Fluvoxamine Treatment of Patients with Symptomatic COVID-19 in a Community Treatment Center: A Preliminary Result of Randomized Controlled Trial

A systematic review and meta-analysis, investigating dose and time of fluvoxamine treatment efficacy for COVID-19 clinical deterioration, death, and Long-COVID complications

There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce the severity of the disease and prevent the need for hospitalization to avoid stress on healthcare systems worldwide. The repurposing of drugs to prevent clinical deterioration of COVID-19 patients was trialed in many studies using many different drugs. Fluvoxamine (an SSRI and sigma-1 receptor agonist) was initially identified to potentially provide beneficial effects in COVID-19-infected patients, preventing clinical deterioration and the need for hospitalization. Fourteen clinical studies have been carried out to date, with seven of those being randomized placebo-controlled studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis covers the literature from the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 until January 2024. Search terms related to fluvoxamine, such as its trade names and chemical names, along with words related to COVID-19, such as SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus, were used in literature databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ClinicalTrials.gov database from NIH, to identify the trials used in the subsequent analysis. Clinical deterioration and death data were extracted from these studies where available and used in the meta-analysis. A total of 7153 patients were studied across 14 studies (both open-label and double-blind placebo-controlled). 681 out of 3553 (19.17%) in the standard care group and 255 out of 3600 (7.08%) in the fluvoxamine-treated group experienced clinical deterioration. The estimated average log odds ratio was 1.087 (95% CI 0.200 to 1.973), which differed significantly from zero (z = 2.402, p = 0.016). The seven placebo-controlled studies resulted in a log odds ratio of 0.359 (95% CI 0.1111 to 0.5294), which differed significantly from zero (z = 3.103, p = 0.002). The results of this study identified fluvoxamine as effective in preventing clinical deterioration, and subgrouping analysis suggests that earlier treatment with a dose of 200 mg or above provides the best outcomes. We hope the outcomes of this study can help design future studies into respiratory viral infections and potentially improve clinical outcomes.

The efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluvoxamine have been successfully conducted for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs which were performed to evaluate fluvoxamine and placebo up to January 31, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 was used to perform meta-analysis. The risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) was analyzed and calculated with a random effect model.

RESULTS

We pooled 4,711 participants from six RCTs (2,382 in the fluvoxamine group and 2,329 in the placebo group). Compared to the placebo group, the fluvoxamine group had a significantly lower rate of clinical deterioration (RR, 0.73; P = 0.004; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; I2 = 0%) and hospitalization (RR, 0.76; P = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.99; I2 = 0%). In the meantime, compared with the placebo group, fluvoxamine group did not show any higher risk of AEs (P = 0.13 and 0.91, respectively) in safety outcomes analysis. The subgroup analysis showed that fluvoxamine treatment performed more than 200 mg daily appears to be more effective than those performed less than 200 mg daily in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalization risks, while not exhibiting higher AE and SAE risks than placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19, especially those who take 200 mg or more daily, is superior to the placebo group in reducing clinical deterioration and hospitalization, and did not show any higher risk of AEs and SAEs in safety concerns, which might be a promising intervention for COVID-19.

Evaluating fluvoxamine for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the outpatient management of COVID-19. We conducted this review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL up to 14 September 2023. Outcomes included incidence of hospitalisation, healthcare utilization (emergency room visits and/or hospitalisation), mortality, supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilation requirements, serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-adherence. Fluvoxamine 100 mg twice a day was associated with reductions in the risk of hospitalisation (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.97; I 2  = 0%) and reductions in the risk of healthcare utilization (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.86; I 2  = 0%). While no increased SAEs were observed, fluvoxamine 100 mg twice a day was associated with higher treatment non-adherence compared to placebo (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.22-2.14; I 2  = 53%). In subgroup analyses, fluvoxamine reduced healthcare utilization in outpatients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , but not in those with lower BMIs. While fluvoxamine offers potential benefits in reducing healthcare utilization, its efficacy may be most pronounced in high-risk patient populations. The observed non-adherence rates highlight the need for better patient education and counselling. Future investigations should reassess trial endpoints to include outcomes relating to post-COVID sequelaes. Registration: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023463829).

The real-world effectiveness of fluvoxamine therapy in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients; A historical cohort study (Fluvoxa Trial)

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine (FVX) has been proposed as a potential treatment for severe COVID-19 by the σ-1 receptor agonist, which can reduce cytokine production. However, the efficacy of FVX remains controversial.

METHODS

A historical retrospective cohort study was conducted in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients, 2:1 ratio of standard of care (SOC) and FVX treatments to assess the effectiveness of FVX in preventing deterioration by the fifth day of treatment.

RESULTS

Of 752 eligible patients, 234 received FVX while 518 received SOC, and there was no significant difference in the effectiveness of FVX and SOC in preventing clinical deterioration. On the fifth day after treatment, 86.1 % of patients in the FVX-treated group did not experience clinical deterioration compared to 78.7 % in the SOC group. Notably, the FVX group had higher rates of pneumonia development and hospitalization, requiring more oxygen supplementation while showing less reduction in viral shedding than the SOC group. However, no difference in mechanical ventilation use, ICU admission, and survival was observed.

CONCLUSION

Fluvoxamine treatment is failed to demonstrate effectiveness in preventing deterioration in mild to moderate COVID-19 and may lead to a higher incidence of pneumonia, hospitalization, and oxygen supplementation, necessitating careful consideration before prescribing the drug for COVID-19.

Efficacy and Safety of Fluvoxamine as Outpatient Treatment for Patients With Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine may be beneficial for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) because of its effect on the sigma-1 receptor. Available evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) has shown conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to analyze the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an outpatient treatment for Covid-19.

METHODS

Using specific keywords, we comprehensively go through the potential articles on PubMed, Scopus, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov sources until February 1, 2023. We collected all published clinical trials on fluvoxamine and Covid-19. We were using Review Manager 5.4 to conduct statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We include a total of 6 trials. Our pooled analysis revealed that fluvoxamine did not offer any significant benefit when compared with placebo in reducing the risk of clinical deterioration (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.65-1.06, P = 0.14, I2 = 29%), and hospitalization (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.62-1.04, P = 0.09, I2 = 0%) of Covid-19 outpatients. The serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study indicates that although safe, fluvoxamine was not effective for outpatient treatment of Covid-19. Until more evidence can be obtained from larger RCTs, our study did not encourage the use of fluvoxamine as routine management for patients with Covid-19.

Does haste make waste? Prevalence and types of errors reported after publication of studies of COVID-19 therapeutics

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred publication of a rapid proliferation of studies on potential therapeutic agents. While important for the advancement of clinical care, pressure to collect, analyze, and report data in an expedited manner could potentially increase the rate of important errors, some of which would be captured in published errata. We hypothesized that COVID-19 therapeutic studies published in the early years of the pandemic would be associated with a high rate of published errata and that, within these errata, there would be a high prevalence of serious errors.

METHODS

We performed a review of published errata associated with empirical studies of COVID-19 treatments. Errata were identified via a MEDLINE and Embase search spanning January 2020 through September 2022. Errors located within each published erratum were characterized by location within publication, error type, and error seriousness.

RESULTS

Of 47 studies on COVID-19 treatments with published errata, 18 met inclusion criteria. Median time from publication of the original article to publication of the associated erratum was 76 days (range, 12-511 days). A majority of errata addressed issues with author attribution or conflict of interest disclosures (39.5%) or numerical results (25.6%). Only one erratum contained a serious error: a typographical error which could have misled readers into believing that the treatment in question had serious adverse effects when in fact it did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite accelerated publication times, we found among studies of COVID-19 treatments the majority of errata (17/18) reported minor errors that did not lead to misinterpretation of the study results. Retractions, an indicator of scientific misdirection even more concerning than errata, were beyond the scope of this review.

Efficacy of combination therapy of fluvoxamine and favipiravir vs favipiravir monotherapy to prevent severe COVID-19 among mild to moderate COVID-19 patients: Open-label randomized controlled trial (EFFaCo study)

OBJECTIVES

Fluvoxamine (FVX) is an antidepressant proposed to its immunomodulatory effects in preventing deterioration in mild and moderate COVID-19.

METHODS

An open-label, 1:1 randomized controlled trial was assigned either combination therapy 50 mg twice daily of FVX for 10 days and favipiravir (FPV) or FPV alone to assess the efficacy in preventing disease progression in mild to moderate COVID-19 on the 5th day.

RESULTS

In total, 134 patients with mild COVID-19 received FPV and 132 received FVX/FPV, 31 patients with moderate COVID-19 received FPV/dexamethasone (FPV/Dex), and 30 received FVX/FPV/Dex. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed no difference of no clinical deterioration on the 5th day in both mild COVID-19 (100% in FPV vs 97% in FVX/FPV) and moderate COVID-19 (83.9% in FPV/Dex vs 86.7% in FVX/FPV/Dex). However, there was a low rate of oxygen supplemental, hospitalization, or intensive care in both groups and zero death in all groups. No significant difference in oxygen supplemental, hospitalization, radiological, virological, or biochemical outcomes, and the immunomodulatory effect was observed between the group.

CONCLUSION

The combined fluvoxamine treatment did not add benefit in preventing deterioration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 without the immunomodulatory effect observed, although it demonstrated low hospitalization rates, oxygen supplemental, intensive care needed, and zero mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Thai clinical trials registry (TCTR) no. 20210615002.

Outpatients prescribed with fluvoxamine around the time of COVID-19 diagnosis are not at a reduced risk of subsequent hospitalization and death compared to their non-prescribed peers: population-based matched cohort study

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of exposure to fluvoxamine around the COVID-19 diagnosis on subsequent hospitalizations and mortality in COVID-19 outpatients in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Using nationwide administrative data, we identified adult COVID-19 outpatients diagnosed up to August 15, 2021 and conducted two cohort studies. Study 1 included subjects prescribed fluvoxamine around the index COVID-19 diagnosis (Cohort A), their peers suffering similar psychiatric difficulties but not prescribed fluvoxamine (Cohort B) and those free of psychiatric difficulties/treatments (Cohort C). Study 2 included subjects prescribed fluvoxamine (Cohort Fluvoxamine) and their peers prescribed paroxetine (Cohort Paroxetine). Cohorts were mutually exactly matched and incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization, 30-day all-cause hospitalization and of COVID-19-related mortality was estimated.

RESULTS

Of the 416,030 first-episode outpatients, Study 1 included 1016 Cohort A, 95,984 Cohort B and 275,804 Cohort C patients. Matched Cohort A (n = 749) vs. Cohort B (n = 31,336) relative risks (95%CI/CrI), frequentist and Bayes with skeptical, otpimistic and pesimistic priors, were COVID-related hospitalization 1.37 (0.56-3.33), 1.15 (0.55-2.11), 1.03 (0.56.1.96) and 1.43 (0.63-2.94), respectively; 30-day all-cause hospitalization 1.88 (0.76-4.67), 1.76 (1.39-2.25), 1.76 (1.39-2.24) and 1.86 (1.43-2.38), respectively; COVID-19-related mortality 0.73 (0.35-1.55), 0.93 (0.53-1.76), 0.79 (0.40-1.54) and 0.88 (0.37-2.11), respectively. Matched Cohort A vs. C (866 vs. 222,792) comparison yielded similar estimates, as did the matched Cohort Fluvoxamine vs. Paroxetine comparison in Study 2 (344 of 994 matched to 535 of 1796 patients).

CONSLUSION

Outpatients prescribed fluvoxamine around the time of COVID-19 diagnosis were not at a reduced risk of hospitalizations and mortality compared to their non-prescribed peers.

Acid sphingomyelinase (ASM) and COVID-19: A review of the potential use of ASM inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2

In the last 2 years, different pharmacological agents have been indicated as potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Specifically, drugs termed as functional inhibitors of acid sphingomyelinase (FIASMAs) have proved to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 replication using different types of cells. Those therapeutic agents share several chemical structure characteristics and some well-known representatives are fluoxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, and others. Most of the FIASMAs are primarily used as effective therapeutic agents to treat different pathologies, therefore, they are natural drug candidates for repositioning strategy. In this review, we summarize the two main proposed mechanisms mediating acid sphingomyelinase (ASM) inhibition and how they can explain the inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication by FIASMAs. The first mechanism implies a disruption in the lysosomal pH fall as the endosome-lysosome moves toward the interior of the cell. In fact, changes in cholesterol levels in endosome-lysosome membranes, which are associated with ASM inhibition is thought to be mediated by lysosomal proton pump (ATP-ase) inactivation. The second mechanism involves the formation of an extracellular ceramide-rich domain, which is blocked by FIASMAs. The ceramide-rich domains are believed to facilitate the SARS-CoV-2 entrance into the host cells.

Trial Sequential Analysis and Updated Meta-Analysis of Fluvoxamine on Clinical Deterioration in Adult Patients with Symptomatic COVID-19 Infection

Preliminary meta-analyses suggested that fluvoxamine was effective in treating COVID-19 infection. However, the reliability of this evidence has not yet been examined. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the inception of the databases to 5 February 2023. We used trial sequential analysis (TSA) to examine the reliability of the current existing evidence on the benefits of fluvoxamine on COVID-19 infection. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, as defined in the original study (reported as odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals), and the secondary outcome was hospitalization. In the TSA, we used the relative risk reduction thresholds of 10, 20, and 30%. The updated meta-analysis of the five RCTs showed that fluvoxamine was not associated with lower odds of clinical deterioration when compared with a placebo (OR: 0.81; 0.59-1.11). The effect of fluvoxamine lay within the futility boundary (i.e., lack of effect) when using a 30% relative risk reduction threshold. The effect estimates lay between the superiority and futility boundary using the 10% and 20% threshold, and the required size of information was not reached for these two thresholds. The effect of fluvoxamine on the odds of hospitalization was not statistically significant (0.76; 0.56-1.03). In conclusion, there is no reliable evidence that fluvoxamine, when compared to a placebo, reduces the relative risk of clinical deterioration among adult patients with COVID-19 infection by 30%, and a relative risk reduction of 20% or 10% is still uncertain. The role of fluvoxamine as a COVID-19 treatment cannot be justified.

Efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in COVID-19 management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment of acute COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions.

PARTICIPANTS

COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients.

INTERVENTIONS

SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis were compared against a placebo or standard of care.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Risk of bias was rated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials version 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events. RCT data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (N = 4197) and five observational studies (N = 1156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99) on the basis of moderate quality of evidence. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, but low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice a day) was not. Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased serious adverse events. Observational studies support the use of fluvoxamine and highlight fluoxetine as a possible alternative to SSRIs for the treatment of COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 in outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.

Overview of the potential use of fluvoxamine for COVID-19 and long COVID

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented a serious worldwide threat to public health since its emergence in late 2019. From a safety point of view, drug repurposing has received particular attention. Several clinical studies have demonstrated that the use of fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with potent sigma-1 receptor agonism, in the early-stage of infection might be associated with the prevention of clinical deterioration in individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection, although several reports have shown that a low dose of fluvoxamine may be ineffective. There is increasing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can cross the blood–brain barrier, resulting in a number of psychiatric and neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 survivors. Importantly, about half of COVID-19 survivors experience a variety of long-term sequelae, including psychiatric and neurologic symptoms, known as long COVID. In this priority review, the author presents an overview of the potential use of fluvoxamine in the treatment of COVID-19 and long COVID.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo.

LIMITATION

Many outcomes had few events and small samples.

CONCLUSION

Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Treatment Options for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Korea

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to threaten public health in Korea although several surges have passed in the past 3 years since 2019. Although patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 can usually recover at home, antiviral therapy to prevent disease progression and hospitalization is beneficial for those at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. The purpose of this article was to review how antivirals have been rolled out for the treatment of COVID-19 and how domestic and international guidelines for their use have evolved. Several evidence-based treatment guidelines have been developed in Korea, including those derived from domestic studies. Although many different antiviral agents were nominated as promising therapeutics at the onset of the pandemic, most failed to show efficacy in clinical trials. Currently, three types of antiviral agents-nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, and remdesivir-are available in Korea to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Each antiviral has its advantages and disadvantages. For most individuals, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is preferred because of its high efficacy and convenience of administration. When serious drug interactions occur or are expected with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration, 3 days of remdesivir treatment is shown to be a reasonable alternative. Molnupiravir may be prescribed with caution only if no other therapeutic options are available or acceptable.

Effect of fluvoxamine on outcomes of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis investigated the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published before June 25, 2022. Only clinical studies that compared the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine with other alternatives or placebos in the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included.

RESULTS

Four studies with 1814 patients, of whom 912 received fluvoxamine, were included in this study. Compared with the control group receiving placebo or no therapy, the study group receiving fluvoxamine demonstrated a lower risk of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95 % CI, 0.44-0.79; I2 = 26 %). In addition, the rate of hospitalization remained significantly lower in patients who received fluvoxamine than in the control group (OR, 0.69; 95 % CI, 0.51-0.94; I2 = 36 %). Although the study group demonstrated a lower risk of requirement of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission, and mortality than the control group, these differences were nonsignificant. Finally, fluvoxamine use was associated with a similar risk of adverse events as that observed in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Fluvoxamine can be safely used in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and can reduce the hospitalization rate or ED visits in these patients.

The effect of antidepressants on the severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clinical Depression and the subsequent low immunity is a comorbidity that can act as a risk factor for the severity of COVID-19 cases. Antidepressants such as Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors are associated with immune-modulatory effects, which dismiss inflammatory responses and reduce lung tissue damage. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of antidepressant drugs on the prognosis and severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus up to June 14, 2022. The following keywords were used: "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "2019-nCoV", "SSRI", "SNRI", "TCA", "MAOI", and "Antidepressant". A fixed or random-effect model assessed the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We considered P < 0.05 as statistically significant for publication bias. Data were analyzed by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, Version 2.0 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in our systematic review. Five of them were experimental with 2350, and nine of them were observational with 290,950 participants. Eight out of fourteen articles revealed the effect of antidepressants on reducing the severity of COVID-19. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors drugs, including Fluvoxamine, Escitalopram, Fluoxetine, and Paroxetine, and among the Serotonin-norepinephrine inhibitors medications Venlafaxine, are reasonably associated with reduced risk of intubation or death. Five studies showed no significant effect, and only one high risk of bias article showed the negative effect of antidepressants on the prognosis of Covid-19. The meta-analysis of clinical trials showed that fluvoxamine could significantly decrease the severity outcomes of COVID-19 (RR: 0.763; 95% CI: 0.602-0.966, I2: 0.0).

FINDINGS

Most evidence supports that the use of antidepressant medications, mainly Fluvoxamine, may decrease the severity and improve the outcome in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. Some studies showed contradictory findings regarding the effects of antidepressants on the severity of COVID-19. Further clinical trials should be conducted to clarify the effects of antidepressants on the severity of COVID-19.

Preliminary Guidelines for the Clinical Evaluation and Management of Long COVID

Long-lasting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms beyond 12 weeks, the so-called ‘long COVID’ have been increasingly reported worldwide. Long COVID can be manifested in various forms, and there is an increasing demand for proper assessment and management. However, it is challenging when trying to determine the best-practice standards of care based on the current evidence because there is no internationally agreed clinical definition or clear treatment pathway. Therefore, the present guidelines have been drafted to provide advice on diagnosis and management based on the latest updated available evidence and the consensus of expert opinion. So far, no standard test and drug treatment can be strongly recommended for patients with long COVID because of a lack of evidence. The present guidelines provide advice based on 12 key questions, including appropriate interventions for long COVID that can be used in clinical practice. Continuous careful observation and studies related to long COVID are needed for the long-term impact of COVID-19 and proper management for long COVID to be determined.