficacy for COVID-19, and several drugs have been repurposed to face this dramatic pandemic. In this paper we review the studies evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir association (LPV/r) use in COVID-19, and previously in SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We searched PubMed to identify all relevant clinical and laboratory studies published up to 15 May 2020; the guidelines on the use of LPV/r in COVID-19 were further directly searched on the website of the main international scientific societies and agencies. Available evidence is currently scarce and of low quality. The recommendations issued for COVID-19 vary from positions clearly against the use of LPV/r to other positions that are more favorable. In our opinion, despite the controversial results of an important randomized clinical trial, and some recommendations, clinicians should not abandon the use of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19, possibly using this drug inside a prospective randomized trial, waiting for the results of the numerous ongoing trials evaluating its efficacy.

Calcineurin inhibitors revisited: A new paradigm for COVID-19?

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can cause mild, moderate or severe disease (COVID-19). In severe disease, there is hyperinflammation causing severe symptoms. Severe COVID-19 is an immunological phenomenon, rather than a direct viral damage disease. Therapies for COVID-19 are all investigational therapies. In case of severe disease, treatment with a calcineurin inhibitor could be promising. In this article we explain the mechanisms of calcineurin inhibitor treatment for COVID-19, based on experiences seen in solid organ transplant recipients who suffered from COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of antiviral treatment for COVID-19 from evidence in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes.

RESULTS

In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.

INTERPRETATION

To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19 based on evidence for COVID-19, other coronavirus infections, influenza, community-acquired pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Very little direct evidence exists on use of corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Indirect evidence from related conditions must therefore inform inferences regarding benefits and harms. To support a guideline for managing COVID-19, we conducted systematic reviews examining the impact of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and related severe acute respiratory illnesses.

METHODS

We searched standard international and Chinese biomedical literature databases and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). For acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), influenza and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we updated the most recent rigorous systematic review. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and then used baseline risk in patients with COVID-19 to generate absolute effects.

RESULTS

In ARDS, according to 1 small cohort study in patients with COVID-19 and 7 RCTs in non-COVID-19 populations (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.93, mean difference 17.3% fewer; low-quality evidence), corticosteroids may reduce mortality. In patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, direct evidence from 2 observational studies provided very low-quality evidence of an increase in mortality with corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.29, mean difference 11.9% more), as did observational data from influenza studies. Observational data from SARS and MERS studies provided very low-quality evidence of a small or no reduction in mortality. Randomized controlled trials in CAP suggest that corticosteroids may reduce mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98, 3.1% lower; very low-quality evidence), and may increase hyperglycemia.

INTERPRETATION

Corticosteroids may reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 and ARDS. For patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, evidence regarding benefit from different bodies of evidence is inconsistent and of very low quality.