Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: Living, Rapid Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1)

Systematic review and meta-analysis of Tuberculosis and COVID-19 Co-infection: Prevalence, fatality, and treatment considerations

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) and COVID-19 co-infection poses a significant global health challenge with increased fatality rates and adverse outcomes. However, the existing evidence on the epidemiology and treatment of TB-COVID co-infection remains limited.

METHODS

This updated systematic review aimed to investigate the prevalence, fatality rates, and treatment outcomes of TB-COVID co-infection. A comprehensive search across six electronic databases spanning November 1, 2019, to January 24, 2023, was conducted. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist assessed risk of bias of included studies, and meta-analysis estimated co-infection fatality rates and relative risk.

RESULTS

From 5,095 studies screened, 17 were included. TB-COVID co-infection prevalence was reported in 38 countries or regions, spanning both high and low TB prevalence areas. Prevalence estimates were approximately 0.06% in West Cape Province, South Africa, and 0.02% in California, USA. Treatment approaches for TB-COVID co-infection displayed minimal evolution since 2021. Converging findings from diverse studies underscored increased hospitalization risks, extended recovery periods, and accelerated mortality compared to single COVID-19 cases. The pooled fatality rate among co-infected patients was 7.1% (95%CI: 4.0% ~ 10.8%), slightly lower than previous estimates. In-hospital co-infected patients faced a mean fatality rate of 11.4% (95%CI: 5.6% ~ 18.8%). The pooled relative risk of in-hospital fatality was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.18-3.68) for TB-COVID patients versus single COVID patients.

CONCLUSION

TB-COVID co-infection is increasingly prevalent worldwide, with fatality rates gradually declining but remaining higher than COVID-19 alone. This underscores the urgency of continued research to understand and address the challenges posed by TB-COVID co-infection.

The African Kelleni's roadmap using nitazoxanide and broad-spectrum antimicrobials to abort returning to COVID-19 square one

For over 3.5 years, SARS CoV-2 is continuing to evolve threatening to return all and any improvement the world has made into square one. In this clinically oriented systematic review and perspective, the author explains how the best current medical evidence is strongly supporting the use of the low cost, widely available and very safe nitazoxanide in early management of COVID-19, debates the relevant theoretical studies that negated or doubted this benefit, and suggests an African roadmap to preempt the worst-case scenario if or when a new SARS CoV-2 (sub) variant or even a new respiratory virus causes a new global surge of morbidity and mortality. Kelleni's protocol, including nitazoxanide as an integral component, is continuing to perfectly save lives of patients infected with many viruses, including SARS CoV-2 and the author stresses that respiratory RNA viruses are best managed with early pharmacological treatment. Broad-spectrum antimicrobials as nitazoxanide and azithromycin together with other therapeutics as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the antihistaminic loratadine should be considered first to personalize the clinical management of COVID-19 and selected other alarming viral infections.

The Influence of Comorbidities, General Health Status, and Self-Care Self-Efficacy on COVID-19 Symptoms During the Omicron Wave

Background The emergence of the less virulent COVID-19 strains such as Omicron and its subvariants shifted the paradigm of COVID-19 treatment from inpatient treatment to regular outpatient care. The individual health determinants affecting COVID-19 disease severity among vulnerable adults treated in outpatient settings are an under-researched area. Methods This study conducted in an outpatient COVID-19 antibody infusion center employed a cross-sectional survey design to explore the impact of comorbidities, general health status, and self-care self-efficacy on COVID-19 symptom severity. We recruited 120 COVID-19-positive participants over 40 years of age, of which 117 completed the study with 87 providing complete data. After the screening and consenting process, the participants completed the following surveys in a secure REDCap survey software (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA) on an iPad (Apple Inc., Cupertino, USA): 1) sociodemographic questionnaire, 2) Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to capture comorbidities, 3) Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form (SF-12) to assess general health including physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health subscales, 4) Self-Care Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES) to measure self-care self-efficacy, and 5) the COVID-19 Symptom rating scale (COVID-19 SRS). Statistical analysis used were Chi-square and Pearson correlations.  Results As evidenced by CCI, the top five comorbidities were hypertension (42%), diabetes mellitus (31%), pulmonary disease (19%), depression (14%), and solid tumors (11%). Age was statistically significantly correlated to comorbidity burden (p<0.0001). Severe COVID-19 symptoms reported were fatigue, myalgia, cough, runny nose, and sore throat. The general health status measure (SF-12) subscales showed that the patient's mental component summary (MCS) was more statistically significant to COVID-19 symptom severity than the physical component summary (PCS). The MCS demonstrated a statistically significant correlation with fatigue and myalgia (p<0.0001), headache and breathing difficulties (p<0.001), nausea/vomiting (p<0.01), and abdominal pain/diarrhea (p<0.05). The PCS showed a lesser statistically significant correlation with fatigue, myalgia, headaches (p<0.01), fever/chills, cough, congestion/runny nose, night sweats, breathing difficulties, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain/diarrhea (p<0.05). Interestingly, the 'loss of smell' which is the hallmark symptom of COVID-19 was the only symptom that showed a statically significant correlation with the Charlson Comorbidity Index (p<0.05), and it did not show any association with either mental (SF-12 MCS) or physical (SF-12 PCS) health status. The SF-12 MCS also showed a statistically significant correlation with a diagnosis of depression (p< 0.01), validating it as a true measure of mental health among vulnerable adults. The SCSES was not correlated with any of the COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusions The patient's general health status, especially mental health was more statistically significant to COVID-19 symptoms. The COVID-19 hallmark symptom of 'loss of smell' was the only symptom that showed statistical significance with comorbidities. Within the limitations of a cross-sectional survey design and convenient sampling methods, this study calls to tailor general health status, especially mental health, and cumulative comorbidity burden to risk assessment/risk stratification of COVID-19 care.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: Living, Rapid Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 2)

DESCRIPTION

Evidence for the use of outpatient treatments in adults with confirmed COVID-19 continues to evolve with new data. This is version 2 of the American College of Physicians (ACP) living, rapid practice points focusing on 22 outpatient treatments for COVID-19, specifically addressing the dominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

METHODS

The Population Health and Medical Science Committee (formerly the Scientific Medical Policy Committee) developed this version of the living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). This topic will be maintained as living and rapid by continually monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence.

PRACTICE POINT 1

Consider molnupiravir to treat symptomatic patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at a high risk for progressing to severe disease.

PRACTICE POINT 2

Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat symptomatic patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at a high risk for progressing to severe disease.

PRACTICE POINT 3

Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 4

Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Evidence Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 2)

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 22 different COVID-19 treatments.

DATA SOURCES

The Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database from 26 November 2021 to 2 March 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

Two randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization due to COVID-19 (for example, 0.7% vs. 1.2%; moderate COE) and all-cause mortality (for example, <0.1% vs. 0.2%; moderate COE). Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate (31.8% vs. 22.6%; moderate COE) and reduced time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days; moderate COE) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; moderate COE) and the incidence of serious adverse events (0.4% vs. 0.3%; moderate COE). Ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and resulted in no difference in adverse events compared with placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality compared with no treatment (low COE). No eligible studies for all other treatments of interest were identified.

LIMITATION

Evidence for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and sotrovimab is based on nonrandomized studies only.

CONCLUSION

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir probably improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023406456).

COVID-19

COVID-19, the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2, became a worldwide pandemic in 2020. Initial clinical manifestations range from asymptomatic infection to mild upper respiratory illness but may progress to pulmonary involvement with hypoxemia and, in some cases, multiorgan involvement, shock, and death. Older adults, pregnant persons, those with common comorbidities, and those with immunosuppression are at greatest risk for progression. Vaccination is effective in preventing symptomatic infection and reducing risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death. Antiviral treatment and immunomodulators have been shown to benefit certain patients. This article summarizes current recommendations on prevention, diagnosis, management, and treatment of COVID-19.

Molnupiravir for the treatment of non-severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials with 34 570 patients

BACKGROUND

Molnupiravir has been considered a promising candidate for COVID-19. Its efficacy and safety in non-severe COVID-19 patients and the differences between patients with different risk factors need further evaluation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that allocated adult patients with non-severe COVID-19 to molnupiravir or a control. We used random-effects models, and conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regression for COVID-19 patients with high-risk factors. The GRADE approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 34 570 patients were included. Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed that molnupiravir was associated with a reduction in the risk of hospitalization (relative risk [RR] = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47-0.85), risk of mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.72) and time to symptom resolution (mean differences [MD] = -2.91 days, 95% CI: -3.66 to -2.16). However, no significant differences were found in adverse events, all-cause mortality, rate of and time to viral clearance, or duration of hospitalization. For the rate of viral clearance, subgroup effects were found between trials with low and high risk of bias (P = 0.001) and between trials with male or female majority (P < 0.001). For admission to hospital, subgroup effects were also found between trials with ≥50% and <50% of the participants being female (P = 0.04). Meta-regression showed a significant association between higher trial mean age and elevated risk of hospitalization (P = 0.011), and female majority and elevated risk of hospitalization (P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Molnupiravir was found to be effective in non-severe COVID-19, but the efficacy varied with age and sex.

Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19

Remdesivir (Veklury®), a nucleotide analogue prodrug with broad-spectrum antiviral activity, is approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Unlike some antivirals, remdesivir has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. In the pivotal ACTT-1 trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, daily intravenous infusions of remdesivir significantly reduced time to recovery relative to placebo. Subsequent trials provided additional support for the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19, with a greater benefit seen in patients with minimal oxygen requirements at baseline. Clinical trials also demonstrated the efficacy of remdesivir in other patient populations, including outpatients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as well as hospitalized paediatric patients. In terms of mortality, results were equivocal. However, remdesivir appeared to have a small mortality benefit in hospitalized patients who were not already being ventilated at baseline. Remdesivir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, but pharmacovigilance data found an increased risk of hepatic, renal and cardiovascular adverse drug reactions in the real-world setting. In conclusion, remdesivir represents a useful treatment option for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require supplemental oxygen.