Hydroxychloroquine in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study

Impact of COVID-19 Medication (Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine) on High Frequency Hearing

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was ongoing investigation into potentially effective treatments. Antiviral medications such as Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine were employed to treat COVID-19 infections. However, limited studies have examined the adverse effects of these medications on hearing, particularly at extended high frequencies. This study included 10 subjects who had received medications like Azithromycin, a combination of Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine, and Hydroxychloroquine alone as part of their COVID-19 treatment. These subjects had previously undergone extended high-frequency audiometry testing (from 8 to 20 kHz) as part of another project conducted by the same department before contracting COVID-19. Post-COVID-19 extended high-frequency audiometry was performed 1 month after the patients received a negative RT-PCR report. The results were then compared using a Paired t-test. A significant shift in the thresholds of high frequencies above 8-20 kHz is found in subjects who had received Favipiravir and Hydroxychloroquine medications. We observed a significant impact of COVID-19 medications on high-frequency hearing, which tends to go unnoticed in regular pure-tone audiometry evaluations. Therefore, our study emphasizes the need for regular follow-ups, including detailed audiological assessments that incorporate extended high-frequency testing, at least once every 3 months for patients who have taken medications for COVID-19 treatment.

A linked physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for hydroxychloroquine and metabolite desethylhydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+) populations

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for malaria, systemic and chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Because HCQ has a proposed multimodal mechanism of action and a well-established safety profile, it is often investigated as a repurposed therapeutic for a range of indications. There is a large degree of uncertainty in HCQ pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters which complicates dose selection when investigating its use in new disease states. Complications with HCQ dose selection emerged as multiple clinical trials investigated HCQ as a potential therapeutic in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to uncertainty in baseline HCQ PK parameters, it was not clear if disease-related consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 would be expected to impact the PK of HCQ and its primary metabolite desethylhydroxychloroquine (DHCQ). To address the question whether SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 impacted HCQ and DHCQ PK, dried blood spot samples were collected from SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+) participants administered HCQ. When a previously published physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was used to fit the data, the variability in exposure of HCQ and DHCQ was not adequately captured and DHCQ concentrations were overestimated. Improvements to the previous PBPK model were made by incorporating the known range of blood to plasma concentration ratios (B/P) for each compound, adjusting HCQ and DHCQ distribution settings, and optimizing DHCQ clearance. The final PBPK model adequately captured the HCQ and DHCQ concentrations observed in SARS-CoV-2(-)/(+)participants, and incorporating COVID-19-associated changes in cytochrome P450 activity did not further improve model performance for the SARS-CoV-2(+) population.

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

Coronaviruses, Lysosomes, and Secondary Bacterial Infections: Coronaviruses Outsmart the Host

Lysosomes are key organelles that contribute to homeostatic functions such as autophagy-mediated recycling of cellular components and innate immune response through phagocytosis-mediated pathogen killing during infections. Viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has developed unique adaptation to not only avoid lysosome-mediated destruction but also actively utilize lysosomal machinery to both enter and exit cells. To survive the highly hostile lysosomal environment, coronaviruses deacidify the lysosomes, potentially by manipulating H+ ion exchange across the lysosomal lumen, ensuring coronavirus survival. At the same time, this deacidification not only impairs cellular homeostatic functions such as autophagy but also renders the host susceptible to secondary bacterial infections. Furthermore, lysosomal enzymes promote extensive cell death and tissue damage during secondary bacterial infections. Thus, targeting lysosomal pathways provide a great opportunity to limit both viral replication and subsequent negative impact on host immunity against secondary bacterial infections.

Retraction of Clinical Trials about the SARS-CoV-2 Infection: An Unaddressed Problem and Its Possible Impact on Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 Treatment

We are presenting an overview of the retracted clinical trials about the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 published in PubMed using the descriptors ((COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (Clinical Trial)). We collected the information for i) the first author's country; ii) the journal name where the study was published; iii) the impact factor of the journal; iv) the main objective of the study; v) methods including population, intervention, study design, and outcomes; and vi) results and conclusions. We collected complete information from the retraction notes published by the journals and the number of publications/retractions related to non-COVID-19 clinical trials published simultaneously. We also included the Altmetric index for the clinical trials and the retraction notes about COVID-19 to compare the accessibility to both studies' indexes. The retraction of clinical trials occurred in four countries (one in Lebanon, one in India, one in Brazil, and five in Egypt) and six journals (one in Viruses, one in Archives of Virology, one in Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy, one in Frontiers in Medicine, two in Scientific Reports, and two in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene). Eight drugs were tested (Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Proxalutamide, Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesevir, Favipiravir, and Sofosbuvir + Daclatasvir) in the studies. One of the retractions was suggested by the authors due to an error in the statistical analysis, which compromised their results and conclusions. Also, the methods, mainly the allocation, were not well conducted in the two studies, and the studies were retracted. In addition, the studies performed by Dabbous et al. presented several issues, mainly including several raw datasets that did not prove their findings. Moreover, two studies were retracted due to data overlap and copying. Significant concerns were raised about the integrity of the data and reported results in another article. We identified a higher Altmetric index for the original studies, proving that the retracted studies were accessed more than the retraction notes. Interestingly, the impact of the original articles is much higher than their retraction notes. The different Altmetric indexes show that possibly people who read those retracted articles are not reading their retraction notes and are unaware of the erroneous information they share. COVID-19- related clinical trials were ~two-time times more retracted than the other clinical trials performed during the same time.

Monotherapy versus polytherapy of enoxaparin and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Objectives

The current study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of Enoxaparin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) used as monothrapy or polytherapy versus standard care alone in Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infected patients.

Methods

The current study included two hundred patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection. Patients admitted to hospital were randomly allocated into four groups: group I: received standard COVID-19 therapy, group II: received Enoxaparin 40mg/day subcutaneously (SC) plus standard therapy, group III: received 400 mg/day HCQ plus standard therapy & group IV: received a combination of 400 mg/day HCQ and Enoxaparin plus standard COVID-19 therapy. The disease progression was evaluated by duration to a negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR), length of hospital or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, and mortality rate. The safety of treatments was evaluated by measuring adverse effects.

Results

The length of hospital stay, ICU admission and mortality were significantly decreased in Enoxaparin plus standard COVID-19 therapy group versus other groups.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that Enoxaparin was safe, effective, and well tolerated and has a role in decreasing the progression of the disease and its complications while HCQ did not discover any evidence of extra therapeutic benefits.

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic: With hindsight what lessons can we learn?

The purpose of this paper is to put forward some evidence-based lessons that can be learned from how to respond to a Pandemic that relate to healthy living behaviours (HLB). A 4-step methodology was followed to conduct a narrative review of the literature and to present a professional practice vignette. The narrative review identified 8 lessons: 1) peer review; 2) historical perspectives; 3) investing in resilience and protection; 4) unintended consequences; 5) protecting physical activity; 6) school closures; 7) mental health; and 8) obesity. As in all probability there will be another Pandemic, it is important that the lessons learned over the last three years in relation to HLB are acted upon. Whilst there will not always be a consensus on what to emphasise, it is important that many evidence-based positions are presented. The authors of this paper recognise that this work is a starting point and that the lessons presented here will need to be revisited as new evidence becomes available.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (January 2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine and the Control Group (standard of care or placebo); heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% versus 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.19). Also, the rate of serious adverse effects was similar between both Groups, Hydroxychloroquine and Control (3.7% versus 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.96).

CONCLUSION

Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients.

PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION

(www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under number CRD42020197070.

Analyzing the Difference in the Length of Stay (LOS) in Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients Receiving Hydroxychloroquine or Favipiravir

Background: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus led to a global pandemic. HCQ and FPV were used early in the pandemic as a treatment modality for COVID-19. Various studies evaluated the HCQ and FPV effectiveness, based on the mortality endpoint and showed conflicting results. We hypothesize that analyzing the difference in the LOS as a significant endpoint would be of a major interest, especially for healthcare providers, to prevent a lengthy hospitalization and disease progression. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study, conducted via a medical chart review of COVD-19 patients who were admitted between April 2020 and March 2021 with a moderate to severe illness. The LOS endpoint was tested using the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank (WSR) model. Prior to using the WSR model, the balance between the HCQ and FPV groups, the propensity score matching, the LOS distribution, and the normality assumptions were tested. Two sensitivity statistical analyses were conducted to confirm the results (stratified log-rank test and U Welch test after transforming the LOS by the squared root values). Results: A total of 200 patients were included for the analysis: 83 patients in the HCQ group and 117 patients in the FPV group. Thirty-seven patients were matched in each group. The LOS data was positively skewed and violated the normality (Shapiro−Wilk p < 0.001) and had an unequal variance (Levene’s test, p = 0.019). The WSR test showed no statistical significance in the LOS endpoint, with a median of −0.75 days (95% confidence interval: −4.0 to 2.5, p = 0.629), in favor of the HCQ group (four days), in comparison to seven days of the FPV group. The WSR findings were further confirmed with the stratified log rank test (p = 740) and the U Welch test (p = 391). Conclusions: The study concluded that the HCQ and FPV treatments have a comparable effectiveness in terms of the LOS in the moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. This study highlights the importance of analyzing the LOS as a relevant endpoint, in order to prevent the costs of a lengthy hospitalization and disease progression. The current study also emphasizes the importance of applying the appropriate statistical testing when dealing with two-sample paired data and analyzing non-parametric data such as the LOS.

An explanatory machine learning framework for studying pandemics: The case of COVID-19 emergency department readmissions

One of the major challenges that confront medical experts during a pandemic is the time required to identify and validate the risk factors of the novel disease and to develop an effective treatment protocol. Traditionally, this process involves numerous clinical trials that may take up to several years, during which strict preventive measures must be in place to control the outbreak and reduce the deaths. Advanced data analytics techniques, however, can be leveraged to guide and speed up this process. In this study, we combine evolutionary search algorithms, deep learning, and advanced model interpretation methods to develop a holistic exploratory-predictive-explanatory machine learning framework that can assist clinical decision-makers in reacting to the challenges of a pandemic in a timely manner. The proposed framework is showcased in studying emergency department (ED) readmissions of COVID-19 patients using ED visits from a real-world electronic health records database. After an exploratory feature selection phase using genetic algorithm, we develop and train a deep artificial neural network to predict early (i.e., 7-day) readmissions (AUC = 0.883). Lastly, a SHAP model is formulated to estimate additive Shapley values (i.e., importance scores) of the features and to interpret the magnitude and direction of their effects. The findings are mostly in line with those reported by lengthy and expensive clinical trial studies.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

RESULTS

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Identification of Suitable Drug Combinations for Treating COVID-19 Using a Novel Machine Learning Approach: The RAIN Method

Simple Summary

This study follows an improved approach to systematic reviews, called the Systematic Review and Artificial Intelligence Network Meta-Analysis (RAIN), registered within PROSPERO (CRD42021256797), in which, the PRISMA criterion is still considered. Drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 were searched in the databases of ScienceDirect, Web of Science (WoS), ProQuest, Embase, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. In addition, using artificial intelligence and the measurement of the p-value between human genes affected by COVID-19 and drugs that have been suggested by clinical experts, and reported within the identified research papers, suitable drug combinations are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. During the systematic review process, 39 studies were selected. Our analysis shows that most of the reported drugs, such as azithromycin and hydroxyl-chloroquine on their own, do not have much of an effect on the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Based on the result of the new artificial intelligence, on the other hand, at a significance level of less than 0.05, the combination of the two drugs therapeutic corticosteroid + camostat with a significance level of 0.02, remdesivir + azithromycin with a significance level of 0.03, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat with a significance level 0.02 are considered far more effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and are therefore recommended.

Abstract

COVID-19 affects several human genes, each with its own p-value. The combination of drugs associated with these genes with small p-values may lead to an estimation of the combined p-value between COVID-19 and some drug combinations, thereby increasing the effectiveness of these combinations in defeating the disease. Based on human genes, we introduced a new machine learning method that offers an effective drug combination with low combined p-values between them and COVID-19. This study follows an improved approach to systematic reviews, called the Systematic Review and Artificial Intelligence Network Meta-Analysis (RAIN), registered within PROSPERO (CRD42021256797), in which, the PRISMA criterion is still considered. Drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 were searched in the databases of ScienceDirect, Web of Science (WoS), ProQuest, Embase, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. In addition, using artificial intelligence and the measurement of the p-value between human genes affected by COVID-19 and drugs that have been suggested by clinical experts, and reported within the identified research papers, suitable drug combinations are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. During the systematic review process, 39 studies were selected. Our analysis shows that most of the reported drugs, such as azithromycin and hydroxyl-chloroquine on their own, do not have much of an effect on the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Based on the result of the new artificial intelligence, on the other hand, at a significance level of less than 0.05, the combination of the two drugs therapeutic corticosteroid + camostat with a significance level of 0.02, remdesivir + azithromycin with a significance level of 0.03, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat with a significance level 0.02 are considered far more effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and are therefore recommended. Additionally, at a significance level of less than 0.01, the combination of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat + azithromycin + tocilizumab + oseltamivir with a significance level of 0.006, and the combination of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat + chloroquine + favipiravir + tocilizumab7 with corticosteroid + camostat + oseltamivir + remdesivir + tocilizumab at a significant level of 0.009 are effective in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and are also recommended. The results of this study provide sets of effective drug combinations for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. In addition, the new artificial intelligence used in the RAIN method could provide a forward-looking approach to clinical trial studies, which could also be used effectively in the treatment of diseases such as cancer.

Zinc and COVID-19: Immunity, Susceptibility, Severity and Intervention

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and continuing emergence of viral mutants, there has been a lack of effective treatment methods. Zinc maintains immune function, with direct and indirect antiviral activities. Zinc nutritional status is a critical factor in antiviral immune responses. Importantly, COVID-19 and zinc deficiency overlap in high-risk population. Hence, the potential effect of zinc as a preventive and adjunct therapy for COVID-19 is intriguing. Here, this review summarizes the immune and antiviral function of zinc, the relationship between zinc levels, susceptibility, and severity of COVID-19, and the effect of zinc supplementation on COVID-19. Existing studies have confirmed that zinc deficiency was associated with COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. Zinc supplementation plays a potentially protective role in enhancing immunity, decreasing susceptibility, shortening illness duration, and reducing the severity of COVID-19. We recommend that zinc levels should be monitored, particularly in COVID-19 patients, and zinc as a preventive and adjunct therapy for COVID-19 should be considered for groups at risk of zinc deficiency to reduce susceptibility and disease severity.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Background

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

Results

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

Conclusions

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Identification of a novel immune-inflammatory signature of COVID-19 infections, and evaluation of pharmacokinetics and therapeutic potential of RXn-02, a novel small-molecule derivative of quinolone

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic and respiratory infection that has enormous damage to human lives and economies. It is caused by SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), a non-pair-stranded positive-sense RNA virus. With increasing global threats and few therapeutic options, the discovery of new potential drug targets and the development of new therapy candidates against COVID-19 are urgently needed. Based on these premises, we conducted an analysis of transcriptomic datasets from SARS-CoV-2-infected patients and identified several SARS-CoV-2 infection signatures, among which TNFRSF5/PTPRC/IDO1/MKI67 appeared to be the most pertinent signature. Subsequent integrated bioinformatics analysis identified the signature as an important immunomodulatory and inflammatory signature of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It was suggested that this gene signature mediates the interplay of immune and immunosuppressive cells leading to infiltration-exclusion of effector memory T cells in the lungs, which is of translation relevance for developing novel SARS-CoV-2 drug and vaccine candidates. Consequently, we designed and synthesized a novel small-molecule quinoline derivative (RXn-02) and evaluated its pharmacokinetics in rats, revealing a peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and time to Cmax (Tmax) of 1.756 μg/mL and 0.6 h, respectively. Values of the area under the curve (AUC) (0–24 h) and AUC (0 h∼∞) were 18.90 and 71.20 μg h/mL, respectively. Drug absorption from the various regional segments revealed that the duodenum (49.84%), jejunum (47.885%), cecum (1.82%), and ileum (0.32%) were prime sites of RXn-02 absorption. No absorption was detected from the stomach, and the least was from the colon (0.19%). Interestingly, RXn-02 exhibited in vitro antiproliferative activities against hub gene hyper-expressing cell lines; A549 (IC₅₀ = 48.1 μM), K-562 (IC₅₀ = 100 μM), and MCF7 (IC₅₀ = 0.047 μM) and against five cell lines originating from human lungs (IC₅₀ range of 33.2–69.5 μM). In addition, RXn-02 exhibited high binding efficacies for targeting the TNFRSF5/PTPRC/IDO1/MK signature with binding affinities (ΔG) of −6.6, −6.0, −9.9, −6.9 kcal/mol respectively. In conclusion, our study identified a novel signature of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. RXn-02 is a drug-like candidate with good in vivo pharmacokinetics and hence possesses great translational relevance worthy of further preclinical and clinical investigations for treating SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Background

Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540.

Findings

From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52–1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53–1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57–1·04]).

Interpretation

In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Funding

COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions on mortality and the average length of hospital stay of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Up to now, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined various drugs as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results were diverse and occasionally even inconsistent with each other. To this point,we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological agents in published RCTs.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was performed using PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. RCTs evaluating mortality and the average length of hospital stay to standard of care (SOC)/placebo/control were included. RCTs mainly were classified into five categories of drugs, including anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antiparasitic, antibody and antibiotics. Meta-analysis was done on 5 drugs classes and sub-group meta-analysis was done on single drugs and moderate or severe stage of disease.

EXPERT OPINION

Mortality and the average length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients were significantly reduced with anti-inflammatory drugs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 to 0.85, P<0.00001, and mean difference [MD]: -1.41, CI:-1.75 to -1.07, P<0.00001, respectively) compared to SOC/control/placebo. Furthermore, antiparasitic was associated with reduced length of hospital stay (MD: -0.65, CI: -1.26 to -0.03, P<0.05) in comparison to SOC/placebo/control. However, no effectiveness was found in other pharmacological interventions.

Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: Rapid updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to grow and spread throughout the world since being declared a pandemic. Despite extensive scientific research globally including repurposing of several existing drugs, there is no effective or proven therapy for this enigmatic disease which is still largely managed empirically This systematic review evaluated the role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 infection and was conducted using Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews of interventional studies including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Only prospective clinical trials randomly assigning COVID-19 patients to HCQ plus standard of care therapy (test arm) versus placebo/standard of care (control arm) were included. Data were pooled using the random-effects model and expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 10,492 patients from 19 randomised controlled trials were included. The use of HCQ was not associated with higher rates of clinical improvement (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.96-1.03, p = 0.79) or reduction in all-cause mortality by Day14 (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.97-1.19, p = 0.19) or Day28 (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.99-1.19, p = 0.09) compared to placebo/standard of care. There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between the two arms (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.85-1.19, p = 0.95). There is low-to-moderate certainty evidence that HCQ therapy is generally safe but does not reduce mortality or enhance recovery in patients with COVID-19 infection.

Trends in characteristics and outcomes among US adults hospitalised with COVID-19 throughout 2020: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the temporal patterns of patient characteristics, treatments used and outcomes associated with COVID-19 in patients who were hospitalised for the disease between January and 15 November 2020.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

COVID-19 subset of the Optum deidentified electronic health records, including more than 1.8 million patients from across the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 51 510 hospitalised patients who met the COVID-19 definition, with 37 617 in the laboratory positive cohort and 13 893 in the clinical cohort.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Incident acute clinical outcomes, including in-hospital all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Respectively, 48% and 49% of the laboratory positive and clinical cohorts were women. The 50- 65 age group was the median age group for both cohorts. The use of antivirals and dexamethasone increased over time, fivefold and twofold, respectively, while the use of hydroxychloroquine declined by 98%. Among adult patients in the laboratory positive cohort, absolute age/sex standardised incidence proportion for in-hospital death changed by -0.036 per month (95% CI -0.042 to -0.031) from March to June 2020, but remained fairly flat from June to November, 2020 (0.001 (95% CI -0.001 to 0.003), 17.5% (660 deaths /3986 persons) in March and 10.2% (580/5137) in October); in the clinical cohort, the corresponding changes were -0.024 (95% CI -0.032 to -0.015) and 0.011 (95% CI 0.007 0.014), respectively (14.8% (175/1252) in March, 15.3% (189/1203) in October). Declines in the cumulative incidence of most acute clinical outcomes were observed in the laboratory positive cohort, but not for the clinical cohort.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of adverse clinical outcomes remains high among COVID-19 patients with clinical diagnosis only. Patients with COVID-19 entering the hospital are at elevated risk of adverse outcomes.

Organoid technology and lung injury mouse models evaluating effects of hydroxychloroquine on lung epithelial regeneration

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) damages lung epithelial stem/progenitor cells. Ideal anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug candidates should be screened to prevent secondary injury to the lungs. Here, we propose that in vitro three-dimensional organoid and lung injury repair mouse models are powerful models for the screening antiviral drugs. Lung epithelial progenitor cells, including airway club cells and alveolar type 2 (AT2) cells, were co-cultured with supportive fibroblast cells in transwell inserts. The organoid model was used to evaluate the possible effects of hydroxychloroquine, which is administered as a symptomatic therapy to COVID-19 patients, on the function of mouse lung stem/progenitor cells. Hydroxychloroquine was observed to promote the self-renewal of club cells and differentiation of ciliated and goblet cells in vitro. Additionally, it inhibited the self-renewal ability of AT2 cells in vitro. Naphthalene- or bleomycin-induced lung injury repair mouse models were used to investigate the in vivo effects of hydroxychloroquine on the regeneration of club and AT2 cells, respectively. The naphthalene model indicated that the proliferative ability and differentiation potential of club cells were unaffected in the presence of hydroxychloroquine. The bleomycin model suggested that hydroxychloroquine had a limited effect on the proliferation and differentiation abilities of AT2 cells. These findings suggest that hydroxychloroquine has limited effects on the regenerative ability of epithelial stem/progenitor cells. Thus, stem/progenitor cell-derived organoid technology and lung epithelial injury repair mouse models provide a powerful platform for drug screening, which could possibly help end the pandemic.

ESCMID COVID-19 living guidelines: drug treatment and clinical management

SCOPE

In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19.

SCOPE

The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised.

Compounders of the COVID crisis: the "perfect storm"

Cultural and societal factors have placed some demographic, racial, and ethnic groups at increased risk of contracting and dying from coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This commentary addresses these population disparities and other potential modulators that negatively impact associated health outcomes in the US population, with specific reference to the need for greater self-responsibility.

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

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

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.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units.

METHODS

Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Effect of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Chloroquine or its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) combined with or without azithromycin (AZ) have been widely investigated in observational studies as a treatment option for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The network meta-analysis aims to summarize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if AZ or HCQ is associated with improved clinical outcomes. PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to March 7, 2021. We included published RCTs that investigated the efficacy of AZ, HCQ, or its combination among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and the use of mechanical ventilation. The pooled odds ratio was calculated using a random-effect model. A total of 10 RCTs were analyzed. Participant's mean age ranged from 40.4 to 66.5 years. There was no significant effect on mortality associated with AZ plus HCQ (odds ratio [OR] = 0.562 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.168-1.887]), AZ alone (OR = 0.965 [95% CI: 0.865-1.077]), or HCQ alone (OR = 1.122 [95% CI: 0.995-1.266]; p = 0.06). Similarly, based on pooled effect sizes derived from direct and indirect evidence, none of the treatments had a significant benefit in decreasing the use of mechanical ventilation. No heterogeneity was identified (Cochran's Q = 1.68; p = 0.95; τ2  = 0; I2  = 0% [95% CI: 0%-0%]). Evidence from RCTs suggests that AZ with or without HCQ was not associated with a significant effect on the mortality or mechanical ventilation rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. More research is needed to explore therapeutics agents that can effectively reduce the mortality or severity of COVID-19.

Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect.

RESULTS

We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs.

REGISTRATION

CRD42020192095.

Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, with or without azithromycin, in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 tests, length of stay, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to normalization of body temperature, incidence of adverse events and incidence of QT prolongations. Results: Fifty-one studies (n = 61,221) were included. Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine showed no efficacy in all primary efficacy outcomes, but was associated with increased odds of QT prolongations. Conclusion: Due to a lack of efficacy and increased odds of cardiac adverse events, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine should not be used for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

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

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

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

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

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

Do Zinc Supplements Enhance the Clinical Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine?: a Randomized, Multicenter Trial

No specific treatment for COVID-19 infection is available up till now, and there is a great urge for effective treatment to reduce morbidity and mortality during this pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the effect of combining chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ) and zinc in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at three major University hospitals in Egypt. One hundred ninety-one patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection were randomized into two groups: group I (96) patients received both HCQ and zinc, and group II (95) received HCQ only. The primary endpoints were the recovery within 28 days, the need for mechanical ventilation, and death. The two groups were matched for age and gender. They had no significant difference regarding any of the baseline laboratory parameters or clinical severity grading. Clinical recovery after 28 days was achieved by 79.2% in the zinc group and 77.9% in zinc-free treatment group, without any significant difference (p = 0.969). The need for mechanical ventilation and the overall mortality rates did not show any significant difference between the 2 groups either (p = 0.537 and 0.986, respectively). The age of the patient and the need for mechanical ventilation were the only risk factors associated with the patients' mortality by the univariate regression analysis (p = 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively). Zinc supplements did not enhance the clinical efficacy of HCQ. More randomized studies are needed to evaluate the value of adding zinc to other therapies for COVID 19. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04447534.

Hydroxychloroquine and mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as potential treatment for COVID-19, but its association with mortality is unclear. We reviewed published literature for evidence of an association between HCQ (with or without azithromycin (AZM)) and total mortality in COVID-19 patients.Methods: Articles were retrieved until April 29th, 2021 by searching in seven databases. Data were combined using the general-variance-based method.Results: A total of 25 cohort studies (N=41,339 patients) and 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs; N=8,709) were found. The use of HCQ was not associated with mortality in meta-analysis of RCTs (pooled risk ratio (PRR): 1.08, 95%CI: 0.97-1.20; I2=0%), but it was associated with 20% lower mortality risk (PRR=0.80, 95%CI: 0.69-0.93; I2=80%) in pooling of cohort studies. The negative association with mortality was mainly apparent by pooling cohort studies that used lower doses of HCQ (≤400 mg/day; PRR=0.69, 95%CI: 0.57-0.87). Use of HCQ+AZM (11 studies) was associated with 25% non-statistically significant lower mortality risk (PPR=0.75; 0.51-1.10; P=0.15). Use of HCQ was not associated with severe adverse events (PRR=1.12, 95%CI: 0.88-1.44; I2=0%).Conclusions: HCQ use was not associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients in pooling results from RCTs (high level of certainty of evidence), but it was associated with 20% mortality reduction when findings from observational studies were combined (low level of certainty of evidence). The reduction of mortality was mainly apparent in observational studies where lower doses of HCQ were used. These findings might help disentangling the debate on HCQ use in COVID-19.

Clinical study evaluating the efficacy of ivermectin in COVID-19 treatment: A randomized controlled study

Researchers around the world are working at record speed to find the best ways to treat and prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of hospitalized mild to moderate COVID-19 infected patients. This was a randomized open-label controlled study that included 164 patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomized into two groups where Group 1 (Ivermectin group) included patients who received ivermectin 12 mg once daily for 3 days with standard care and Group 2 (control group) included patients who received standard protocol of treatment alone for 14 days. The main outcomes were mortality, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed up for 1 month. Overall, 82 individuals were randomized to receive ivermectin plus standard of care and 82 to receive standard of care alone. Patients in the ivermectin group had a shorter length of hospital stay (8.82 ± 4.94 days) than the control group (10.97 ± 5.28 days), but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.085). Three patients (3.7%) in each group required mechanical ventilation (p = 1.00). The death rate was three patients in the ivermectin group (3.7%) versus four patients (4.9%) in the control group without any significant difference between the two groups (p = 1.00). Although there was no statistically significant difference in any endpoints by ivermectin doses (12 mg/day for 3 days); there was an observed trend to reducing hospital stay in the ivermectin-treated group.

Update of the recommendations of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group for the approach to COVID-19 in Intensive Care Medicine

INTRODUCTION

The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Due to the evolution of knowledge, the panel of experts was again convened to review the current evidence and issue updated recommendations.

METHODS

A national panel of experts who declared that they had no conflicts of interest regarding the development of the recommendations was assembled. Operational questions were developed based on the PICO methodology, and a rapid systematic review was conducted by consulting different bibliographic sources. The panel determined the direction and strength of the recommendations using two Delphi rounds, conducted in accordance with the principles of the GRADE system. A strong recommendation received the wording "is recommended", and a weak recommendation was written as "is suggested."

RESULTS

A total of 48 recommendations and 30 suggestions were issued, covering the following topics: diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, coinfection and superinfection; criteria for admission, cure and suspension of isolation; organization of services; personal protective equipment; and respiratory support and other specific therapies (antivirals, immunomodulators and anticoagulation).

CONCLUSION

These recommendations, specifically oriented to the Portuguese reality but that may also apply to Portuguese-speaking African countries and East Timor, aim to support health professionals in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. They will be continuously reviewed to reflect the progress of our understanding and the treatment of this pathology.

COVID-19 and cardiovascular complications: an update from the underlying mechanism to consequences and possible clinical intervention

Introduction: The novel coronavirus has caused significant mortality worldwide and is primarily associated with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Apart from ARDS, clinical reports have shown noticeable cardiovascular complications among the patients of COVID-19. Infection from virus, stimulation of cytokine storm, altered immune response, and damage to myocardial tissue are some of the proposed mechanisms of cardiovascular complications in COVID-19.Areas covered: Based on the clinical reports of CVDs among COVID-19 patients, we have discussed the molecular mechanisms involved in cardiovascular pathogenesis, its prevalence, and association with COVID-19, and various available therapeutic modality for the treatment.Expert opinion: Seeing the cardiovascular complications in COVID-19 patients and its association with the existing drug, risk-benefit ratio of treatment paradigm, as well as the level of cardiac injury biomarkers must be monitored regularly. Additionally, a well-designed clinical trial should be conducted where head to head comparison can be made with anti-COVID-19 drugs and cardioprotective anti-inflammatory drugs. Nevertheless, vaccines are the best-suited approach, but until then, sanitization, social distancing, and active lifestyle are the best ways to beat this global pandemic situation.

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 combined Sofosbuvir and Daclatasvir in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with pneumonia: a multicenter Egyptian study

BACKGROUND

Limited experimental and clinical evidence suggests a potential role for sofosbuvir/daclatasvir in treating COVID19. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of generic sofosbuvir/daclatasvir in treating COVID-19 patients with pneumonia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This multicenter prospective study involved 174 patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomized into two groups. Group A (96 patients) received sofosbuvir (400 mg)/daclatasvir (60 mg) for 14 days in combination with conventional therapy. Group B (78 patients) received conventional therapy alone. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological data were collected at baseline, after 7, 14, and 28 days of therapy. Primary endpoint was rate of clinical/virological cure.

RESULTS

A lower mortality rate was observed in group (A) (14% vs 21%, P = 0.07). After 1 month of therapy, no differences were found in rates of ICU admission, oxygen therapy, or ventilation. Additionally, a statistically significant shorter duration of hospital stay (9% vs 12%, P < 0.01) and a faster achievement of PCR negativity at day 14 (84% versus 47%, P < 0.01) were noticed in group (A).

CONCLUSION

Adding sofosbuvir/daclatasvir to conventional therapy of COVID-19 is promising. Their use is associated with shorter hospital stay, faster PCR negativity and may be reduced mortality.

Pharmacological interventions for COVID-19: a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials

Introduction: Currently, there is no approved therapeutic entity for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and clinicians are primarily relying on drug repurposing. However, findings across studies are widely disparate, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Since clinicians need accurate evidence to treat COVID-19, this manuscript systematically analyzed the published and ongoing studies evaluating the pharmacological interventions for COVID-19.Areas Covered: A systematic search of observational studies and Clinical Trials on the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 was performed by using various databases from inception to 2 December 2020.Expert Opinion: A total of 460 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 were research studies, 386 were ongoing trials, and 37 were completed trials. Anti-virals, steroids, anti-malarial, plasma exchange, and monoclonal antibodies were the most common treatment modalities used alone or in combination in these studies. However, tocilizumab, plasma exchange, and steroids have shown significant improvements in patient's clinical and radiological status. Tocilizumab reported minimum hospital stay of 2 days along with maximum recovery and patient's stability rate. Existing literature demonstrate promising results of tocilizumab, plasma exchange, and steroids among COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, these studies are accompanied by several methodological disparities which should be considered while interpreting the results.

Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the use of spin strategies and the level of spin for RCTs with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, and to explore potential predictors for reporting quality and the severity of spin.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed was searched to find RCTs that tested interventions for COVID-19, and the reporting quality and spin in the abstracts were assessed. Linear regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors.

RESULTS

Forty RCT abstracts were included in our assessment of reporting quality, and a higher word count in the abstract was significantly correlated with higher reporting scores (95% CI 0.044 to 0.658, P=0.026). Multiple spin strategies were identified. Our multivariate analyses showed that geographical origin was associated with severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies (95% CI -0.760 to -0.099, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs of interventions for COVID-19 is far from satisfactory. A relatively high proportion of the abstracts contained spin, and the findings reported in the results and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Hydroxychloroquine as a primary prophylactic agent against SARS-CoV-2 infection: A cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Hydroxychloroquine has been proposed as a primary prophylactic agent against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to investigate if patients treated with hydroxychloroquine for a non-COVID-19 indication had a lower risk of verified infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared with matched controls.

METHODS

A cohort comprising all persons in Denmark collecting hydroxychloroquine prescriptions in 2020 and 2019 (i.e., both during and before SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed in Denmark), matched by age and sex with controls, was studied. Data were collected using the Danish national registries, which contain complete information on patient health data, prescriptions and microbiological test results. The main outcome was microbiologically verified SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

In total, 5488 hydroxychloroquine users were matched with 54,486 non-users. At baseline, the groups differed in terms of diagnoses of pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, gastrointestinal/metabolic disease and dementia, as well as treatment with antirheumatic drugs. The final model was adjusted for these potential confounders. Use of hydroxychloroquine for non-COVID-19 indications was not associated with any change in confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.07). This result was robust in the propensity-score-matched sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study, which is the largest to date to investigate the primary prophylactic effect of hydroxychloroquine against SARS-CoV-2, does not support any prophylactic benefit of hydroxychloroquine in the prevention of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Covid-19: Urgent Call to Action

Novel Corona Virus 2019 (COVID-19) is a new virus spread rapidly all over the world. It has specific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Its reported complications include respiratory distress, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and septic shock. Due to heavy cytokines released by the virus; corticosteroids (40-120 mg / day) were given to severe cases to reduce pneumonia. It's a difficult task to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2, and to invent proper vaccines and treatments. In this review, the existing understanding of fatal, pandemic human coronavirus SARS-Cov2 (COVID-19), with special reference to its diagnosis, origin, transmission, and different approaches to develop its therapeutics, will be discussed.

Exploring the room for repurposed hydroxychloroquine to impede COVID-19: toxicities and multipronged combination approaches with pharmaceutical insights

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 has fatally affected the whole world with millions of deaths. Amidst the dilemma of a breakthrough in vaccine development, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was looked upon as a prospective repurposed candidate. It has confronted numerous controversies in the past few months as a chemoprophylactic and treatment option for COVID-19. Recently, it has been withdrawn by the World Health Organization for its use in an ongoing pandemic. However, its benefit/risk ratio regarding its use in COVID-19 disease remains poorly justified. An extensive literature search was done using Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, www.cdc.gov, www.fda.gov, and who.int.Areas covered: Toxicity vexations of HCQ; pharmaceutical perspectives on new advances in drug delivery approaches; computational modeling (PBPK and PD modeling) overtures; multipronged combination approaches for enhanced synergism with antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents; immuno-boosting effects.Expert commentary: Harnessing the multipronged pharmaceutical perspectives will optimistically help the researchers, scientists, biotech, and pharmaceutical companies to bring new horizons in the safe and efficacious utilization of HCQ alone or in combination with remdesivir and immunomodulatory molecules like bovine lactoferrin in a fight against COVID-19. Combinational therapies with free forms or nanomedicine based targeted approaches can act synergistically to boost host immunity and stop SARS-CoV-2 replication and invasion to impede the infection.

Antibacterial agents used in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

There have been speculations regarding rise in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) globally owing to indiscriminate antibiotic usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. To curb the menace through decisive policies, it is essential to assess the antibiotics, particularly the antibacterial agents. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients. A thorough systematic search was undertaken in databases like PubMed, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, World Health Organization (WHO) database and clinicaltrials.gov by two independent reviewers for articles in English published from January 1, 2019 to October 31, 2020. Studies were included if they assessed confirmed COVID-19 cases and mentioned the use of antibiotics. The primary outcome was the proportion of COVID-19 patients subjected to specific antibacterial agents. An attempt to stratify the data based on study settings and disease severity was also performed. Of the total 6012 studies screened, 40 were eligible for qualitative review and 19 for meta-analysis. Specific antibacterial agents were mentioned in 23 studies (57.5%). In the random effect meta-analysis, pooled prevalence of azithromycin use was 24.5% (95% CI 22.9-26.2%) followed by cephalosporins as 26.6% (95% CI 24.9-28.4). None of the studies clearly specified indications for antibiotic use. Ten studies (25%) mentioned empirical use of antibiotics. Bacterial co-infections/secondary infections were documented in four studies with mean prevalence of infection of 1.9% (95% CI 1.2-2.8%). There is lack of data on use of specific antibacterial agents, indications for their use based on severity of infections and microbiological evidence of bacterial co-infections.

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: - 1.06, 95% CI - 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: - 0.64, 95% CI - 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were searched until 2nd of December 2020. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, need of mechanical ventilation, need of non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and oxygen support at 14 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes were clinical recovery and worsening, discharge, radiological progression of pneumonia, virologic clearance, serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events. Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Thirteen RCTs (n=18,540) were included. Hydroxychloroquine total doses ranged between 2000 and 12,400 mg; treatment durations were from 5 to 16 days and follow up times between 5 and 30 days. Compared to controls, hydroxychloroquine non-significantly increased mortality at 14 days (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.92-1.25) or 30 days (RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.00-1.16). Hydroxychloroquine did not affect other primary or secondary outcomes, except SAEs that were significantly higher than the control (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.05-1.46). Eleven RCTs had high or some concerns of bias. Subgroup analyses were consistent with main analyses. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients and caused more severe adverse events. Hydroxychloroquine should not be recommended as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Assessing efficacy of antiviral therapy for COVID-19 patients: A case study on remdesivir with bayesian synthesis design and multistate analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

A synthesis design and multistate analysis is required for assessing the clinical efficacy of antiviral therapy on dynamics of multistate disease progression and in reducing the mortality and enhancing the recovery of patients with COVID-19. A case study on remdesivir was illustrated for the clinical application of such a novel design and analysis.

METHODS

A Bayesian synthesis design was applied to integrating the empirical evidence on the one-arm compassion study and the two-arm ACTT-1 trial for COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. A multistate model was developed to model the dynamics of hospitalized COVID-19 patients from three transient states of low, medium-, and high-risk until the two outcomes of recovery and death. The outcome measures for clinical efficacy comprised high-risk state, death, and discharge.

RESULTS

The efficacy of remdesivir in reducing the risk of death and enhancing the odds of recovery were estimated as 31% (95% CI, 18-44%) and 10% (95% CI, 1-18%), respectively. Remdesivir therapy for patients with low-risk state showed the efficacy in reducing subsequent progression to high-risk state and death by 26% (relative rate (RR), 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93) and 62% (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.29-0.48), respectively. Less but still statistically significant efficacy in mortality reduction was noted for the medium- and high-risk patients. Remdesivir treated patients had a significantly shorter period of hospitalization (9.9 days) compared with standard care group (12.9 days).

CONCLUSION

The clinical efficacy of remdesvir therapy in reducing mortality and accelerating discharge has been proved by the Bayesian synthesis design and multistate analysis.

Immunomodulatory therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the available information on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

As part of a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce, a systematic literature search was conducted from January 2019 to 11 December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome framework and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage. The risk of bias was assessed with validated tools.

RESULTS

Of the 60 372 records, 401 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were at variable risk of bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were available for the following drugs: hydroxychloroquine (n=12), glucocorticoids (n=6), tocilizumab (n=4), convalescent plasma (n=4), interferon beta (n=2), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) (n=2) and n=1 each for anakinra, baricitinib, colchicine, leflunomide, ruxolitinib, interferon kappa and vilobelimab. Glucocorticoids were able to reduce mortality in specific subsets of patients, while conflicting data were available about tocilizumab. Hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial at any disease stage, one RCT with anakinra was negative, one RCT with baricitinib+remdesivir was positive, and individual trials on some other compounds provided interesting, although preliminary, results.

CONCLUSION

Although there is emerging evidence about immunomodulatory therapies for the management of COVID-19, conclusive data are scarce with some conflicting data. Since glucocorticoids seem to improve survival in some subsets of patients, RCTs comparing glucocorticoids alone versus glucocorticoids plus anticytokine/immunomodulatory treatment are warranted. This systematic literature review informed the initiative to formulate EULAR 'points to consider' on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory treatment from the rheumatology perspective.