Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19

Seroconversion rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with solid cancer have an increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the currently available evidence about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid cancer. We included prospective studies comparing the immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines between patients with solid cancer and healthy individuals. Relative risks of seroconversion after the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were separately pooled with the use of random effects meta-analysis. Thirty studies with 11,245 subjects met the inclusion criteria. After first vaccine dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy individuals was 0.54 (95% CI 0.38-0.78, I2 = 94%). After a second dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy controls was 0.87 (0.86-0.88, I2 = 87%). Our review suggests that, compared with healthy individuals, COVID-19 vaccines show favorable immunogenicity and efficacy in patients with solid cancer. A second dose is associated with significantly improved seroconversion, although it is slightly lower in patients with solid cancer compared with healthy individuals.

Developing and validating a machine learning prognostic model for alerting to imminent deterioration of hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Our study was aimed at developing and validating a new approach, embodied in a machine learning-based model, for sequentially monitoring hospitalized COVID-19 patients and directing professional attention to patients whose deterioration is imminent. Model development employed real-world patient data (598 prediction events for 210 patients), internal validation (315 prediction events for 97 patients), and external validation (1373 prediction events for 307 patients). Results show significant divergence in longitudinal values of eight routinely collected blood parameters appearing several days before deterioration. Our model uses these signals to predict the personal likelihood of transition from non-severe to severe status within well-specified short time windows. Internal validation of the model's prediction accuracy showed ROC AUC of 0.8 and 0.79 for prediction scopes of 48 or 96 h, respectively; external validation showed ROC AUC of 0.7 and 0.73 for the same prediction scopes. Results indicate the feasibility of predicting the forthcoming deterioration of non-severe COVID-19 patients by eight routinely collected blood parameters, including neutrophil, lymphocyte, monocyte, and platelets counts, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, CRP, LDH, and D-dimer. A prospective clinical study and an impact assessment will allow implementation of this model in the clinic to improve care, streamline resources and ease hospital burden by timely focusing the medical attention on potentially deteriorating patients.

Computational pharmacology: New avenues for COVID-19 therapeutics search and better preparedness for future pandemic crises

The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented global healthcare emergency prompting the exploration of new therapeutic avenues, including drug repurposing. A large number of ongoing studies revealed pervasive issues in clinical research, such as the lack of accessible and organised data. Moreover, current shortcomings in clinical studies highlighted the need for a multi-faceted approach to tackle this health crisis. Thus, we set out to explore and develop new strategies for drug repositioning by employing computational pharmacology, data mining, systems biology, and computational chemistry to advance shared efforts in identifying key targets, affected networks, and potential pharmaceutical intervention options. Our study revealed that formulating pharmacological strategies should rely on both therapeutic targets and their networks. We showed how data mining can reveal regulatory patterns, capture novel targets, alert about side-effects, and help identify new therapeutic avenues. We also highlighted the importance of the miRNA regulatory layer and how this information could be used to monitor disease progression or devise treatment strategies. Importantly, our work bridged the interactome with the chemical compound space to better understand the complex landscape of COVID-19 drugs. Machine and deep learning allowed us to showcase limitations in current chemical libraries for COVID-19 suggesting that both in silico and experimental analyses should be combined to retrieve therapeutically valuable compounds. Based on the gathered data, we strongly advocate for taking this opportunity to establish robust practices for treating today's and future infectious diseases by preparing solid analytical frameworks.

Chest dual-energy CT to assess the effects of steroids on lung function in severe COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Steroids have been shown to reduce inflammation, hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV) and lung edema. Based on evidence from clinical trials, steroids are widely used in severe COVID-19. However, the effects of steroids on pulmonary gas volume and blood volume in this group of patients are unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

Profiting by dual-energy computed tomography (DECT), we investigated the relationship between the use of steroids in COVID-19 and distribution of blood volume as an index of impaired HPV. We also investigated whether the use of steroids influences lung weight, as index of lung edema, and how it affects gas distribution.

METHODS

Severe COVID-19 patients included in a single-center prospective observational study at the intensive care unit at Uppsala University Hospital who had undergone DECT were enrolled in the current study. Patients' cohort was divided into two groups depending on the administration of steroids. From each patient's DECT, 20 gas volume maps and the corresponding 20 blood volume maps, evenly distributed along the cranial-caudal axis, were analyzed. As a proxy for HPV, pulmonary blood volume distribution was analyzed in both the whole lung and the hypoinflated areas. Total lung weight, index of lung edema, was estimated.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were analyzed, whereof 43 received steroids. Patients not exposed to steroids showed a more extensive non-perfused area (19% vs 13%, p < 0.01) and less homogeneous pulmonary blood volume of hypoinflated areas (kurtosis: 1.91 vs 2.69, p < 0.01), suggesting a preserved HPV compared to patients treated with steroids. Moreover, patients exposed to steroids showed a significantly lower lung weight (953 gr vs 1140 gr, p = 0.01). A reduction in alveolar-arterial difference of oxygen followed the treatment with steroids (322 ± 106 mmHg at admission vs 267 ± 99 mmHg at DECT, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of steroids might cause impaired HPV and might reduce lung edema in severe COVID-19. This is consistent with previous findings in other diseases. Moreover, a reduced lung weight, as index of decreased lung edema, and a more homogeneous distribution of gas within the lung were shown in patients treated with steroids.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials ID: NCT04316884, Registered March 13, 2020.

New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Dyslipidaemia as Sequelae of COVID-19 Infection-Systematic Review

As the population recovers from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a subset of individuals is emerging as post-coronavirus disease (post-COVID) patients who experience multifactorial long-term symptoms several weeks after the initial recovery from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The aim of this systematic review is to present the latest scientific reports that evaluate changes in glucose levels, blood pressure readings and lipid profiles after recovery from COVID-19 to verify the hypothesis that new-onset diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension and dyslipidaemia are a possible sequela of a COVID-19 infection. The open access databases PubMed and Google Scholar were searched. Articles investigating patients with residual clinical signs and biochemical alteration indicating diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia at least a month after recovering from COVID-19 were included. It has been shown that a select number of patients were diagnosed with new-onset diabetes, arterial hypertension and dyslipidaemia after COVID-19 infection. Alterations in glucose levels, blood pressure and lipid profiles months after initial infection shows the importance of considering diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension and dyslipidaemia as part of the multifactorial diagnostic criteria post-COVID to better provide evidence-based clinical care.

Sarcoidosis and COVID-19: At the Cross-Road between Immunopathology and Clinical Manifestation

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with dysregulation of the immune system featuring inappropriate immune responses, exacerbation of inflammatory responses, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in patients with severe disease. Sarcoidosis, also known as Besnier-Boeck-Schaumann disease, is an idiopathic granulomatous multisystem disease characterized by dense epithelioid non-necrotizing lesions with varying degrees of lymphocytic inflammation. These two diseases have similar clinical manifestations and may influence each other at multiple levels, eventually affecting their clinical courses and prognosis. Notably, sarcoidosis patients are at high risk of severe COVID-19 pneumonia because of the underlying lung disease and chronic immunosuppressive treatment. In this narrative review, we will discuss interactions between sarcoidosis and COVID-19 in terms of clinical manifestations, treatment, and pathogenesis, including the role of the dysregulated renin-angiotensin system, altered immune responses involving increased cytokine levels and immune system hyperactivation, and cellular death pathways.

Comparison of a Target Trial Emulation Framework vs Cox Regression to Estimate the Association of Corticosteroids With COVID-19 Mortality

IMPORTANCE

Communication and adoption of modern study design and analytical techniques is of high importance for the improvement of clinical research from observational data.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a modern method for statistical inference, including a target trial emulation framework and doubly robust estimation, with approaches common in the clinical literature, such as Cox proportional hazards models.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used longitudinal electronic health record data for outcomes at 28-days from time of hospitalization within a multicenter New York, New York, hospital system. Participants included adult patients hospitalized between March 1 and May 15, 2020, with COVID-19 and not receiving corticosteroids for chronic use. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to March 2022.

EXPOSURES

Corticosteroid exposure was defined as more than 0.5 mg/kg methylprednisolone equivalent in a 24-hour period. For target trial emulation, exposures were corticosteroids for 6 days if and when a patient met criteria for severe hypoxia vs no corticosteroids. For approaches common in clinical literature, treatment definitions used for variables in Cox regression models varied by study design (no time frame, 1 day, and 5 days from time of severe hypoxia).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was 28-day mortality from time of hospitalization. The association of corticosteroids with mortality for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 was assessed using the World Health Organization (WHO) meta-analysis of corticosteroid randomized clinical trials as a benchmark.

RESULTS

A total of 3298 patients (median [IQR] age, 65 [53-77] years; 1970 [60%] men) were assessed, including 423 patients who received corticosteroids at any point during hospitalization and 699 patients who died within 28 days of hospitalization. Target trial emulation analysis found corticosteroids were associated with a reduced 28-day mortality rate, from 32.2%; (95% CI, 30.9%-33.5%) to 25.7% (95% CI, 24.5%-26.9%). This estimate is qualitatively identical to the WHO meta-analysis odds ratio of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82). Hazard ratios using methods comparable with current corticosteroid research range in size and direction, from 0.50 (95% CI, 0.41-0.62) to 1.08 (95% CI, 0.80-1.47).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that clinical research based on observational data can be used to estimate findings similar to those from randomized clinical trials; however, the correctness of these estimates requires designing the study and analyzing the data based on principles that are different from the current standard in clinical research.

Impact of COVID-19 on the liver and on the care of patients with chronic liver disease, hepatobiliary cancer, and liver transplantation: An updated EASL position paper

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a serious challenge to the hepatology community, particularly healthcare professionals and patients. While the rapid development of safe and effective vaccines and treatments has improved the clinical landscape, the emergence of the omicron variant has presented new challenges. Thus, it is timely that the European Association for the Study of the Liver provides a summary of the latest data on the impact of COVID-19 on the liver and issues guidance on the care of patients with chronic liver disease, hepatobiliary cancer, and previous liver transplantation, as the world continues to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dysregulation of immunity in COVID-19 and SLE

The immune response plays a crucial role in preventing diseases, such as infections. There are two types of immune responses, specific and innate immunity, each of which consists of two components: cellular immunity and humoral immunity. Dysfunction in any immune system component increases the risk of developing certain diseases. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), an autoimmune disease in the human body, develops an immune response against its own components. In these patients, due to underlying immune system disorders and receipt of immunosuppressive drugs, the susceptibility to infections is higher than in the general population and is the single largest cause of mortality in this group. COVID-19 infection, which first appeared in late 2019, has caused several concerns in patients with SLE. However, there is no strong proof of additional risk of developing COVID-19 in patients with SLE, and in some cases, studies have shown less severity of the disease in these individuals. This review paper discusses the immune disorders in SLE and COVID-19.

Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in Brazil (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence.

Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for pregnant women with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a narrative review

Acute respiratory distress syndrome remains an uncommon condition during pregnancy. In patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, when oxygenation or ventilation cannot be supported sufficiently using best practice conventional mechanical ventilation and additional therapies, veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered. In the past two decades, there has been increasing adoption of this technique to support adult patients with refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, its use for the management of pregnant women is rare and remains a challenge. This narrative review addresses acute respiratory distress syndrome and its management during pregnancy, and then focuses on indications, contraindications, challenges, potential complications, and outcomes of the use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome in the pregnant patient.

Comparison of a Target Trial Emulation Framework to Cox Regression to Estimate the Effect of Corticosteroids on COVID-19 Mortality

Importance

Communication and adoption of modern study design and analytical techniques is of high importance for the improvement of clinical research from observational data.

Objective

To compare (1) a modern method for causal inference including a target trial emulation framework and doubly robust estimation to (2) approaches common in the clinical literature such as Cox proportional hazards models. To do this, we estimate the effect of corticosteroids on mortality for moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. We use the World Health Organization's (WHO) meta-analysis of corticosteroid randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as a benchmark.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using longitudinal electronic health record data for 28 days from time of hospitalization.

Settings

Multi-center New York City hospital system.

Participants

Adult patients hospitalized between March 1-May 15, 2020 with COVID-19 and not on corticosteroids for chronic use.

Intervention

Corticosteroid exposure defined as >0.5mg/kg methylprednisolone equivalent in a 24-hour period. For target trial emulation, interventions are (1) corticosteroids for six days if and when patient meets criteria for severe hypoxia and (2) no corticosteroids. For approaches common in clinical literature, treatment definitions used for variables in Cox regression models vary by study design (no time frame, one-, and five-days from time of severe hypoxia).

Main outcome

28-day mortality from time of hospitalization.

Results

3,298 patients (median age 65 (IQR 53-77), 60% male). 423 receive corticosteroids at any point during hospitalization, 699 die within 28 days of hospitalization. Target trial emulation estimates corticosteroids to reduce 28-day mortality from 32.2% (95% CI 30.9-33.5) to 25.7% (24.5-26.9). This estimate is qualitatively identical to the WHO's RCT meta-analysis odds ratio of 0.66 (0.53-0.82)). Hazard ratios using methods comparable to current corticosteroid research range in size and direction from 0.50 (0.41-0.62) to 1.08 (0.80-1.47).

Conclusion and Relevance

Clinical research based on observational data can unveil true causal relationships; however, the correctness of these effect estimates requires designing the study and analyzing the data based on principles which are different from the current standard in clinical research.

Long-Term Health Symptoms and Sequelae Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: An Evidence Map

Post-COVID-19 conditions, also known as 'Long-COVID-19', describe a longer and more complex course of illness than acute COVID-19 with no widely accepted uniform case definition. We aimed to map the available evidence on persistent symptoms and sequelae following SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults. We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database on 5 November 2021. We included longitudinal and cross-sectional studies and we extracted their characteristics, including the type of core outcomes for post-COVID-19 conditions. We included 565 studies (657 records). Most studies were uncontrolled cohort studies. The median follow-up time was 13 weeks (IQR 9 to 24). Only 72% of studies were conducted in high-income countries, 93% included unvaccinated adults with mild-to-critical disease, only 10% included children and adolescents, and less than 5% included children under the age of five. While most studies focused on health symptoms, including respiratory symptoms (71%), neurological symptoms (57%), fatigue (54%), pain (50%), mental functioning (43%), cardiovascular functioning (40%), and post-exertion symptoms (28%), cognitive function (26%), fewer studies assessed other symptoms such as overall recovery (24%), the need for rehabilitation (18%), health-related quality of life (16%), changes in work/occupation and study (10%), or survival related to long-COVID-19 (4%). There is a need for controlled cohort studies with long-term follow-up and a focus on overall recovery, health-related quality of life, and the ability to perform daily tasks. Studies need to be extended to later phases of the pandemic and countries with low resources.

The role of platelets, neutrophils and endothelium in COVID-19 infection

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is associated to an increased risk of thrombosis, as a result of a complex process that involves the activation of vascular and circulating cells, the release of soluble inflammatory and thrombotic mediators and blood clotting activation.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the pathophysiological role of platelets, neutrophils and the endothelium, and of their interactions, in the thrombotic complications of COVID-19 patients, and the current and future therapeutic approaches targeting these cell types.

EXPERT OPINION

Virus-induced platelet, neutrophil and endothelial cell changes are crucial triggers of the thrombotic complications and of the adverse evolution of COVID-19. Both the direct interaction with the virus and the associated cytokine storm concur to trigger cell activation in a classical thromboinflammatory vicious circle. Although heparin has proven to be an effective prophylactic and therapeutic weapon for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19-associated thrombosis, it acts downstream of the cascade of events triggered by SARS-CoV-2. The identification of specific molecular targets interrupting the thromboinflammatory cascade upstream, and more specifically acting either on the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with blood and vascular cells or on the specific signalling mechanisms associated with their COVID-19-associated activation, might theoretically offer greater protection with potentially lesser side effects.

Perceptions about the Management of Patients with DM2 and COVID-19 in the Hospital Care Setting

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 entails a higher rate of complications in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Likewise, COVID-19 infection can cause alterations in glucose metabolism that may lead to worse control. The aim of the study was to analyse the perceptions of a large group of Spanish physicians about the relationship between COVID-19 and T2DM, as well as the management, monitoring, and treatment of both diseases.

METHODS

A cross-sectional multicenter national project was conducted based on a survey which included opinion, attitude, and behavior (OAB) questions. Physicians specialised in internal medicine or endocrinology, whose usual clinical practices included the management of T2DM, responded to the survey between March and April 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 112 participants responded to the survey, from which 64.3% believed that COVID-19 entailed a higher risk of glycaemic decompensation irrespective of the presence of previously known T2DM. Obesity was considered a risk factor for poor control of T2DM by 57.7% and for a worse course of COVID-19 by 61.0%. Treatment intensification in not-on-target patients was considered by 57.1% in the presence of COVID-19 and by 73.2% in the absence of COVID-19. No participants considered the suspension of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) in ambulatory patients, 85.7% declared that this therapeutic approach in hospitalized patients should be kept, and 88.4% supported the option of maintaining DPP-4i when corticosteroids were prescribed.

CONCLUSION

The physicians involved in the management of T2DM and COVID-19 are aware of the bidirectional relationship between both conditions. However, the monitoring and therapeutic management of patients with T2DM who are infected by SARS-CoV-2 needs improvement through the following of the current recommendations and available evidence.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

Additional Evidence for Commonalities between COVID-19 and Radiation Injury: Novel Insight into COVID-19 Candidate Drugs

COVID-19 is a challenge to biosecurity and public health. The speed of vaccine development lags behind that of virus evolution and mutation. To date, no agent has been demonstrated to be fully effective against COVID-19. Therefore, it remains of great urgency to rapidly develop promising therapeutic and diagnostic candidates. Intriguingly, mounting evidence hints at parallel etiologies between SARS-CoV-2 infection and radiation injury. Herein, from the perspectives of immunogenic pathway activation and metabolic alterations, we provide novel evidence of commonalities between these two pathological conditions based on the most recent findings. Since numerous agents have been developed to prevent or reverse radiation injury in the past 70 years to ensure nuclear safety, we also advocate investigating the promising function of radioprotectors and radiomitigators against COVID-19 in clinical settings.

Practices, knowledge, and attitudes of community pharmacists towards dispensing drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross sectional study from Jordan

Background

Pharmacists have an important role in providing correct information, education, and counseling to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic and other health crisis. In order to perform their duties in a correct manner, they must receive adequate and evidence-based information from official resources.

Objectives

The objectives of the study were to examine the practices of community pharmacists towards dispensing drugs during the COVI-19 pandemic and assess their knowledge concerning the safety and efficacy of these drugs in managing the COVID-19 infection.

Methods

This was a web-based cross-sectional study conducted through the distribution of the questionnaire via the social media through a google form. The drugs examined were azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, and certain antiviral drugs.

Results

A total of 485 community pharmacists responded to the questionnaire. Pharmacists dispensed these medications based on the physician's orders, 420 (86.6%), according to the pharmacist´s recommendations 327 (67.4%), or upon patient´s request 278 (57.3%). Azithromycin was the most dispensed drug and two thirds of the pharmacists dispensed drugs more than 10 times. Community pharmacists did not possess adequate knowledge concerning the effectiveness and safety of the drugs in the management of COVID-19 infection. In the multivariate linear regression analysis; education, type of university, and the average number of daily customers were statistically significant, p values: 0.004, 0.002, and 0.016, respectively. Pharmacists did not have a positive attitude towards dispensing drugs based on their own recommendations. More than half of the pharmacists agreed that they thought it was a correct decision to give these drugs based on their own judgment.

Conclusion

Community pharmacists should not receive information from non-official sources. Strict regulations and implementation of disciplinary actions against pharmacists that dispense prescription only drugs based on their medical judgment are necessary to stop this illegal behavior. A proactive role demonstrated by the pharmacists and based on scientific facts will reduce misconceptions and hazardous behavior of self-medication using prescription only drugs based on rumors and fictitious news.

Approach to the management of COVID-19 patients: When home care can represent the best practice

BACKGROUND

The pandemic that began around February 2020, caused by the viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), has still not completed its course at present in June 2022.

OBJECTIVE

The open research to date highlights just how varied and complex the outcome of the contagion can be.

METHOD

The clinical pictures observed following the contagion present variabilities that cannot be explained completely by the patient's age (which, with the new variants, is rapidly changing, increasingly affecting younger patients) nor by symptoms and concomitant pathologies (which are no longer proving to be decisive in recent cases) in relation to medium-to-long term sequelae. In particular, the functions of the vascular endothelium and vascular lesions at the pre-capillary level represent the source of tissue hypoxia and other damage, resulting in the clinical evolution of COVID-19.

RESULTS

Keeping the patient at home with targeted therapeutic support, aimed at not worsening vascular endothelium damage with early and appropriate stimulation of endothelial cells, ameliorates the glycocalyx function and improves the prognosis and, in some circumstances, could be the best practice suitable for certain patients.

CONCLUSION

Clinical information thus far collected may be of immense value in developing a better understanding of the present pandemic and future occurrences regarding patient safety, pharmaceutical care and therapy liability.

Exploring antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects of thiol drugs in COVID-19

The redox status of the cysteine-rich SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (SARS-2-S) is important for the binding of SARS-2-S to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), suggesting that drugs with a functional thiol group (“thiol drugs”) may cleave cystines to disrupt SARS-CoV-2 cell entry. In addition, neutrophil-induced oxidative stress is a mechanism of COVID-19 lung injury, and the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of thiol drugs, especially cysteamine, may limit this injury. To first explore the antiviral effects of thiol drugs in COVID-19, we used an ACE-2 binding assay and cell entry assays utilizing reporter pseudoviruses and authentic SARS-CoV-2 viruses. We found that multiple thiol drugs inhibit SARS-2-S binding to ACE2 and virus infection. The most potent drugs were effective in the low millimolar range, and IC₅₀ values followed the order of their cystine cleavage rates and lower thiol pK_a values. To determine if thiol drugs have antiviral effects in vivo and to explore any anti-inflammatory effects of thiol drugs in COVID-19, we tested the effects of cysteamine delivered intraperitoneally to hamsters infected with SARS-CoV-2. Cysteamine did not decrease lung viral infection, but it significantly decreased lung neutrophilic inflammation and alveolar hemorrhage. We speculate that the concentration of cysteamine achieved in the lungs with intraperitoneal delivery was insufficient for antiviral effects but sufficient for anti-inflammatory effects. We conclude that thiol drugs decrease SARS-CoV-2 lung inflammation and injury, and we provide rationale for future studies to test if direct (aerosol) delivery of thiol drugs to the airways might also result in antiviral effects.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Standard of care for COVID-19 in randomized clinical trials registered in trial registries and published in preprint servers and scholarly journals: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The concept of standard of care (SoC) treatment is commonly utilized in clinical trials. However, in a setting of an emergent disease, such as COVID-19, where there is no established effective treatment, it is unclear what the investigators considered as the SoC in early clinical trials. The aim of this study was to analyze and classify SoC reported in randomized controlled trial (RCT) registrations and RCTs published in scholarly journals and on preprint servers about treatment interventions for COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study. We included RCTs registered in a trial registry, and/or published in a scholarly journal, and/or published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv (any phase; any recruitment status; any language) that aim to compare treatment interventions related to COVID-19 and SoC, available from January 1, 2020, to October 8, 2020. Studies using "standard" treatment were eligible for inclusion if they reported they used standard, usual, conventional, or routine treatment. When we found such multiple reports of an RCT, we treated those multiple sources as one unit of analysis.

RESULTS

Among 737 unique trials included in the analysis, 152 (21%) reported that SoC was proposed by the institutional or national authority. There were 129 (18%) trials that reported component(s) of SoC; the remaining trials simply reported that they used SoC, with no further detail. Among those 129 trials, the number of components of SoC ranged from 1 to 10. The most commonly used groups of interventions in the SoC were antiparasitics (62% of the trials), antivirals (57%), antibiotics (31%), oxygen (17%), antithrombotics/anticoagulants (14%), vitamins (13%), immunomodulatory agents (13%), corticosteroids (12%), analgesics/antipyretics (12%). Various combinations of those interventions were used in the SoC, with up to 7 different types of interventions combined. Posology, timing, and method of administration were frequently not reported for SoC components.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs (82%) about treatment for COVID-19 that were registered or published in the first 9 months of the pandemic did not describe the "standard of care" they used. Many of those interventions have, by now, been shown as ineffective or even detrimental.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Recommendations for the Outpatient Drug Treatment of Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

One of the purposes of outpatient treatment for COVID-19 patients is to prevent severe disease courses and hospitalization. There is a need for evidence-based recommendations to be applied in primary care and specialized outpatient settings.

METHODS

This guideline was developed on the basis of publications that were retrieved by a systematic search for randomized controlled trials in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE, and structured consensus generation was carried out with MAGICapp.

RESULTS

Unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for a severe disease course may be treated in the early phase of the disease with sotrovimab, remdesivir, or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Molnupiravir may also be used for such patients if no other clinically appropriate treatment options are available. Immunosuppressed persons with COVID-19 who are at high risk, and whose response to vaccination is expected to be reduced, ought to be treated with sotrovimab. It should be noted, however, that the clinical efficacy of sotrovimab against infections with the omicron subtype BA.2 is uncertain at the currently used dose, as the drug has displayed reduced activity against this subtype in vitro. COVID-19 patients at risk of a severe course may be offered budesonide inhalation, according to an off-label recommendation of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (other medical societies do not recommend either for or against this treatment). Thrombo - embolism prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin may be given to elderly patients or those with a pre-existing illness. No recommendation is made concerning fluvoxamine or colchicine. Acetylsalicylic acid, azithromycin, ivermectin, systemic steroids, and vitamin D should not be used for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Drug treatment is now available for outpatients with COVID-19 in the early phase. Nearly all of the relevant trials have been conducted in unvaccinated subjects; this needs to be kept in mind in patient selection.

Immune-Related Protein Interaction Network in Severe COVID-19 Patients toward the Identification of Key Proteins and Drug Repurposing

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still an active global public health issue. Although vaccines and therapeutic options are available, some patients experience severe conditions and need critical care support. Hence, identifying key genes or proteins involved in immune-related severe COVID-19 is necessary to find or develop the targeted therapies. This study proposed a novel construction of an immune-related protein interaction network (IPIN) in severe cases with the use of a network diffusion technique on a human interactome network and transcriptomic data. Enrichment analysis revealed that the IPIN was mainly associated with antiviral, innate immune, apoptosis, cell division, and cell cycle regulation signaling pathways. Twenty-three proteins were identified as key proteins to find associated drugs. Finally, poly (I:C), mitomycin C, decitabine, gemcitabine, hydroxyurea, tamoxifen, and curcumin were the potential drugs interacting with the key proteins to heal severe COVID-19. In conclusion, IPIN can be a good representative network for the immune system that integrates the protein interaction network and transcriptomic data. Thus, the key proteins and target drugs in IPIN help to find a new treatment with the use of existing drugs to treat the disease apart from vaccination and conventional antiviral therapy.

Impact of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus on the Incidence and Outcomes of COVID-19 Needing Hospital Admission According to Sex: Retrospective Cohort Study Using Hospital Discharge Data in Spain, Year 2020

(1) Background: To analyze incidence and in-hospital mortality (IHM) of COVID-19 needing hospital admission in Spain (2020) in patients with T2DM. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Using the Spanish Register of Specialized Care-Basic Minimum Database we estimated age-adjusted incidence rates (IR). (3) Results: We included 203,488 patients (56.77% men), of whom 45,620 (22.41%) had T2DM. Age-adjusted IRs/1000 for men with and without T2DM was 12.90 and 5.87, respectively (IRR 2.20; 95% CI 2.18−2.22; p < 0.001), and for women with and without T2DM was 9.23 and 4.27, respectively (IRR 2.16; 95% CI 2.13−2.19; p < 0.001). Crude IHM was 23.86% in people with T2DM, and 15.94% in non-T2DM people (p < 0.001). After matching, intensive-care admission (7.37% vs. 6.15%; p < 0.001) and IHM (23.37% vs. 20.41%; p < 0.001) remained higher in women with T2DM. After matching, IHM among T2DM men was 1.5% higher than among non-T2DM men (24.27% vs. 22.72%; p < 0.001). Men with T2DM had a 34% higher IHM than women with T2DM. Prevalent T2DM increased IHM among women (1.09; 95% 1.03−1.16) and men (1.05; 95% 1.01−1.10). (4) Conclusions: Incidence rates of COVID-19 needing hospital admission were higher in men vs. women, and for people with T2DM vs. non-T2DM. Men had higher IHM beside T2DM status. Prevalent T2DM was associated with higher IHM for both sexes.

Endocrine Follow-up During Post-Acute COVID-19: Practical Recommendations Based on Available Clinical Evidence

OBJECTIVE

COVID-19 affects multiple endocrine organ systems during the disease course. However, follow-up data post-COVID-19 is scarce; hitherto available limited data suggest that most of the biochemical endocrine dysfunctions observed during acute phase of COVID-19 tend to improve after recovery. Hence, we aim to provide a rational approach toward endocrine follow-up of patients during post-acute COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a literature review across PubMed/MEDLINE database looking into the effects of COVID-19 on endocrine system and subsequent long-term endocrine sequelae. Accordingly, we have presented a practical set of recommendations regarding endocrine follow-up post-acute COVID-19.

RESULTS

COVID-19 can lead to new-onset hyperglycemia/diabetes mellitus or worsening of dysglycemia in patients with preexisting diabetes mellitus. Hence, those with preexisting diabetes mellitus should ensure optimum glycemic control in the post-COVID-19 period. New-onset diabetes mellitus has been described post-acute COVID-19; hence, a selected group of patients (aged <70 years and those requiring intensive care unit admission) may be screened for the same at 3 months. Thyroid dysfunction (euthyroid sick syndrome and atypical thyroiditis) and adrenal insufficiency have been described in COVID-19; however, thyroid/adrenal functions usually normalize on follow-up; hence, widespread screening post-acute COVID-19 should not be recommended. Pituitary apoplexy and male hypogonadism have rarely been documented in COVID-19; therefore, appropriate follow-up may be undertaken as per clinical context. Hypocalcemia during COVID-19 is not uncommon; however, routine estimation of serum calcium post-COVID-19 is not warranted.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations herein provide a rational approach that would be expected to guide physicians to better delineate and manage the endocrine sequelae during post-acute COVID-19.

Inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections.

MAIN RESULTS

Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) - People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. - People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); - probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by -4.00 days, 95% CI -6.22 to -1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence); - the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Methylprednisolone Pulses in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Without Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Corticosteroids are the cornerstone of the treatment of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. However, whether corticosteroids can prevent respiratory worsening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without oxygen requirements is currently unknown.

Aims

To assess the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulses (MPP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with increased levels of inflammatory markers not requiring oxygen at baseline.

Methods

Multicenter, parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Spain. Patients admitted for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with raised inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein >60 mg/L, interleukin-6 >40 pg/ml, or ferritin >1,000 μg/L) but without respiratory failure after the first week of symptom onset were randomized to receive a 3-day course of intravenous MPP (120 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 14 days, a composite variable including mortality, the need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation, and clinical worsening, this last parameter defined as a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio below 300; or a 15% decrease in the PaO₂ from baseline, together with an increase in inflammatory markers or radiological progression. If clinical worsening occurred, patients received tocilizumab and unmasked corticosteroids. The secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, adverse events, need for ICU admission or high-flow oxygen, length of hospital stay, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and changes in laboratory parameters.

Results

A total of 72 patients were randomized and 71 patients were analyzed (34 in the MPP group and 37 in the placebo group). Twenty patients presented with treatment failure (29.4 in the MPP group vs. 27.0% in the placebo group, p = 0.82), with no differences regarding the time to treatment failure between groups. There were no cases of death or mechanical ventilation requirements at 14 days post-randomization. The secondary outcomes were similar in MPP and placebo groups.

Conclusions

A 3-day course of MPP after the first week of disease onset did not prevent respiratory deterioration in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an inflammatory phenotype who did not require oxygen.

Molecular Insights of SARS-CoV-2 Antivirals Administration: A Balance between Safety Profiles and Impact on Cardiovascular Phenotypes

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a complex clinical challenge, caused by a novel coronavirus, partially similar to previously known coronaviruses but with a different pattern of contagiousness, complications, and mortality. Since its global spread, several therapeutic agents have been developed to address the heterogeneous disease treatment, in terms of severity, hospital or outpatient management, and pre-existing clinical conditions. To better understand the rationale of new or old repurposed medications, the structure and host-virus interaction molecular bases are presented. The recommended agents by EDSA guidelines comprise of corticosteroids, JAK-targeting monoclonal antibodies, IL-6 inhibitors, and antivirals, some of them showing narrow indications due to the lack of large population trials and statistical power. The aim of this review is to present FDA-approved or authorized for emergency use antivirals, namely remdesivir, molnupinavir, and the combination nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and their impact on the cardiovascular system. We reviewed the literature for metanalyses, randomized clinical trials, and case reports and found positive associations between remdesivir and ritonavir administration at therapeutic doses and changes in cardiac conduction, relatable to their previously known pro-arrhythmogenic effects and important ritonavir interactions with cardioactive medications including antiplatelets, anti-arrhythmic agents, and lipid-lowering drugs, possibly interfering with pre-existing therapeutic regimens. Nonetheless, safety profiles of antivirals are largely questioned and addressed by health agencies, in consideration of COVID-19 cardiac and pro-thrombotic complications generally experienced by predisposed subjects. Our advice is to continuously adhere to the strict indications of FDA documents, monitor the possible side effects of antivirals, and increase physicians' awareness on the co-administration of antivirals and cardiovascular-relevant medications. This review dissects the global and local tendency to structure patient-based treatment plans, for a glance towards practical application of precision medicine.

The Central Role of Extracellular Vesicles in the Mechanisms of Thrombosis in COVID-19 Patients With Cancer and Therapeutic Strategies

Cancer patients have increased SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and are prone to developing severe COVID-19 infections. The incidence of venous thrombosis is approximately 20% in COVID-19 patients with cancer. It has been suggested that thrombus formation has been suggested to correlate with severe clinical manifestations, mortality, and sequelae. In this review, we primarily elaborate on the pathophysiological mechanisms of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients with cancer, emphasize the role of microparticles (MPs) and phosphatidylserine (PS) in coagulation, and propose an antithrombotic strategy. The coagulation mechanisms of COVID-19 and cancer synergistically amplify the coagulation cascade, and collectively promotes pulmonary microvascular occlusion. During systemic coagulation, the virus activates immune cells to release abundant proinflammatory cytokines, referred to as cytokine storm, resulting in the apoptosis of tumor and blood cells and subsequent MPs release. Additionally, we highlight that tumor cells contribute to MPs and coagulation by apoptosis owing to insufficient blood supply. A positive feedback loop of cytokines storm and MPs storm promotes microvascular coagulation storm, leading to microthrombi formation and inadequate blood perfusion. Microthrombi-damaged endothelial cells (ECs), tumor, and blood cells further aggravate the apoptosis of the cells and facilitate MPs storm. PS, especially on MPs, plays a pivotal role in the blood coagulation process, contributing to clot initiation, amplification, and propagation. Since coagulation is a common pathway of COVID-19 and cancer, and associated with mortality, patients would benefit from antithrombotic therapy. The above results lead us to assert that early stage antithrombotic therapy is optimal. This strategy is likely to maintain blood flow patency contributing to viral clearance, attenuating the formation of cytokines and MPs storm, maintaining oxygen saturation, and avoiding the progress of the disease.

A Peek into Pandora’s Box: COVID-19 and Neurodegeneration

Ever since it was first reported in Wuhan, China, the coronavirus-induced disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has become an enigma of sorts with ever expanding reports of direct and indirect effects of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on almost all the vital organ systems. Along with inciting acute pulmonary complications, the virus attacks the cardiac, renal, hepatic, and gastrointestinal systems as well as the central nervous system (CNS). The person-to-person variability in susceptibility of individuals to disease severity still remains a puzzle, although the comorbidities and the age/gender of a person are believed to play a key role. SARS-CoV-2 needs angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for its infectivity, and the association between SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2 leads to a decline in ACE2 activity and its neuroprotective effects. Acute respiratory distress may also induce hypoxia, leading to increased oxidative stress and neurodegeneration. Infection of the neurons along with peripheral leukocytes’ activation results in proinflammatory cytokine release, rendering the brain more susceptible to neurodegenerative changes. Due to the advancement in molecular biology techniques and vaccine development programs, the world now has hope to relatively quickly study and combat the deadly virus. On the other side, however, the virus seems to be still evolving with new variants being discovered periodically. In keeping up with the pace of this virus, there has been an avalanche of studies. This review provides an update on the recent progress in adjudicating the CNS-related mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its potential to incite or accelerate neurodegeneration in surviving patients. Current as well as emerging therapeutic opportunities and biomarker development are highlighted.

Experience with Cutaneous Manifestations in COVID-19 Patients during the Pandemic

After the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, our dermatology department created a multidisciplinary unit to manage patients with cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19. With the objective of identifying skin lesions in patients with suspected COVID-19 and evaluating possible associations with systemic involvement, other infectious agents and coagulation disorders, we carried out a prospective observational study that included all patients that attended our COVID-19 dermatology clinic with a multidisciplinary protocol. A total of 63 patients (mean 34.6 years) were enrolled between May 2020 and February 2021. Overall, 27 patients (42.9%) had a positive COVID-19 test, and 74.6% had COVID-19 clinical signs. The most common skin lesion was maculopapular rash (36.5%), predominantly seen in male (54.2%) and older patients (42 vs. 30 years), followed by chilblain-like lesions (20.6%) in younger patients (13.9 vs. 20.9 years) who were predominantly barefoot at home (69.2%); these patients exhibited a tendency towards a negative COVID-19 test. A total of 12 patients (19.1%) had positive serology for herpesvirus 6 (IgM or IgG). We conclude that the COVID-19-associated skin lesions we observed were similar to those previously described. Questions as to the underlying mechanisms remain. Interferon, possibly aided by cold exposure, may cause perniosis-like lesions. Other cutaneous manifestations were similar to those caused by other viruses, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 may reactivate or facilitate other viral infections.

COVID-19 infection: from stress-related cortisol levels to adrenal glands infarction

Cortisol is a key element in acute stress including a severe infection. However, in coronavirus-associated disease, 20% of subjects experience hypocortisolemia due to direct or immune damage of pituitary and adrenal glands. One extreme form of adrenal insufficiency is found in 2∕3 of cases with viral and post-viral adrenal infarction (AI) (with∕without adrenal hemorrhage) that is mostly associated with a severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection; it requires prompt glucocorticoid intervention. Some reports are incidental findings at computed tomography (CT)∕magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for non-adrenal complications like pulmonary spreading and others are seen on post-mortem analysis. This is a review of PubMed-accessible, English papers focusing on AI in addition to the infection, between March 1, 2020 and November 1, 2021. Exclusion criteria were acute adrenal insufficiency without the histopathological (HP) and∕or imaging report of adrenal enlargement, necrosis, etc., respective adrenal failure due to pituitary causes, or non-COVID-19-related adrenal events. We identified a total of 84 patients (different levels of statistical evidence), as follows: a retrospective study on 51 individuals, two post-mortem studies comprising nine, respectively 12 patients, a case series of five subjects, seven single-case reports. HP aspects include necrosis associated with ischemia, cortical lipid degeneration (+/- focal adrenalitis), and infarcts at the level of adrenal cortex, blood clot into vessels, acute fibrinoid necrosis in arterioles and capsules, as well as subendothelial vacuolization. Collateral potential contributors to adrenal damage are thrombotic events, coagulation anomalies, antiphospholipid syndrome, endothelial dysfunction, severe COVID-19 infection with multiorgan failure, etc. Clinical picture is variable from acute primary adrenal insufficiency to asymptomatic or mild evolution, even a retrospective diagnostic; it may be a part of long COVID-19 syndrome; glucocorticoid therapy for non-adrenal considerations might mask cortisol deficient status due to AI∕hemorrhage. Despite its rarity, the COVID-19-associated AI/hemorrhage represents a challenging new chapter, a condition that is essential to be recognized due to its gravity since prompt intervention with glucocorticoid replacement is lifesaving.

Treatment of patients with Covid-19 with a high dose of ulinastatin

Currently, there are no specific therapeutic agents available for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The present study aimed to assess the efficacy of high-dose ulinastatin for the treatment of patients with Covid-19. A total of 12 patients hospitalized with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were treated with a high dose of ulinastatin alongside standard care. Changes in clinical manifestations, laboratory examinations and chest images were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 10 patients with severe Covid-19 and two patients with moderate Covid-19 received ulinastatin treatment. The average age of the patients was 68.0±11.9 years (age range, 48-87 years). In total, nine of the 12 patients (75.0%) had one or more comorbidities. The most common symptoms on admission were fever (8/12, 66.7%), cough (5/12, 41.7%) and dyspnea (5/12, 41.7%). The percentage of lymphocytes was decreased in 41.7% of patients (5/12) and 58.3% of patients (7/12) had elevated hypersensitive C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (mean, 49.70±77.70 mg/l). The white blood cell levels and the percentage of lymphocytes returned to normal in all of the patients, and CRP was significantly decreased and returned to normal in 83.3% of patients (10/12; mean, 6.87±6.63 mg/l) on day 7 after ulinastatin treatment. Clinical symptoms were relieved synchronously. The peripheral oxygen saturation improved and 66.7% of the patients (8/12) did not require further oxygen therapy 7 days after ulinastatin treatment. No patients required intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation. All patients revealed different degrees of absorption of pulmonary lesions after treatment. Compared with the standard care group, ulinastatin treatment significantly prevented illness deterioration. In conclusion, these preliminary data revealed that high-dose ulinastatin treatment was safe and exhibited a potential beneficial effect for patients with Covid-19.

Malin J, Fichtner F, J. Müller O, Skoetz N, Karagiannidis C. Clinical Practice Guideline: Recommendations on the In-hospital Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The mortality of COVID-19 patients who are admitted to a hospital because of the disease remains high. The implementation of evidence-based treatments can improve the quality of care.

METHODS

The new clinical practice guideline is based on publications retrieved by a systematic search in the Medline databases via PubMed and in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, followed by a structured consensus process leading to the adoption of graded recommendations.

RESULTS

Therapeutic anticoagulation can be considered in patients who do not require intensive care and have an elevated risk of thromboembolism (for example, those with D-dimer levels ≥ 2 mg/L). For patients in intensive care, therapeutic anticoagulation has no benefit. For patients with hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency, prone positioning and an early therapy attempt with CPAP/noninvasive ventilation (CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure) or high-flow oxygen therapy is recommended. Patients with IgG-seronegativity and, at most, low-flow oxygen should be treated with SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibodies (at present, casirivimab and imdevimab). Patients needing no more than low-flow oxygen should additionally be treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. All patients who need oxygen (low-flow, high-flow, noninvasive ventilation/CPAP, invasive ventilation) should be given systemic corticosteroids. Tocilizumab should be given to patients with a high oxygen requirement and progressively severe COVID-19 disease, but not in combination with JAK inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, prone positioning, and invasive ventilation are important elements of the treatment of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. A reduction of mortality has been demonstrated for the administration of monoclonal antibodies, JAK inhibitors, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, and therapeutic anticoagulation to specific groups of patients.

Comparison between Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone Therapy in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia Admitted to Non-Intensive Medical Units

(1) Background: Data on different steroid compounds for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) patients are still limited. The aim of this study was to compare COVID-19 patients admitted to non-intensive units and treated with methylprednisolone or dexamethasone. (2) Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study that included consecutive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in medical wards during the second wave of the pandemic. Thirty-day mortality and the need for intensive or semi-intensive care were the main clinical outcomes analyzed in patients receiving methylprednisolone (60 mg/day) compared with dexamethasone (6 mg/day). Secondary outcomes included complication rates, length of hospital stay, and time to viral clearance. (3) Results: Two-hundred-forty-six patients were included in the analysis, 110 treated with dexamethasone and 136 with methylprednisolone. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups of patients regarding 30-day mortality (OR 1.35, CI95% 0.71-2.56, p = 0.351) and the need for intensive or semi-intensive care (OR 1.94, CI95% 0.81-4.66, p = 0.136). The complication rates, length of hospital stay, and time to viral clearance did not significantly differ between the two groups. (4) Conclusions: In patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in non-intensive units, the choice of different steroid compounds, such as dexamethasone or methylprednisolone, did not affect the main clinical outcomes.

Comparison of Low-Versus High-Dose Steroids in the Clinical Outcome of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

(1) Objectives: Patients with COVID-19 infection have been given various formulations and dosages of steroids over the last year and a half. This study aims to compare the effects of different formulations and doses of steroids on the 30 day in-hospital clinical outcome of patients with severe COVID-19 infection. (2) Material and Methods: An analysis of a retrospective cohort was carried out on patients with severe COVID-19 infection in a high-dependency unit (HDU) between February and July 2021. In total, 557 patients were included in this study. Patients who did not receive steroids (124) were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups based on dosages of steroids (Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day, Dexamethasone > 6 mg/day, and Methylprednisolone = 500 mg/day), given for 10 days. First, clinical outcome was evaluated on the 10th day of steroid administration in relation to mode of oxygen delivery. Then, Kaplan-Meier analysis was employed to determine 30 day in-hospital survival in relation to the use of steroid. (3) Results: Three groups were statistically equal according to biochemical characteristics. After 10 days of Methylprednisolone = 500 mg/day vs. Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day, 10.9% vs. 6.2% of patients required invasive ventilation (p = 0.01). The 30 day in-hospital mortality was lowest, 3%, in individuals receiving Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day, compared to 3.9% in individuals receiving Dexamethasone > 6 mg/day and 9.9% in individuals receiving Methylprednisolone = 500 mg/day, respectively. The median elapsed time was longer than 28 days between admission and outcome for Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day, compared to 18 days for Dexamethasone > 6 mg/day and 17 days for Methylprednisolone = 500 mg/day (p = < 0.0001). Dexamethasone = 6 mg/day was found to be a positive predictor of clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients on regression analysis. (4) Conclusions: Low-dose Dexamethasone (6 mg/day) is more effective than high-dose Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone in improving the survival outcome of severe COVID-19 cases.

Global Prevalence of COVID-19-Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mucormycosis, a secondary fungal infection, gained much attention in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This deadly infection has a high all-cause mortality rate and imposes a significant economic, epidemiological, and humanistic burden on the patients and healthcare system. Evidence from the published epidemiological studies showed the varying prevalence of COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM). This study aims to compute the pooled prevalence of CAM and other associated clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and WHO COVID-19 databases were scanned to retrieve the relevant articles until August 2021. All studies reporting the prevalence of mucormycosis among COVID-19 patients were eligible for inclusion. Two investigators independently screened the articles against the selection criteria, extracted the data, and performed the quality assessment using the JBI tool. The pooled prevalence of CAM was the primary outcome, and the pooled prevalence of diabetes, steroid exposure, and the mortality rate were the secondary outcomes of interest. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2 was used for performing the meta-analysis. This meta-analysis comprised six studies with a pooled sample size of 52,916 COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 62.12 ± 9.69 years. The mean duration of mucormycosis onset was 14.59 ± 6.88 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis. The pooled prevalence of CAM (seven cases per 1000 patients) was 50 times higher than the highest recorded background of mucormycosis (0.14 cases per 1000 patients). A high mortality rate was found among CAM patients with a pooled prevalence rate of 29.6% (95% CI: 17.2-45.9%). Optimal glycemic control and the judicious use of steroids should be the approach for tackling rising CAM cases.

Thiol drugs decrease SARS-CoV-2 lung injury in vivo and disrupt SARS-CoV-2 spike complex binding to ACE2 in vitro

Neutrophil-induced oxidative stress is a mechanism of lung injury in COVID-19, and drugs with a functional thiol group (“thiol drugs”), especially cysteamine, have anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that could limit this injury. Thiol drugs may also alter the redox status of the cysteine-rich SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (SARS-2-S) and thereby disrupt ACE2 binding. Using ACE2 binding assay, reporter virus pseudotyped with SARS-CoV-2 spikes (ancestral and variants) and authentic SARS-CoV-2 (Wuhan-1), we find that multiple thiol drugs inhibit SARS-2-S binding to ACE2 and virus entry into cells. Pseudoviruses carrying variant spikes were less efficiently inhibited as compared to pseudotypes bearing an ancestral spike, but the most potent drugs still inhibited the Delta variant in the low millimolar range. IC50 values followed the order of their cystine cleavage rates and lower thiol pKa values. In hamsters infected with SARS-CoV-2, intraperitoneal (IP) cysteamine decreased neutrophilic inflammation and alveolar hemorrhage in the lungs but did not decrease viral infection, most likely because IP delivery could not achieve millimolar concentrations in the airways. These data show that thiol drugs inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro and reduce SARS-CoV-2-related lung injury in vivo and provide strong rationale for trials of systemically delivered thiol drugs as COVID-19 treatments. We propose that antiviral effects of thiol drugs in vivo will require delivery directly to the airways to ensure millimolar drug concentrations and that thiol drugs with lower thiol pKa values are most likely to be effective.

The effect of cysteamine to decrease SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in vivo and of multiple thiol drugs to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro provides rationale for clinical trials of thiol drugs in COVID-19.

Chronic respiratory diseases other than asthma in children: the COVID-19 tsunami

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects all components of the respiratory system, including the neuromuscular breathing apparatus, conducting and respiratory airways, pulmonary vascular endothelium, and pulmonary blood flow. In contrast to other respiratory viruses, children have less severe symptoms when infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A minority of children experience a post-infectious inflammatory syndrome, the pathology and long-term outcomes of which are poorly understood. The reason for the lower burden of symptomatic disease in children is not yet clear, but several pathophysiological characteristics are postulated. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought distinct challenges to the care of children globally. Proper recommendations have been proposed for a range of non-asthmatic respiratory disorders in children, including primary ciliary dyskinesia and cystic fibrosis. These recommendations involve the continuation of the treatment during this period and ways to maintain stability. School closures, loss of follow-up visit attendance, and loss of other protective systems for children are the indirect outcomes of measures to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, COVID-19 has reshaped the delivery of respiratory care in children, with non-urgent and elective procedures being postponed, and distancing imperatives have led to rapid scaling of telemedicine. The pandemic has seen an unprecedented reorientation in clinical trial research towards COVID-19 and a disruption in other trials worldwide, which will have long-lasting effects on medical science. In this narrative review, we sought to outline the most recent findings on the direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on pediatric respiratory chronic diseases other than asthma, by critically revising the most recent literature on the subject.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.

Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.