Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

Hydroxychloroquine-Chloroquine, QT-Prolongation, and Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Meta-analysis and Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the high-quality literature on the frequency and nature of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) associated with either hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CQ).

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central from 1996 onward using search strategies created in collaboration with medical science librarians.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language from January 1996 to September 2022, involving adult patients at least 18 years of age, were selected. Outcomes of interest were death, arrhythmias, syncope, and seizures. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with a Treatment Arm Continuity Correction for single and double zero event studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

By study drug, there were 31 HCQ RCTs (n = 6677), 9 CQ RCTs (n = 622), and 1 combined HCQ-CQ trial (n = 105). Mortality was the most commonly reported MACE at 220 of 255 events (86.3%), with no reports of torsades de pointes or sudden cardiac death. There was no increased risk of MACE with exposure to HCQ-CQ compared with control (risk ratio [RR] = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.69-1.17, I2 = 0%).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

These findings have important implications with respect to patient reassurance and updated guidance for prescribing practices of these medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite listing as QT-prolonging meds, HCQ-CQ did not increase the risk of MACE.

The effects of hydroxychloroquine and its promising use in refractory obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is obtained by hydroxylation of chloroquine (CQ) and the first indication was malaria. Nowadays, HCQ is commonly used in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with favorable results. Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity and persistent positivity of antiphospholipid antibodies. Around 20-30% of pregnant women with APS develop adverse pregnancy outcomes despite conventional treatment with aspirin and heparin, called refractory obstetric APS. Interestingly, HCQ has shown positive effects on top of the standard of care in some refractory obstetric APS patients. HCQ mechanisms of action in APS comprise its ability to bind sialic acid present in cell membranes, its capacity to block the binding of antiphospholipid antibodies to the cell and the induced increase of pH in extracellular and intracellular compartments. However, the precise mechanisms of HCQ in the specific situation of refractory APS still need to be fully clarified. Therefore, this review summarizes the known modulating effects of HCQ and CQ, their side effects and use in APS and different pathologies to understand the benefit effects and the mechanism of action of HCQ in refractory obstetric APS.

Chiral distinction between hydroxychloroquine enantiomers in binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the forward receptor of SARS-CoV-2

Soon after the outset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (March-April 2020), formulations of the old antimalarial racemic drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) sulfate were authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A call for the chiral switch of HCQ to the single enantiomer (S)-(+)-HCQ for treating the disease followed. The above authorizations were later withdrawn. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) has been recognized to be the forward receptor of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the chiral distinction in the potential preferential binding of the HCQ enantiomers to ACE2, as a basis for its future drug repurposing, using high-field solution Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Proton selective spin-lattice relaxation rates were measured for selected diagnostic nuclei; in particular, protons belonging to the quinoline ring proved to be the most affected by the presence of the protein, for both (S)-(+)-HCQ and (R)-(-)-HCQ enantiomers. An increase in mono-selective relaxation rates was observed for both enantiomers. A significant difference in the magnitude of the increase was detected for all protons investigated, up to a 5-fold and an 8-fold increase in the case of (R)-(-)-HCQ and (S)-(+)-HCQ, respectively. Furthermore, comparison between the normalized mono-selective relaxation rates of the two HCQ enantiomers in their binary mixtures with ACE2 pointed out a certain preference for the (S)-(+)-HCQ enantiomer over (R)-(-)-HCQ in the interaction with ACE2. The findings form the basis for a future application of the drug repurposing/chiral-switch combination strategy to racemic HCQ in previously reported indications for hydroxychloroquine treatment and in the search for new indications in which ACE2 receptors are involved.

[Сardiac arrhythmias in people who have had a coronavirus infection COVID-19: A review]

Heart rhythm disorders are one of the most common complications of coronavirus infection. Heart rhythm disorders can develop in 6-17% of hospitalized patients, and in convalescents, COVID-19 can manifest itself up to 12 months after the completion of the acute phase of the disease. Among the mechanisms for the development of cardiac arrhythmias, there are a direct cytopathic effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the myocardium, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, electrolyte imbalance, hypoxia, the use of antibacterial, antimalarial and antiviral drugs, exudative pericarditis, autonomic dysfunction. The main COVID-19-mediated heart rhythm disorders are sinus tachycardia and bradycardia, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, long QT syndrome. Despite a significant amount of research, the literature data on the prevalence of certain types of cardiac arrhythmias (especially in COVID-19 convalescents), as well as methods for their correction, are somewhat contradictory and need to be clarified. Taking into account the impact of arrhythmia on the quality of life and mortality, active monitoring of convalescents of coronavirus infection, identification and development of approaches to the treatment of heart rhythm disorders in patients who have had COVID-19, seem to be relevant and promising areas in modern cardiology.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Medical Product Procurement, Prices, and Supply Chain in Zimbabwe: Lessons for Supply Chain Resiliency

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted global health supply chains including manufacturing, storage, and delivery of essential medicines, testing kits, personal protective equipment, and laboratory reagents. We sought to document how pandemic impacted the procurement, prices, and supply chain of medical products in Zimbabwe.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured in-depth key informant interviews with 36 health system stakeholders in Zimbabwe involved in medicine procurement. Respondents included pharmacists, regulatory officers, and procurement and supply chain management professionals from public and private sectors.

RESULTS

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents described experiencing long-standing resource constraints, medicine shortages, foreign currency shortages, and supply chain inefficiencies. The pandemic exacerbated this situation due to supply constraints, export restrictions, medicine shortages, and movement restrictions that disrupted logistical and stock management systems. Competitive bidding and tendering processes experienced reduced participation by international suppliers. Significant price increases were initially observed among internationally shipped medicines and for personal protective equipment to cover additional freight costs. COVID-19 pandemic impacts were moderated by reduced patient demand and lower health services utilization, resulting in fewer supply shocks and less price volatility. Further, health system adaptations such as switching treatment regimens, modifying dispensing schedules based on stock availability, redistributing stock of medicines among facilities, and new service delivery models such as integrated outreach services helped ensure continued patient access to medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the need for policies that ensure continuity in access to health services and medical products, even during a pandemic, by avoiding blanket restrictions on medical product exports and imports. Pooled procurement, especially at regional and global levels, with long-term service agreements may help achieve greater resiliency to supply and price shocks from supply chain disruptions. Interventions across manufacturing, trade, and regulatory policy and service delivery models are also needed for supply chain resiliency.

Bad research is not all bad

In this commentary, we discuss a recent article in Trials that raised concerns about the number of poorly performed randomised trials in the medical literature and discuss the trials literature more widely. Although we all aim for higher methodological standards in trials, we argue that (i) the idea that 'most randomised trials are bad', which the recent article concludes is an overly simplistic representation of the situation, and (ii) the suggestion that an increased focus on methodological review during trial development (e.g. ethical boards performing some assessment of the methodologists on a trial), while well meaning, may have negative unintended consequences. We therefore propose that (a) trials should be assessed on their merits and weaknesses, including an assessment of risk of bias but placing that in a wider context; (b) we should recognise that although the methodological conduct of trials is of utmost importance, interventions that aim to improve this could have unintended consequences-such as bureaucracy-that have an overall negative effect; and (c) we should therefore generate an evidence base for policy interventions to improve conduct of trials rather than applying arbitrary rules.

Glucose metabolism disorder: a potential accomplice of SARS-CoV-2

Globally, 265,713,467 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 (CoV-2), including 5,260,888 deaths, have been reported by the WHO. It is important to study the mechanism of this infectious disease. A variety of evidences show the potential association between CoV-2 and glucose metabolism. Notably, people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and other metabolic complications were prone to have a higher risk of developing a more severe infection course than people who were metabolically normal. The correlations between glucose metabolism and CoV-2 progression have been widely revealed. This review will discuss the association between glucose metabolism disorders and CoV-2 progression, showing the promoting effect of diabetes and other diseases related to glucose metabolism disorders on the progression of CoV-2. We will further conclude the effects of key proteins and pathways in glucose metabolism regulation on CoV-2 progression and potential interventions by targeting glucose metabolism disorders for CoV-2 treatment. Therefore, this review will provide systematic insight into the treatment of CoV-2 from the perspective of glucose metabolism.

Cell-permeable peptide nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide platform targeting human betacoronaviruses

Introduction

Antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) with therapeutic potential have recently been reported to target the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Peptide nucleic acids (PNAs)-based ASOs have been regarded as promising drug candidates, but intracellular delivery has been a significant obstacle. Here, we present novel modified PNAs, termed OPNAs, with excellent cell permeability that disrupt the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV-OC43 by introducing cationic lipid moiety onto the nucleobase of PNA oligomer backbone.

Methods

HCT-8 cells and Caco-2 cells were treated with 1 μM antisense OPNAs at the time of viral challenge and the Viral RNA levels were measured by RT-qPCR three days post infection.

Results

NSP 14 targeting OPNA 5 and 11, reduced the viral titer to a half and OPNA 530, 531 and 533 lowered viral gene expression levels to less than 50% of control by targeting the 5' UTR region. Several modifications (oligo size and position, etc.) were introduced to enhance the efficacy of selected OPNAs. Improved OPNAs exhibited a dose-dependent reduction in viral replication and nucleoprotein (NP) protein. When a mixture of oligomers was applied to infected cells, viral titer and NP levels decreased by more than eightfold.

Discussion

In this study, we have developed a modified PNA ASO platform with exceptional chemical stability, high binding affinity, and cellular permeability. These findings indicate that OPNAs are a promising platform for the development of antivirals to combat future pandemic viral infections that do not require a carrier.

Application of optical coherence tomography angiography for microvascular changes in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Retinal toxicity with long-term hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment is a major concern. This systematic review aims to assess the application of optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) to detect microvascular alterations in patients under HCQ.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched until January 14, 2023. Studies using OCTA as a primary diagnostic method to evaluate the macular microvasculature of HCQ users were included. Primary outcomes were macular vessel density (VD) and foveal avascular zone (FAZ) at the superficial (SCP) and deep (DCP) capillary plexus. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of 211 screened abstracts, 13 were found eligible, enrolling 989 eyes from 778 patients. High-risk patients due to longer duration of treatment presented lower VD in the retinal microvasculature than those with low-risk in SCP (P = 0.02 in fovea; P = 0.004 in parafovea) and in DCP (P = 0.007 in fovea; P = 0.01 in parafovea). When compared with healthy controls, HCQ users had lower VD in both plexus-no quantitative synthesis was presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Microvascular changes were found in autoimmune patients under HCQ treatment without any documented retinopathy. However, the evidence produced so far does not allow to draw conclusion concerning the effect of drug as studies were not controlled for disease duration.

Mucocutaneous presentations of consultant critical and non-critical cases of admitted COVID-19 patients, outpatients, and vaccine-associated dermatoses: a clinical atlas and a large original study of two general COVID-19 centers from Iran

Rapid and proper diagnosis of mucocutaneous presentations of COVID-19 which in many cases are representing internal organ damage is a key way to better approach these patients, and it could be even lifesaving. In this original study, we reported consultant critical and non-critical cases of admitted COVID-19 patients and some interesting outpatient cases for 14 months, and some newly encountered vaccine-associated dermatoses. We presented 121 cases divided into 12 categories; all had full multi-aspects photographs attached as an atlas to a Supplementary File. These categories were:1- Generalized papulopustular eruptions (3 patients), 2- Erythroderma (4 patients), 3- Maculopapular lesions(16 patients), 4- Mucosal lesions (8 patients), 5- Urticarial lesions and angioedema (16 patients), 6- Vascular injuries (22 patients), 7- Vesiculobullous lesions (12 patients), 8- The specific new onset of mucocutaneous presentations or aggravation of any especial previous dermatoses (9 patients), 9- Nail changes (3 patients), 10- Hair loss (2 patients), 11- Non-specific mucocutaneous problems (16 patients) and 12-Vaccine-associated dermatoses (10 patients).In the pandemic, if we countered with extensive mucocutaneous lesions with vascular components or vesiculobullous erosive lesions in association with any cutaneous rash that could be an alarming sign of a probable life-threatening systemic event, we would need to approach them as soon as possible.

SARS-CoV-2 and gastrointestinal diseases

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which has caused serious challenges for public health systems worldwide.

Literature review

SARS-CoV-2 invades not only the respiratory system, but also the digestive system, causing a variety of gastrointestinal diseases.

Significance

Understanding the gastrointestinal diseases caused by SARS-CoV-2, and the damage mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 to the gastrointestinal tracts and gastrointestinal glands are crucial to treating the gastrointestinal diseases caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusion

This review summarizes the gastrointestinal diseases caused by SARS-CoV-2, including gastrointestinal inflammatory disorders, gastrointestinal ulcer diseases, gastrointestinal bleeding, and gastrointestinal thrombotic diseases, etc. Furthermore, the mechanisms of gastrointestinal injury induced by SARS-COV-2 were analyzed and summarized, and the suggestions for drug prevention and treatment were put forward for the reference of clinical workers.

Does Widespread Use of Hydroxychloroquine Reduce the Transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19? An Ecological Correlational Study

BACKGROUND

At the beginning of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was widely used as a possible antiviral agent. Current knowledge indicates that HCQ has little or no effect on individual clinical outcomes of COVID-19, but populational effects on disease transmissibility are still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the hypothesis that massive HCQ consumption by a population may contribute to reducing the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 spread by reducing the viral load of infected individuals.

METHODS

Public database of seven states from Brazil in 2020 were assessed, before the start of COVID-19 vaccination. The daily values of the COVID-19 effective reproduction number (Rt) were obtained. Associations between Rt values and the proposed predictor variables (prevalence of COVID-19 as a marker of collective immunity; social isolation indices; consumption of HCQ) were tested using multiple linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

In all seven states, consumption of HCQ was a significant negative predictor of Rt (β ranged from -0.295 to -0.502, p = 0.001). Furthermore, the mean derivative of Rt during the declining period of the COVID-19 incidence (the mean rate of variation) was also significantly negatively related to the mean HCQ consumption in that period (R2 = 0.895; β = -0.783; p = 0.011), meaning that the higher the HCQ consumption, the faster the decline of COVID-19 Rt. It suggests a dose-response phenomenon and a causal relationship in this association.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study are compatible with the hypothesis that HCQ has small but significant in vivo antiviral effects that are able to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility at the populational level.

Ancestry, diversity, and genetics of health-related traits in African-derived communities (quilombos) from Brazil

Brazilian quilombos are communities formed by enslaved Africans and their descendants all over the country during slavery and shortly after its abolition. Quilombos harbor a great fraction of the largely unknown genetic diversity of the African diaspora in Brazil. Thus, genetic studies in quilombos have the potential to provide important insights not only into the African roots of the Brazilian population but also into the genetic bases of complex traits and human adaptation to diverse environments. This review summarizes the main results of genetic studies performed on quilombos so far. Here, we analyzed the patterns of African, Amerindian, European, and subcontinental ancestry (within Africa) of quilombos from the five different geographic regions of Brazil. In addition, uniparental markers (from the mtDNA and the Y chromosome) studies are analyzed together to reveal demographic processes and sex-biased admixture that occurred during the formation of these unique populations. Lastly, the prevalence of known malaria-adaptive African mutations and other African-specific variants discovered in quilombos, as well as the genetic bases of health-related traits, are discussed here, together with their implication for the health of populations of African descent.

Diarrhea and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection

The global coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality, thoroughly affected daily living, and caused severe economic disruption throughout the world. Pulmonary symptoms predominate and account for most of the associated morbidity and mortality. However, extrapulmonary manifestations are common in COVID-19 infections, including gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, such as diarrhea. Diarrhea affects approximately 10% to 20% of COVID-19 patients. Diarrhea can occasionally be the presenting and only COVID-19 symptom. Diarrhea in COVID-19 subjects is usually acute but is occasionally chronic. It is typically mild-to-moderate and nonbloody. It is usually much less clinically important than pulmonary or potential thrombotic disorders. Occasionally the diarrhea can be profuse and life-threatening. The entry receptor for COVID-19, angiotensin converting enzyme-2, is found throughout the GI tract, especially in the stomach and small intestine, which provides a pathophysiologic basis for local GI infection. COVID-19 virus has been documented in feces and in GI mucosa. Treatment of COVID-19 infection, especially antibiotic therapy, is a common culprit of the diarrhea, but secondary infections including bacteria, especially Clostridioides difficile, are sometimes implicated. Workup for diarrhea in hospitalized patients usually includes routine chemistries; basic metabolic panel; and a complete hemogram; sometimes stool studies, possibly including calprotectin or lactoferrin; and occasionally abdominal CT scan or colonoscopy. Treatment for the diarrhea is intravenous fluid infusion and electrolyte supplementation as necessary, and symptomatic antidiarrheal therapy, including Loperamide, kaolin-pectin, or possible alternatives. Superinfection with C difficile should be treated expeditiously. Diarrhea is prominent in post-COVID-19 (long COVID-19), and is occasionally noted after COVID-19 vaccination. The spectrum of diarrhea in COVID-19 patients is presently reviewed including the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, evaluation, and treatment.

Visible-Light-Mediated Solvent-Switched Photosensitizer-Free Synthesis of Polyfunctionalized Quinolines and Pyridines

A solvent (2,2,2-trifluoroethanol (TFE) vs ethyl alcohol (EtOH)) switched synthesis of quinolines and pyridines is illustrated from (E)-2-(1,3-diphenylallylidene)malononitriles via a Pd(II)-catalyzed photochemical process. The active catalyst [L₂Pd(0)] generated serves as an exogenous photosensitizer. The process offers predominantly Z-alkenylated quinolines and pyridines in TFE and EtOH, respectively. Furthermore, large-scale synthesis and a few interesting post-synthetic modifications have been demonstrated.

Integrated Data Analysis Uncovers New COVID-19 Related Genes and Potential Drug Re-Purposing Candidates

The COVID-19 pandemic is an acute and rapidly evolving global health crisis. To better understand this disease's molecular basis and design therapeutic strategies, we built upon the recently proposed concept of an integrated cell, iCell, fusing three omics, tissue-specific human molecular interaction networks. We applied this methodology to construct infected and control iCells using gene expression data from patient samples and three cell lines. We found large differences between patient-based and cell line-based iCells (both infected and control), suggesting that cell lines are ill-suited to studying this disease. We compared patient-based infected and control iCells and uncovered genes whose functioning (wiring patterns in iCells) is altered by the disease. We validated in the literature that 18 out of the top 20 of the most rewired genes are indeed COVID-19-related. Since only three of these genes are targets of approved drugs, we applied another data fusion step to predict drugs for re-purposing. We confirmed with molecular docking that the predicted drugs can bind to their predicted targets. Our most interesting prediction is artenimol, an antimalarial agent targeting ZFP62, one of our newly identified COVID-19-related genes. This drug is a derivative of artemisinin drugs that are already under clinical investigation for their potential role in the treatment of COVID-19. Our results demonstrate further applicability of the iCell framework for integrative comparative studies of human diseases.

The 'myth of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19' is far from reality

The efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of COVID-19 was contentious. In this randomized control double-blind clinical trial, asymptomatic individuals with direct contact with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases were randomized into PEP/HCQ (N = 574) and control/placebo (N = 594) group. The PEP/HCQ group received tablet HCQ 400 mg q 12 hourly on day one followed by 400 mg once weekly for 3 weeks, and the control/Placebo group received matching Placebo. The incidence of COVID-19 was similar (p = 0.761) in PEP [N = 24 out of 574, (4.2%)] and control [N = 27 out of 594, (4.5%)] groups. Total absolute risk reduction for the incidence of new-onset COVID-19 was -0.3% points with an overall relative risk of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.60) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 333 to prevent the incident of one case of COVID-19. The study found that, PEP with HCQ was not advantageous for the prevention of COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Though HCQ is a safer drug, the practice of irrational and indiscriminate use of HCQ for COVID-19 should be restrained with better pharmacovigilance.

Risk and Protective Factors for COVID-19 Morbidity, Severity, and Mortality

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become an evolving global health crisis. Currently, a number of risk factors have been identified to have a potential impact on increasing the morbidity of COVID-19 in adults, including old age, male sex, pre-existing comorbidities, and racial/ethnic disparities. In addition to these factors, changes in laboratory indices and pro-inflammatory cytokines, as well as possible complications, could indicate the progression of COVID-19 into a severe and critical stage. Children predominantly suffer from mild illnesses due to COVID-19. Similar to adults, the main risk factors in pediatric patients include age and pre-existing comorbidities. In contrast, supplementation with a healthy diet and sufficient nutrition, COVID-19 vaccination, and atopic conditions may act as protective factors against the infection of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 vaccination not only protects vulnerable individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection, more importantly, it may also reduce the development of severe disease and death due to COVID-19. Currently used therapies for COVID-19 are off-label and empiric, and their impacts on the severity and mortality of COVID-19 are still unclear. The interaction between asthma and COVID-19 may be bidirectional and needs to be clarified in more studies. In this review, we highlight the clinical evidence supporting the rationale for the risk and protective factors for the morbidity, severity, and mortality of COVID-19.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

LIMITATION

Many outcomes had few events and small samples.

CONCLUSION

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

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Acute Improvements of Oxygenation with Cpap and Clinical Outcomes in Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study

It is not known if the degrees of improvement in oxygenation obtained by CPAP can predict clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. This was a retrospective study conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with CPAP in three University hospitals in Milan, Italy, from March 2020 to March 2021. Arterial gas analysis was obtained before and 1 h after starting CPAP. CPAP failure included either death in the respiratory units while on CPAP or the need for intubation. Two hundred and eleven patients (mean age 64 years, 74% males) were included. Baseline median PaO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P/F), and the alveolar-arterial (A-a) O2 gradient were 68 (57−83) mmHg, 129 (91−179) mmHg and 310 (177−559) mmHg, respectively. Forty-two (19.9%) patients died in the respiratory units and 51 (24.2%) were intubated. After starting CPAP, PaO2/FiO2 increased by 57 (12−113; p < 0.001) mmHg, and (A-a) O2 was reduced by 68 (−25−250; p < 0.001) mmHg. A substantial overlap of PaO2, P/F, and A-a gradient at baseline and during CPAP was observed in CPAP failures and successes; CPAP-associated improvements in oxygenation in both groups were similar. In conclusion, CPAP-associated improvements in oxygenation do not predict clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

An Executed Plan to Combat COVID-19 in the United States

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in late 2019. To date, this coronavirus is responsible for greater than 90 million cases in the United States and more than 1 million confirmed deaths. When this virus came to the United States, testing was unorganized, no effective treatments were known, and no vaccines had been discovered. A plan to correct these deficiencies through cooperative science and efficient clinical trials was implemented to combat this novel virus. This plan developed efficient and inexpensive tests, highly effective medicines to treat and prevent disease progression, and vaccines to immunize the population.

Reduced risk of death in people with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with remdesivir: a nested case-control study

INTRODUCTION

Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several treatment options have been proposed (e.g. steroids, heparin, antivirals and monoclonal antibodies). Remdesivir was the first antiviral approved for the treatment of COVID-19, even though controversial evidence exists concerning the efficacy. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a study to evaluate whether the use of remdesivir was associated with lower mortality in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a nested case-control study of a retrospective cohort collecting medical records of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted in the infectious Disease Unit of Sassari University Hospital (S.C. Clinica di Malattie Infettive, AOU di Sassari, Italy), or in the Infectious Disease Unit of Foggia (AOU "Ospedali Riuniti" Foggia), between 1 July 2020 and 10 November 2021. The outcome considered was death; thus, we matched death (cases) to survivors (controls) by sex and age (1:1).

RESULTS

We included in the study 342 patients, with 171 deaths (cases) and 171 survivors (controls). Remdesivir was administered to 60 people in the control group and to 18 people in the case group (35.1% vs. 10.5%, p < .0001). In the multivariate analysis, treatment with remdesivir and heparin was associated with lower mortality (OR: 0.19 [95% CI :0.10-0.38], p <.0001; OR: 0.39 [95% CI: 0.21-0.74] p = .004, respectively). On the contrary, diabetes, oxygen therapy and CPAP/NIV were associated with higher mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed lower mortality in people with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with remdesivir.

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.

COVID-19 and its genomic variants: Molecular pathogenesis and therapeutic interventions

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by a β-coronavirus and its genomic variants, is associated with substantial morbidities and mortalities globally. The COVID-19 virus and its genomic variants enter host cells upon binding to the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptors that are expressed in a variety of tissues, but predominantly in the lungs, heart, and blood vessels. Patients afflicted with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic or present with critical symptoms possibly due to diverse lifestyles, immune responses, aging, and underlying medical conditions. Geriatric populations, especially men in comparison to women, with immunocompromised conditions, are most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 associated infections, complications, and mortalities. Notably, whereas immunomodulation, involving nutritional consumption, is essential to protecting an individual from COVID-19, immunosuppression is detrimental to a person with this aggressive disease. As such, immune health is inversely correlated to COVID-19 severity and resulting consequences. Advances in genomic and proteomic technologies have helped us to understand the molecular events underlying symptomatology, transmission and, pathogenesis of COVID-19 and its genomic variants. Accordingly, there has been development of a variety of therapeutic interventions, ranging from mask wearing to vaccination to medication. This review summarizes the current understanding of molecular pathogenesis of COVID-19, effects of comorbidities on COVID-19, and prospective therapeutic strategies for the prevention and treatment of this contagious disease.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Long COVID and its Management

The pandemic of COVID-19 is the biggest public health crisis in 21^st Century. Besides the acute symptoms after infection, patients and society are also being challenged by the long-term health complications associated with COVID-19, commonly known as long COVID. While health professionals work hard to find proper treatments, large amount of knowledge has been accumulated in recent years. In order to deal with long COVID efficiently, it is important for people to keep up with current progresses and take proactive actions on long COVID. For this purpose, this review will first introduce the general background of long COVID, and then discuss its risk factors, diagnostic indicators and management strategies. This review will serve as a useful resource for people to understand and prepare for long COVID that will be with us in the foreseeable future.

A comprehensive review of adverse events to drugs used in COVID-19 patients: Recent clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Since the breakthrough of the pandemic, several drugs have been used to treat COVID-19 patients. This review aims to gather information on adverse events (AE) related to most drugs used in this context.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to find articles that contained information about AE in COVID-19 patients. We analysed and reviewed the most relevant studies in the Medline (via PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science. The most frequent AE identified were grouped in our qualitative analysis by System Organ Class (SOC), the highest level of the MedDRA medical terminology for each of the drugs studied.

RESULTS

The most frequent SOCs among the included drugs are investigations (n = 7 drugs); skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (n = 5 drugs); and nervous system disorders, infections and infestations, gastrointestinal disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, and metabolism and nutrition disorders (n = 4 drugs). Other SOCs also emerged, such as general disorders and administration site conditions, renal and urinary disorders, vascular disorders and cardiac disorders (n = 3 drugs). Less frequent SOC were eye disorders, respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, and immune system disorders (n = 2 drugs). Psychiatric disorders, and injury, poisoning and procedural complications were also reported (n = 1 drug).

CONCLUSIONS

Some SOCs seem to be more frequent than others among the COVID-19 drugs included, although neither of the studies included reported causality analysis. For that purpose, further clinical studies with robust methodologies, as randomised controlled trials, should be designed and performed.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Findings

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

Interpretation

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

Funding

COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Prophylaxis in healthcare workers during a pandemic: a model for a multi-centre international randomised controlled trial using Bayesian analyses

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed the disproportionate effects of pandemics on frontline workers and the ethical imperative to provide effective prophylaxis. We present a model for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) that utilises Bayesian methods to rapidly determine the efficacy or futility of a prophylactic agent.

METHODS

We initially planned to undertake a multicentre, phase III, parallel-group, open-label RCT, to determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) taken once a week was effective in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in healthcare workers (HCW) aged ≥ 18 years in New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland. Participants were to be randomised 2:1 to either HCQ (800 mg stat then 400 mg weekly) or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was time to Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary outcome variables included mortality, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admissions and length of mechanical ventilation. The trial had no fixed sample size or duration of intervention. Bayesian adaptive analyses were planned to occur fortnightly, commencing with a weakly informative prior for the no prophylaxis group hazard rate and a moderately informative prior on the intervention log hazard ratio centred on 'no effect'. Stopping for expected success would be executed if the intervention had a greater than 0.975 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Final success would be declared if, after completion of 8 weeks of follow-up (reflecting the long half-life of HCQ), the prophylaxis had at least a 0.95 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Futility would be declared if HCQ was shown to have less than a 0.10 posterior probability of reducing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 20%.

DISCUSSION

This study did not begin recruitment due to the marked reduction in COVID-19 cases in NZ and concerns regarding the efficacy and risks of HCQ treatment in COVID-19. Nonetheless, the model presented can be easily adapted for other potential prophylactic agents and pathogens, and pre-established collaborative models like this should be shared and incorporated into future pandemic preparedness planning.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The decision not to proceed with the study was made before trial registration occurred.

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.

Synergistic anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of repurposed anti-parasitic drug combinations

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic has claimed millions of lives and devastated the health service system, livelihood, and economy in many countries worldwide. Despite the vaccination programs in many countries, the spread of the pandemic continues, and effective treatment is still urgently needed. Although some antiviral drugs have been shown to be effective, they are not widely available. Repurposing of anti-parasitic drugs with in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity is a promising approach being tested in many clinical trials. Combination of these drugs is a plausible way to enhance their effectiveness.

METHODS

The in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of combinations of niclosamide, ivermectin and chloroquine were evaluated in Vero E6 and lung epithelial cells, Calu-3.

RESULTS

All the two-drug combinations showed higher potency resulting in up to 4-fold reduction in the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) values compared to individual drugs. Among these combinations, niclosamide-ivermectin achieved the highest inhibitory level of over 99%. Combination synergy analysis showed niclosamide-ivermectin combination to have the best synergy score with a mean Loewe synergy score of 4.28 and a peak synergy score of 24.6 in Vero E6 cells and a mean Loewe synergy score of 3.82 and a peak synergy score of 10.86 in Calu-3 cells.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated the benefit of drug combinations on anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity. Niclosamide and ivermectin showed the best synergistic profile and should be further tested in clinical trials.

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01646-1.

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 treatment on the cardiovascular system: an updated review

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a major global health problem. COVID-19 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and exhibits pulmonary and extrapulmonary effects, including cardiovascular involvement. There are several attempts to identify drugs that could treat COVID-19. Moreover, many patients infected with COVID-19 have underlying diseases, particularly cardiovascular diseases. These patients are more likely to develop severe illnesses and would require optimized treatment strategies. The current study gathered information from various databases, including relevant studies, reviews, trials, or meta-analyses until April 2022 to identify the impact of SARS-CoV-2 treatment on the cardiovascular system. Studies have shown that the prognosis of patients with underlying cardiovascular disease is worsened by COVID-19, with some COVID-19 medications interfering with the cardiovascular system. The COVID-19 treatment strategy should consider many factors and parameters to avoid medication-induced cardiac injury, mainly in elderly patients. Therefore, this article provides a synthesis of evidence on the impact of different COVID-19 medications on the cardiovascular system and related disease conditions.

Computational study on the affinity of potential drugs to SARS-CoV-2 main protease

Herein, we report a computational investigation of the binding affinity of dexamethasone, betamethasone, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to SARS-CoV-2 main protease using molecular and quantum mechanics as well as molecular docking methodologies. We aim to provide information on the anti-COVID-19 mechanism of the abovementioned potential drugs against SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Hence, the 6w63 structure of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease was selected as potential target site for the docking analysis. The study includes an initial conformational analysis of dexamethasone, betamethasone, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. For the most stable conformers, a spectroscopic analysis has been carried out. In addition, global and local reactivity indexes have been calculated to predict the chemical reactivity of these molecules. The molecular docking results indicate that dexamethasone and betamethasone have a higher affinity than chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for their theoretical 6w63 target. Additionally, dexamethasone and betamethasone show a hydrogen bond with the His41 residue of the 6w63 protein, while the interaction between chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine with this amino acid is weak. Thus, we confirm the importance of His41 amino acid as a target to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro activity.

Antimicrobials in COVID-19: strategies for treating a COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a serious global challenge, with the world engulfed in fighting second, third and fourth waves of the disease, which is reaching scary proportions in terms of cases and mortality in countries like India. Despite the urgent need of proven management protocols, there is still confusion about the best practices for treating COVID-19 with different pharmaceutical interventions. Antimicrobials are empirically used in COVID-19 patients. During the initial phase of this pandemic, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin and doxycycline were widely suggested for possible prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19 in outpatient as well as hospitalized settings. Various national and international guidelines recommended its use. However, cumulative evidence from subsequent clinical trials has revealed no significant clinical benefits in any setting, with the risk of adverse effects being high particularly in combination with azithromycin. Yet, there is continued use of antimicrobials particularly in outpatient settings which should be avoided because there is no justifiable rationale for doing so. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was one of the top problems for global public health before the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began. AMR, which is already a difficult problem, must now be handled in the context of a changing healthcare sector.

Use of Antivirals in SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Critical Review of the Role of Remdesivir

The aim of this report is to review the literature and shed light on the uncertainties surrounding the use of antiviral agents in general and remdesivir in COVID-19 patients. This review evaluated a battery of antiviral compounds and their effectiveness in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. Remdesivir is the only antiviral approved by the EMA and FDA for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This work extensively reviews remdesivir data generated from clinical trials and observational studies, paying attention to the most recent data, and focusing on outcomes to give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the results. This review also discusses the recommendations issued by official bodies during the pandemic in the light of the current knowledge. The use of remdesivir in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection is justified because a virus is the causative agent that triggers the inflammatory responses and its consequences. More trials are needed to improve the management of this disease.

Inpatient Administration of Alpha-1-Adrenergic Receptor Blocking Agents Reduces Mortality in Male COVID-19 Patients

Apha-1-adrenergic receptor antagonists (α₁-blockers) can suppress pro-inflammatory cytokines, thereby potentially improving outcomes among patients with COVID-19. Accordingly, we evaluated the association between α₁-blocker exposure (before or during hospitalization) and COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. We identified 2,627 men aged 45 or older who were admitted to Mount Sinai hospitals with COVID-19 between February 24 and May 31, 2020, in New York. Men exposed to α₁-blockers (N = 436) were older (median age 73 vs. 64 years, P < 0.001) and more likely to have comorbidities than unexposed men (N = 2,191). Overall, 777 (29.6%) patients died in hospital, and 1,850 (70.4%) were discharged. Notably, we found that α₁-blocker exposure was independently associated with improved in-hospital mortality in a multivariable logistic analysis (OR 0.699; 95% CI, 0.498-0.982; P = 0.039) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and baseline vitals and labs. The protective effect of α₁-blockers was stronger among patients with documented inpatient exposure to α₁-blockers (OR 0.624; 95% CI 0.431-0.903; P = 0.012). Finally, age-stratified analyses suggested variable benefit from inpatient α₁-blocker across age groups: Age 45-65 OR 0.483, 95% CI 0.216-1.081 (P = 0.077); Age 55-75 OR 0.535, 95% CI 0.323-0.885 (P = 0.015); Age 65-89 OR 0.727, 95% CI 0.484-1.092 (P = 0.124). Taken together, clinical trials to assess the therapeutic value of α₁-blockers for COVID-19 complications are warranted.

COVID-19 Management Missteps

In December 2019, the first case of a novel coronavirus infectious disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was identified in the province of Wuhan, China. Since the initial identification on March 11, 2020, by the World Health Organization (WHO), COVID-19 had rapidly spread all over the world, leading to the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic. In response to the exponential trend of reported confirmed cases, national governments worked quickly to devise plans to combat the spread and to soften the consequences which were to follow. Two primary approaches included limiting the spread of the virus and increasing hospital capacity. The implementation of these strategies, however, varied greatly among different governments and their respective populations.

Countries developed similar guidelines in response to COVID-19, but with a variation. Many of these guidelines were similar in that they fell under the same general topics such as the use of facial masks, social distancing, and online learning. The effect of COVID-19 on public health was more reliant on the implementation of these recommendations rather than the recommendations themselves. 

The medical therapies used to treat the widespread COVID-19 disease are flourishing and evolving rapidly. Ongoing research shows that the spectrum of treatment for COVID-19 varies from pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic interventions. Some of the treatments that are being used in clinical practice include supportive care, antiviral drugs, immunomodulatory agents, convalescent plasma transfusion, and monoclonal antibody treatments. In addition, the most promising approach thus far is the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and most recently Johnson & Johnson. Overall, as various treatment approaches are being explored and administered to people globally, it is important to acknowledge that there is currently no definite cure or any evidence-based treatment for COVID-19. 

COVID-19 infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have brought devastating consequences to the lives of millions of people through their health effects and the failure of global initiatives to contain it. A review of many missteps that potentially could have altered the landscape for this virus to affect the lives of many is discussed with hope for a better approach going forward. 

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

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

Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.

Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus using ACE2-engineered extracellular vesicles

The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) throughout the world has resulted in stressful healthcare burdens and global health crises. Developing an effective measure to protect people from infection is an urgent need. The blockage of interaction between angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and S protein is considered an essential target for anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) drugs. A full-length ACE2 protein could be a potential drug to block early entry of SARS-CoV-2 into host cells. In this study, a therapeutic strategy was developed by using extracellular vesicles (EVs) with decoy receptor ACE2 for neutralization of SARS-CoV-2. The EVs embedded with engineered ACE2 (EVs-ACE2) were prepared; the EVs-ACE2 were derived from an engineered cell line with stable ACE2 expression. The potential effect of the EVs-ACE2 on anti-SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated by both in vitro and in vivo neutralization experiments using the pseudovirus with the S protein (S-pseudovirus). EVs-ACE2 can inhibit the infection of S-pseudovirus in various cells, and importantly, the mice treated with intranasal administration of EVs-ACE2 can suppress the entry of S-pseudovirus into the mucosal epithelium. Therefore, the intranasal EVs-ACE2 could be a preventive medicine to protect from SARS-CoV-2 infection. This EVs-based strategy offers a potential route to COVID-19 drug development.

Hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health workers: A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Health care workers are at high risk of being infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) in health personnel exposed to patients infected by SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled single center clinical trial. Included subjects were health care workers caring for severe COVID-19 patients. Main outcome was time to symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

127 subjects with a confirmed baseline negative RT-PCR SARS-CoV2 test were included in the trial. 62 assigned to HCQ and 65 to placebo. One subject (1.6%) in the HCQ group and 6 (9.2%) subjects in the placebo group developed COVID-19 (Log-Rank test p = 0.07). No severe COVID-19 cases were observed. The study was suspended because of a refusal to participate and losses to follow up after several trials reported lack of effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

The effect size of hydroxychloroquine was higher than placebo for COVID-19 symptomatic infection in health personnel, although this was not statistically significant. The trial is underpowered due to the failure to complete the estimated sample size.

Studies Progression on the Function of Autophagy in Viral Infection

Autophagy is a conservative lysosomal catabolic pathway commonly seen in eukaryotic cells. It breaks down proteins and organelles by forming a two-layer membrane structure of autophagosomes and circulating substances and maintaining homeostasis. Autophagy can play a dual role in viral infection and serve either as a pro-viral factor or an antiviral defense element dependent on the virus replication cycle. Recent studies have suggested the complicated and multidirectional role of autophagy in the process of virus infection. On the one hand, autophagy can orchestrate immunity to curtail infection. On the other hand, some viruses have evolved strategies to evade autophagy degradation, facilitating their replication. In this review, we summarize recent progress of the interaction between autophagy and viral infection. Furthermore, we highlight the link between autophagy and SARS-CoV-2, which is expected to guide the development of effective antiviral treatments against infectious diseases.