Is there any potential management against COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Convalescent plasma and all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Insight into the clinical potential of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is important given the severe clinical courses in unvaccinated and seronegative individuals. The aim of the study was to investigate whether there is a survival benefit of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. The authors independently assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The binary primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk ratio (RR) of the convalescent plasma treatment (vs. best standard care) and its associated standard error (effect size) were calculated. A random-effects model was employed to statistically pool the effect sizes of the selected studies. We included 19 RCTs with 17,021 patients. The random-effects model resulted in an estimated pooled RR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.33), showing no statistical evidence of the benefit of convalescent plasma therapy on all-cause mortality. Convalescent plasma therapy was not found to be effective in reducing all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Further studies are needed to determine in which patients convalescent plasma therapy may lead to a reduction in mortality.

Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At the end of 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expanded its approval for the recombinant human interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with elevated soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). However, the role of Anakinra in COVID-19 remains unanswered, especially in patients receiving different forms of respiratory support. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the safety and effects of Anakinra compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCSR)) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database to identify completed and ongoing studies from inception of each database to December 13, 2021. Since then, we monitored new published studies weekly up to June 30, 2022 using the CCSR. We included RCTs comparing treatment with Anakinra to placebo or standard care alone in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 1,627 patients (n_Anakinra = 888, n_control = 739, mean age 59.63 years, 64% male). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. We found that Anakinra makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 compared to placebo or standard care alone (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64-1.45; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 84 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 1593 participants; I² = 49%; low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Anakinra has no effect on adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding mortality, clinical improvement and worsening as well as on safety outcomes compared to placebo or standard care alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021257552.

Antiviral Compounds Based on Natural ASTRAGALUS POLYSACCHARIDE (APS): Researches and Foresight in the Strategies for Combating SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

Today, finding natural polymers with desirable properties for use in various industries is one of the critical axes of research in the world. Polysaccharides are a group of natural polymers that have various applications in the pharmaceutical industry. The attachment of monosaccharides forms polysaccharides through glycosidic bonds that are widely found in various sources, including plants. Genus Astragalus belongs to the Fabaceae family. Plants belonging to this genus have different polysaccharides. Astragalus polysaccharides (APS) have attracted a great deal of attention among natural polymers because they are non-toxic, biodegradable, and biocompatible. Currently, APS has great drug potential for curing or treating various diseases. Due to the different biological activities of polysaccharides, including Astragalus, this study has investigated the chemical structure of APS, research report on antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and stimulation of cytokine secretion by these polysaccharides. Also, in this study, the pharmaceutical approaches of APS compounds, as a natural, new and inexpensive source, have been discussed as suitable candidates for use in pharmaceutical formulations and preparation of new drugs to control COVID-19 infection.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).

METHODS

In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.

Tocilizumab in COVID-19: enthusiasm vs. evidence

Based on the pathophysiological characterization of COVID-19, initial studies suggested the use of tocilizumab (TCZ), a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody of the immunoglobulin G1 class, for management of the cytokine storm witnessed in severe cases. Thus, we decided to present a case series of 18 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with TCZ at our hospital. Our results coincide with the fact that the routine use of TCZ in severe COVID-19 is not robustly supported. We believe that the efficacy and safety of this drug and other related molecules should be validated in large randomized clinical trials.

Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Convalescent plasma (CP) from patients recovered from COVID-19 is one of the most studied anti-viral therapies against SARS-COV-2 infection. The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence from the available systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of CP in COVID-19 through an overview of the published systematic reviews (SRs). A systematic literature search was conducted up to August 2021 in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Medrxiv databases to identify systematic reviews focusing on CP use in COVID-19. Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews) and GRADE tools. The following outcomes were analyzed: mortality, viral clearance, clinical improvement, length of hospital stay, adverse reactions. In addition, where possible, subgroup analyses were performed according to study design (e.g., RCTs vs. non-RCTs), CP neutralizing antibody titer and timing of administration, and disease severity. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the checklist for systematic reviews AMSTAR-2 and the GRADE assessment. Overall, 29 SRs met the inclusion criteria based on 53 unique primary studies (17 RCT and 36 non-RCT). Limitations to the methodological quality of reviews most commonly related to absence of a protocol (11/29) and funding sources of primary studies (27/29). Of the 89 analyses on which GRADE judgements were made, effect estimates were judged to be of high/moderate certainty in four analyses, moderate in 38, low in 38, very low in nine. Despite the variability in the certainty of the evidence, mostly related to the risk of bias and inconsistency, the results of this umbrella review highlight a mortality reduction in CP over standard therapy when administered early and at high titer, without increased adverse reactions.

Effect of Tocilizumab in Reducing the Mortality Rate in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Data supporting the use of Tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 are contrasting and inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to assess TCZ effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, WILEY, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to evaluate observational studies and RCTs. The outcome was the mortality rate. Forty observational studies and seven RCTs, involving 9640 and 5556 subjects treated with Standard Therapy (ST) + TCZ or ST alone, respectively, were included. In patients treated with ST+TCZ, a higher survival (Log odds ratio = −0.41; 95% CI: −0.68 −0.14; p < 0.001) was found. Subgroups analyses were performed to better identify the possible interference of some parameters in modifying the efficacy of TCZ therapy on COVID-19 mortality. Separating observational from RCTs, no statistically significant (p = 0.70) TCZ-related reduction of mortality regarding RCTs was found, while a significant reduction (Log odds ratio = −0.52; 95% CI: −0.82 −0.22, p < 0.001) was achieved regarding the observational studies. Stratifying for the use of Invasive Mechanic Ventilation (IMV), a higher survival was found in patients treated with TCZ in the No-IMV and IMV groups (both p < 0.001), but not in the No-IMV/IMV group. Meta-regression analyses were also performed. The meta-analysis of observational studies reveals that TCZ is associated with reducing the mortality rate in both severe and critically ill patients. Although the largest RCT, RECOVERY, is in line with this result, the meta-analysis of RCTs failed to found any difference between ST + TCZ and ST. It is crucial to personalize the therapy considering the patients’ characteristics.

Features of patients that died for COVID-19 in a hospital in the south of Mexico: A observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Due to the wide spread of SARS-CoV2 around the world, the risk of death in individuals with metabolic comorbidities has dangerously increased. Mexico has a high number of infected individuals and deaths by COVID-19 as well as an important burden of metabolic diseases; nevertheless, reports about features of Mexican individuals with COVID-19 are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate demographic features, clinical characteristics and the pharmacological treatment of individuals who died by COVID-19 in the south of Mexico.

METHODS

We performed an observational study including the information of 185 deceased individuals with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19. Data were retrieved from medical records. Categorical data were expressed as proportions (%) and numerical data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Comorbidities and overlapping symptoms were plotted as Venn diagrams. Drug clusters were plotted as dendrograms.

RESULTS

The mean age was 59.53 years. There was a male predominance (60.1%). The mean hospital stay was 4.75 ± 4.43 days. The most frequent symptoms were dyspnea (88.77%), fever (71.42%) and dry cough (64.28%). Present comorbidities included diabetes (60.63%), hypertension (59.57%) and obesity (43.61%). The main drugs used for treating COVID-19 were azithromycin (60.6%), hydroxychloroquine (53.0%) and oseltamivir (27.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mexican individuals who died of COVID-19 had shorter hospital stays, higher frequency of shortness of breath, and higher prevalence of diabetes than individuals from other countries. Also, there was a high frequency of off-label use of drugs for their treatment.

Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 is one of the worst catastrophic events in human history. Several non-specific antiviral drugs have been tried to defeat the SARS-CoV-2, with mixed results. Convalescent plasma from patients who have recovered from COVID-19 is one of the specific biologic therapies being considered to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preliminary studies have shown that convalescent plasma, containing antibodies able to neutralize SARS-CoV-2, is promising in blocking viral replication and improving patients’ clinical symptoms. The results of several ongoing randomized controlled trials are, however, keenly awaited to definitively elucidate the safety and efficacy of this blood component in COVID-19. In this narrative review, we summarize the current evidence from the literature on the treatment of severe COVID-19 with convalescent plasma. A concise overview of the hypothesized mechanisms of action is also presented.

Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials

Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. Methods: We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. Results: We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight in vitro studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-β1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). Conclusions: This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.