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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28).

CONCLUSION

Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted.

Drug Repurposing in Oncology: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

Quality pharmacological treatment can improve survival in many types of cancer. Drug repurposing offers advantages in comparison with traditional drug development procedures, reducing time and risk. This systematic review identified the most recent randomized controlled clinical trials that focus on drug repurposing in oncology. We found that only a few clinical trials were placebo-controlled or standard-of-care-alone-controlled. Metformin has been studied for potential use in various types of cancer, including prostate, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Other studies assessed the possible use of the antiparasitic agent mebendazole in colorectal cancer and of propranolol in multiple myeloma or, when combined with etodolac, in breast cancer. We were able to identify trials that study the potential use of known antineoplastics in other non-oncological conditions, such as imatinib for severe coronavirus disease in 2019 or a study protocol aiming to assess the possible repurposing of leuprolide for Alzheimer's disease. Major limitations of these clinical trials were the small sample size, the high clinical heterogeneity of the participants regarding the stage of the neoplastic disease, and the lack of accounting for multimorbidity and other baseline clinical characteristics. Drug repurposing possibilities in oncology must be carefully examined with well-designed trials, considering factors that could influence prognosis.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for severe COVID-19 patients: An updated network meta-analysis of 48 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To date, there has been little agreement on what drug is the "best" drug for treating severe COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 28, 2022, with no language restrictions, of medications recommended for patients (aged 16 years or older) with severe COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on trials and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (ACM), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

We identified 4021 abstracts and of these included 48 RCTs comprising 9147 participants through database searches and other sources. For decrease in ACM, we found that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG (i.e., a hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenous immunoglobulin), methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/standard-of-care (SOC), interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, high dosage sarilumab (HS), auxora, and imatinib were effective when compared with placebo or SOC group. We found that colchicine and interferon-beta/SOC were only associated with the TEAEs of severe COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG, methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/SOC, interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma (CP), remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, HS, auxora, and imatinib were efficacious for treating severe COVID-19 patients. We found that most medications were safe in treating severe COVID-19. More large-scale RCTs are still needed to confirm the results of this study.

Benefits of probiotic use on COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes the new global pandemic, which has already resulted in millions of deaths, affecting the world's health and economy. Probiotics have shown benefits in a variety of diseases, including respiratory infections, and may be beneficial in the adjunctive treatment of COVID-19. This study analyzed the effectiveness of probiotics as adjunctive treatment in reducing symptoms of patients with COVID-19, through a systematic review with meta-analysis. The EMBASE (Elsevier), Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched through March 16, 2022. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was estimated using a fixed-effect model. RoB 2 and ROBINS I were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Nine studies were included (7 clinical trials and 2 cohorts), of which three clinical trials comprised the meta-analysis. Results showed that probiotics were associated with a significant 51% reduction in symptoms reported by COVID-19 patients (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40-0.61). There was a significant improvement in cough (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.83), headaches (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.65), and diarrhea (RR 0. 33, 95% CI 0.12-0.96) of patients on probiotic therapy. These findings suggest that probiotic supplementation is effective in improving symptoms of COVID-19.

Efficacy of umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

A major challenge for COVID-19 therapy is dysregulated immune response associated with the disease. Umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) may be a promising candidate for COVID-19 treatment owing to their immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory functions. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of UC-MSCs inpatients with COVID-19.

Method

Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to collect clinical trials concerning UC-MSCs for the treatment of COVID-19. After literature screening, quality assessment, and data extraction, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the included study were performed.

Results

This systematic review and meta-analysis were prospectively registered on PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42022304061. After screening, 10 studies involving 293 patients with COVID-19 were eventually included. Our meta-analysis results showed that UC-MSCs can reduce mortality (relative risk [RR] =0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.38, 0.95], P=0.03) in COVID-19 patients. No significant correlation was observed between adverse events and UC-MSC treatment (RR=0.85, 95% CI: [0.65, 1.10], P=0.22; RR=1.00, 95%CI: [0.64, 1.58], P=1.00). In addition, treatment with UC-MSCs was found to suppress inflammation and improve pulmonary symptoms.

Conclusions

UC-MSCs hold promise as a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

Systematic Review Registartion

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022304061.

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections: Overview of efficacy and duration of natural and hybrid immunity

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that more than a third and possibly more than half of the global population has been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by early 2022. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease is of crucial significance for the future. This narrative review provides an overview on epidemiological studies addressing this issue. National surveys covering 2020-2021 documented that a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a significantly reduced risk of reinfections with efficacy lasting for at least one year and only relatively moderate waning immunity. Importantly, natural immunity showed roughly similar effect sizes regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant for which data are just emerging before final conclusions can be drawn. Risk of hospitalizations and deaths was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to individuals receiving two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but data are not fully consistent. The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination, termed hybrid immunity, seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue. Natural immunity should be considered for public health policy regarding SARS-CoV-2.

Emerging small molecule antivirals may fit neatly into COVID-19 treatment

Numerous treatments exist for COVID-19, the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus, although most are not well established; among these are several small molecule antiviral agents. Intravenous remdesivir is an established treatment worldwide for inpatients and in some countries is also available for use in non-hospitalised high risk patients to prevent progression to severe disease and hospitalization. Oral molnupiravir and oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir are also available in several countries to prevent progression to severe disease and hospitalization for high-risk outpatients. Many other antiviral small molecules that may have therapeutic potential are under investigation in clinical trials. This article provides a summary of key molecular targets, pharmacology and preliminary data on the efficacy and safety of small molecule antiviral agents being investigated for the treatment of COVID-19.

Ofeleein i mi Vlaptin-Volume II: Immunity Following Infection or mRNA Vaccination, Drug Therapies and Non-Pharmacological Management at Post-Two Years SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

The persistence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered research into limiting transmission, morbidity and mortality, thus warranting a comprehensive approach to guide balanced healthcare policies with respect to people's physical and mental health. The mainstay priority during COVID-19 is to achieve widespread immunity, which could be established through natural contact or vaccination. Deep knowledge of the immune response combined with recent specific data indicates the potential inferiority of induced immunity against infection. Moreover, the prevention of transmission has been founded on general non-pharmacological measures of protection, albeit debate exists considering their efficacy and, among other issues, their socio-psychological burden. The second line of defense is engaged after infection and is supported by a plethora of studied agents, such as antibiotics, steroids and non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs, antiviral medications and other biological agents that have been proposed, though variability in terms of benefits and adverse events has not allowed distinct solutions, albeit certain treatments might have a role in prevention and/or treatment of the disease. This narrative review summarizes the existing literature on the advantages and weaknesses of current COVID-19 management measures, thus underlining the necessity of acting based on the classical principle of "ofeleein i mi vlaptin", that is, to help or not to harm.

SARS-CoV-2: Recent Variants and Clinical Efficacy of Antibody-Based Therapy

Multiple variants of SARS-CoV-2 have emerged and are now prevalent at the global level. Currently designated variants of concern (VOCs) are B.1.1.7, B1.351, P.1, B.1.617.2 variants and B.1.1.529. Possible options for VOC are urgently required as they carry mutations in the virus spike protein that allow them to spread more easily and cause more serious illness. The primary targets for most therapeutic methods against SARS-CoV-2 are the S (Spike) protein and RBD (Receptor-Binding Domain), which alter the binding to ACE2 (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2). The most popular of these strategies involves the use of drug development targeting the RBD and the NTD (N-terminal domain) of the spike protein and multiple epitopes of the S protein. Various types of mutations have been observed in the RBDs of B.1.1.7, B1.351, P. and B.1.620. The incidence of RBD mutations increases the binding affinity to the ACE2 receptor. The high binding affinity of RBD and ACE2 has provided a structural basis for future evaluation of antibodies and drug development. Here we discuss the variants of SARS-CoV-2 and recent updates on the clinical evaluation of antibody-based treatment options. Presently, most of the antibody-based treatments have been effective in patients with SARS-CoV-2. However, there are still significant challenges in verifying independence, and the need for further clinical evaluation.

Efficacy and safety of current treatment interventions for patients with severe COVID-19 infection: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection. We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to April 30, 2021, with Chinese or English language restriction, of medications recommended for patients (aged 18 years or older) with severe COVID‐19 infection. We extracted data on trials and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all‐cause mortality (ACM), and treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). We identified 1855 abstracts and of these included 15 RCTs comprising 3073 participants through database searches and other sources. In terms of efficacy, compared with the standard of care (SOC) group, no significant decrease in ACM was found in α‐lipoic acid, convalescent plasma (CP), azithromycin, tocilizumab, methylprednisolone, interferon beta, CP/SOC, high dosage sarilumab, low dosage sarilumab, remdesivir, lopinavir–ritonavir, auxora, and placebo group. Compared with placebo, we found that a significant decrease in ACM was only found in methylprednisolone (odds ratio [OR]: 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03–0.75]. With respect to TEAEs, the CP group showed lower TEAEs than placebo (OR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01–0.58) or SOC (OR: 0.05, 95% CI: 0.01–0.42) group for the therapy of severe COVID‐19 patients. This study only demonstrated that methylprednisolone was superior to placebo in treating patients with severe COVID‐19 infection. Meanwhile, this further confirmed that the safety of other treatment interventions might be inferior to CP for the therapy of severe COVID‐19 patients.

We considered addressing direct and indirect comparisons of medications from the angle of severe COVID‐19 infection based on random controlled trials (RCTs)

We explored the difference of efficacy and safety of for the pharmaceutical interventions of severe COVID‐19 patients from different control conditions (i.e., placebo and SOC).

To date, the findings from this network meta‐analysis may represent much more comprehensive analysis for the medications of severe COVID‐19 infection.