Anti-inflammatory effects of adjunctive macrolide treatment in adults hospitalized with influenza: A randomized controlled trial

A novel 12-membered ring non-antibiotic macrolide EM982 attenuates cytokine production by inhibiting IKKβ and IκBα phosphorylation

Antimicrobial resistance poses a serious threat to human health worldwide and its incidence continues to increase owing to the overuse of antibiotics and other factors. Macrolide antibiotics such as erythromycin (EM) have immunomodulatory effects in addition to their antibacterial activity. Long-term, low-dose administration of macrolides has shown clinical benefits in treating the non-infectious inflammatory respiratory diseases. However, this practice may also increase the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria. In this study, we synthesized a series of EM derivatives, and screened them for two criteria: (i) lack of antibacterial activity and (ii) ability to suppress tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) production in THP-1 cells stimulated with lipopolysaccharide. Among the 37 synthesized derivatives, we identified a novel 12-membered ring macrolide EM982 that lacked antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and suppressed the production of TNF-α and other cytokines. The effects of EM982 on Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling were analyzed using a reporter assay and western blotting. The reporter assay showed that EM982 suppressed the activation of transcription factors, NF-κB and/or activator protein 1 (AP-1), in HEK293 cells expressing human TLR4. Western blotting showed that EM982 inhibited the phosphorylation of both IκB kinase (IKK) β and IκBα, which function upstream of NF-κB, whereas it did not affect the phosphorylation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase, extracellular signal-regulated kinase, and c-Jun N-terminal kinase, which act upstream of AP-1. These results suggest that EM982 suppresses cytokine production by inhibiting phosphorylation of IKKβ and IκBα, resulting in the inactivation of NF-κB.

The tale of antibiotics beyond antimicrobials: Expanding horizons

Antibiotics had proved to be a godsend for mankind since their discovery. They were once the magical solution to the vexing problem of infection-related deaths. German scientist Paul Ehrlich had termed salvarsan as the silver bullet to treatsyphilis.As time passed, the magic of newly discovered silver bullets got tarnished with raging antibiotic resistance among bacteria and associated side-effects. Still, antibiotics remain the primary line of treatment for bacterial infections. Our understanding of their chemical and biological activities has increased immensely with advancement in the research field. Non-antibacterial effects of antibiotics are studied extensively to optimise their safer, broad-range use. These non-antibacterial effects could be both useful and harmful to us. Various researchers across the globe including our lab are studying the direct/indirect effects and molecular mechanisms behind these non-antibacterial effects of antibiotics. So, it is interesting for us to sum up the available literature. In this review, we have briefed the possible reason behind the non-antibacterial effects of antibiotics, owing to the endosymbiotic origin of host mitochondria. We further discuss the physiological and immunomodulatory effects of antibiotics. We then extend the review to discuss molecular mechanisms behind the plausible use of antibiotics as anticancer agents.

Impact of Administering Intravenous Azithromycin within 7 Days of Hospitalization for Influenza Virus Pneumonia: A Propensity Score Analysis Using a Nationwide Administrative Database

The potential antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory effectiveness of azithromycin against severe influenza is yet unclear. We retrospectively investigated the effect of intravenous azithromycin administration within 7 days of hospitalization in patients with influenza virus pneumonia and respiratory failure. Using Japan's national administrative database, we enrolled and classified 5066 patients with influenza virus pneumonia into severe, moderate, and mild groups based on their respiratory status within 7 days of hospitalization. The primary endpoints were total, 30-day, and 90-day mortality rates. The secondary endpoints were the duration of intensive-care unit management, invasive mechanical ventilation, and hospital stay. The inverse probability of the treatment weighting method with estimated propensity scores was used to minimize data collection bias. Use of intravenous azithromycin was proportional to the severity of respiratory failure (mild: 1.0%, moderate: 3.1%, severe: 14.8%). In the severe group, the 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower with azithromycin (26.49% vs. 36.65%, p = 0.038). In the moderate group, the mean duration of invasive mechanical ventilation after day 8 was shorter with azithromycin; there were no significant differences in other endpoints between the severe and moderate groups. These results suggest that intravenous azithromycin has favorable effects in patients with influenza virus pneumonia using mechanical ventilation or oxygen.

Mortality and Survival Factors in Patients with Moderate and Severe Pneumonia Due to COVID-19

During the pandemic, some mortality-related factors were age, sex, comorbidities (obesity, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension), recovery time, hospitalizations, and biochemical markers. The present work aimed to identify the mortality and survival factors in adults with moderate and severe pneumonia due to COVID-19 during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Mexico at a third-level hospital (High-Specialty Regional Hospital of Ixtapaluca (HRAEI), Ixtapaluca, Estado de Mexico, Mexico). A database was generated using information from the electronic clinical records of patients hospitalized from December 2021 to August 2022. Survival analysis was performed associating age, sex, longer recovery times, and some drugs. The risk factors found were age in the patients between 40 and 60 years (OR = 1.70), male sex (OR = 1.53), the presence of comorbidities (OR = 1.66) and hypertension (OR = 2.19), work occupation (construction workers OR = 5.22, factory workers OR = 3.13, unemployed OR = 2.93), the prehospital use of metamizole sodium (OR = 2.17), cough (OR = 1.73), and in-hospital oxygen therapy (reservoir mask OR = 6.6). The survival factors found in this study were working in the healthcare field (OR = 0.26), the prehospital use of certain medications (paracetamol OR = 0.65, dexamethasone OR = 0.55, and azithromycin OR = 0.47), presenting ageusia (OR = 0.5) and hyporexia (OR = 0.34), and the time using in-hospital oxygen therapy (device 1 OR = 0.72). Prehospital treatment needs to be reevaluated as dexamethasone and azithromycin proved to be protective factors. Likewise, providing aggressive oxygen therapy during hospital admission decreased mortality risk.

Influenza antivirals and their role in pandemic preparedness

Effective antivirals provide crucial benefits during the early phase of an influenza pandemic, when vaccines are still being developed and manufactured. Currently, two classes of viral protein-targeting drugs, neuraminidase inhibitors and polymerase inhibitors, are approved for influenza treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis. Resistance to both classes has been documented, highlighting the need to develop novel antiviral options that may include both viral and host-targeted inhibitors. Such efforts will form the basis of management of seasonal influenza infections and of strategic planning for future influenza pandemics. This review focuses on the two classes of approved antivirals, their drawbacks, and ongoing work to characterize novel agents or combination therapy approaches to address these shortcomings. The importance of these topics in the ongoing process of influenza pandemic planning is also discussed.

Azithromycin through the Lens of the COVID-19 Treatment

Azithromycin has become famous in the last two years, not for its main antimicrobial effect, but for its potential use as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19 infection. Initially, there were some promising results that supported its use, but it has become clear that scientific results are insufficient to support such a positive assessment. In this review we will present all the literature data concerning the activity of azithromycin as an antimicrobial, an anti-inflammatory, or an antivirus agent. Our aim is to conclude whether its selection should remain as a valuable antivirus agent or if its use simply has an indirect therapeutic contribution due to its antimicrobial and/or immunomodulatory activity, and therefore, if its further use for COVID-19 treatment should be interrupted. This halt will prevent further antibiotic resistance expansion and will keep azithromycin as a valuable anti-infective therapeutic agent.

Erythromycin Estolate Is a Potent Inhibitor Against HCoV-OC43 by Directly Inactivating the Virus Particle

In addition to antibacterial effects, macrolide antibiotics exhibit other extensive pharmacological effects, such as anti-inflammatory and antiviral activities. Erythromycin estolate, one of the macrolide antibiotics, was previously investigated to effectively inhibit infections of various flaviviruses including Zika virus, dengue virus, and yellow fever virus, but its antiviral effect against human coronavirus remains unknown. Thus, the current study was designed to evaluate the antiviral efficacy of erythromycin estolate against human coronavirus strain OC43 (HCoV-OC43) and to illustrate the underlying mechanisms. Erythromycin estolate effectively inhibited HCoV-OC43 infection in different cell types and significantly reduced virus titers at safe concentration without cell cytotoxicity. Furthermore, erythromycin estolate was identified to inhibit HCoV-OC43 infection at the early stage and to irreversibly inactivate virus by disrupting the integrity of the viral membrane whose lipid component might be the target of action. Together, it was demonstrated that erythromycin estolate could be a potential therapeutic drug for HCoV-OC43 infection.

Delivering macrolide antibiotics to heal a broken heart - And other inflammatory conditions

Drug carriers to deliver macrolide antibiotics, such as azithromycin, show promise as antibacterial agents. Macrolide drug carriers have largely focused on improving the drug stability and pharmacokinetics, while reducing adverse reactions and improving antibacterial activity. Recently, macrolides have shown promise in treating inflammatory conditions by promoting a reparative effect and limiting detrimental pro-inflammatory responses, which shifts the immunologic setpoint from suppression to balance. While macrolide drug carriers have only recently been investigated for their ability to modulate immune responses, the previous strategies that deliver macrolides for antibacterial therapy provide a roadmap for repurposing the macrolide drug carriers for therapeutic interventions targeting inflammatory conditions. This review describes the antibacterial and immunomodulatory activity of macrolides, while assessing the past in vivo evaluation of drug carriers used to deliver macrolides with the intention of presenting a case for increased effort to translate macrolide drug carriers into the clinic.

Pharmacological treatment of COVID-19: an opinion paper

The precocity and efficacy of the vaccines developed so far against COVID-19 has been the most significant and saving advance against the pandemic. The development of vaccines has not prevented, during the whole period of the pandemic, the constant search for therapeutic medicines, both among existing drugs with different indications and in the development of new drugs. The Scientific Committee of the COVID-19 of the Illustrious College of Physicians of Madrid wanted to offer an early, simplified and critical approach to these new drugs, to new developments in immunotherapy and to what has been learned from the immune response modulators already known and which have proven effective against the virus, in order to help understand the current situation.

Antiviral effects of azithromycin: A narrative review

Viral infections have a great impact on human health. The urgent need to find a cure against different viruses led us to investigations in a vast range of drugs. Azithromycin (AZT), classified as a macrolide, showed various effects on different known viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Zika, Ebola, Enterovirus (EVs) and Rhinoviruses (RVs), and Influenza A previously; namely, these viruses, which caused global concerns, are considered as targets for AZT different actions. Due to AZT background in the treatment of known viral infections mentioned above (which is described in this study), in the early stages of COVID-19 (a new zoonotic disease caused by a novel coronavirus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)) development, AZT drew attention to itself due to its antiviral and immunomodulatory effects as a valuable candidate for COVID-19 treatment. AZT usage instructions for treating different viral infections have always been under observation, and COVID-19 is no exception. There are still debates about the use of AZT in COVID-19 treatment. However, eventually, novel researches convinced WHO to announce the discontinuation of AZT use (alone or in combination with hydroxychloroquine) in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. This research aims to study the structure of all of the viruses mentioned above and the molecular and clinical effects of AZT against the virus.

Peramivir, an Anti-Influenza Virus Drug, Exhibits Potential Anti-Cytokine Storm Effects

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infected by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been declared a public health emergency of international concerns. Cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) is a critical clinical symptom of severe COVID-19 patients, and the macrophage is recognized as the direct host cell of SARS-CoV-2 and potential drivers of CSS. In the present study, peramivir was identified to reduce TNF-α by partly intervention of NF-κB activity in LPS-induced macrophage model. In vivo, peramivir reduced the multi-cytokines in serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), alleviated the acute lung injury and prolonged the survival time in mice. In human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (hPBMCs), peramivir could also inhibit the release of TNF-α. Collectively, we proposed that peramivir might be a candidate for the treatment of COVID-19 and other infections related CSS.

Azithromycin for Treatment of Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: a randomised, multicentre, open-label clinical trial (DAWn-AZITHRO)

Background and objectives

Azithromycin was rapidly adopted as a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early in the pandemic. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy in patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

Methods

In a series of randomised, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicentre clinical trials (Direct Antivirals Working against the novel coronavirus (DAWn)), several treatments were compared with standard of care. In 15 Belgian hospitals, patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 were allocated 2:1 to receive standard of care plus azithromycin or standard of care alone. The primary outcome was time to live discharge or sustained clinical improvement, defined as a two-point improvement on the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale sustained for at least 3 days.

Results

Patients were included between April 22 and December 17, 2020. When 15-day follow-up data were available for 160 patients (56% of preset cohort), an interim analysis was performed at request of the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board. Subsequently, DAWn-AZITHRO was stopped for futility. In total, 121 patients were allocated to the treatment arm and 64 patients to the standard-of-care arm. We found no effect of azithromycin on the primary outcome with a hazard ratio of 1.044 (95% CI 0.772–1.413; p=0.7798). None of the predefined subgroups showed significant interaction as covariates in the Fine–Gray regression analysis. No benefit of azithromycin was found on any of the short- and longer-term secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

Time to clinical improvement is not influenced by azithromycin in patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Previous randomised controlled studies with azithromycin in hospitalised COVID-19 patients assessed end-points at fixed timepoints. Complementary to this, DAWn-AZITHRO assessed time to sustained improvement. No benefit of azithromycin was shown.https://bit.ly/3FapyC7

A determination of pan-pathogen antimicrobials?

While antimicrobial drug development has historically mitigated infectious diseases that are known, COVID-19 revealed a dearth of ‘in-advance’ therapeutics suitable for infections by pathogens that have not yet emerged. Such drugs must exhibit a property that is antithetical to the classical paradigm of antimicrobial development: the ability to treat infections by any pathogen. Characterisation of such ‘pan-pathogen’ antimicrobials requires consolidation of drug repositioning studies, a new and growing field of drug discovery. In this review, a previously-established system for evaluating repositioning studies is used to highlight 4 therapeutics which exhibit pan-pathogen properties, namely azithromycin, ivermectin, niclosamide, and nitazoxanide. Recognition of the pan-pathogen nature of these antimicrobials is the cornerstone of a novel paradigm of antimicrobial development that is not only anticipatory of pandemics and bioterrorist attacks, but cognisant of conserved anti-infective mechanisms within the host-pathogen interactome which are only now beginning to emerge. Ultimately, the discovery of pan-pathogen antimicrobials is concomitantly the discovery of a new class of antivirals, and begets significant implications for pandemic preparedness research in a world after COVID-19.

Antibiotics as immunomodulators: a potential pharmacologic approach for ARDS treatment

First described in the mid-1960s, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening form of respiratory failure with an overall mortality rate of approximately 40%. Despite significant advances in the understanding and treatment of ARDS, no substantive pharmacologic therapy has proven to be beneficial, and current management continues to be primarily supportive. Beyond their antibacterial activity, several antibiotics such as macrolides and tetracyclines exert pleiotropic immunomodulatory effects that might be able to rectify the dysregulated inflammatory response present in patients with ARDS. This review aims to provide an overview of preclinical and clinical studies that describe the immunomodulatory effects of antibiotics in ARDS. Moreover, the underlying mechanisms of their immunomodulatory properties will be discussed. Further studies are necessary to investigate their full therapeutic potential and to identify ARDS phenotypes which are most likely to benefit from their immunomodulatory effects.

The Effectiveness of Chlorpromazine to Decrease the Level of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Serum in Schizophrenic Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019

BACKGROUND: The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. The COVID-19 pandemic has also had an impact on mental health, including those with schizophrenia (SCH). There were 131 inpatient schizophrenic patients who were confirmed positive for COVID-19 at Dadi Makassar Hospital, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, but all of these patients did not experience any clinical symptoms of COVID-19. Chlorpromazine as an antipsychotic also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory effects in schizophrenic patients with COVID-19, and the schizophrenic neuroinflammatory is very likely to occur in patients with COVID-19 infection. AIM: The researchers tried to examine the effectiveness of chlorpromazine on serum TNF-values in schizophrenic patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This research is a nested case–control study. The study was conducted on schizophrenic patients with mild and asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 at Dadi Mental Hospital with a sample of 40 patients compared to 42 schizophrenic patients who were not COVID-19. Study subjects received chlorpromazine 100 mg/day for 4 weeks. Serum tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays when COVID-19 was first confirmed and after 4 weeks. Positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) and clinical global impression SCH (CGI-SCH) examinations were also performed to measure the clinical symptoms of SCH. RESULTS: The comparison of baseline TNF-serum levels that increased in the schizophrenic group with COVID-19 was 9.33 pg/ml higher, compared to the schizophrenic group without COVID-19. The decrease in TNF-levels in the schizophrenic group with COVID-19 of 7.96 pg/ml (p < 0.001) indicated an improvement in TNF-serum levels at week 4. Meanwhile, there was no significant decrease in serum TNF- levels in the non-COVID-19 schizophrenic group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The serum TNF-value of schizophrenic patients with COVID-19 is higher than schizophrenic patients without COVID-19. Coadministration of chlorpromazine, antipsychotics, and COVID-19 therapy reduces serum TNF- values in schizophrenic patients with COVID-19. The administration of chlorpromazine and antipsychotic in therapeutic doses reduced the total PANSS and CGI-SCH values.

Drug-based therapeutic strategies for COVID-19-infected patients and their challenges

Emerging epidemic-prone diseases have introduced numerous health and economic challenges in recent years. Given current knowledge of COVID-19, herd immunity through vaccines alone is unlikely. In addition, vaccination of the global population is an ongoing challenge. Besides, the questions regarding the prevalence and the timing of immunization are still under investigation. Therefore, medical treatment remains essential in the management of COVID-19. Herein, recent advances from beginning observations of COVID-19 outbreak to an understanding of the essential factors contributing to the spread and transmission of COVID-19 and its treatment are reviewed. Furthermore, an in-depth discussion on the epidemiological aspects, clinical symptoms and most efficient medical treatment strategies to mitigate the mortality and spread rates of COVID-19 is presented.

Efficacy and Safety of Azithromycin for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The lack of effective medications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to a trend of drug repurposing such as the case of azithromycin which shows immunomodulatory and anti-viral effect. Several clinical trials have shown conflicting results. It is currently unclear whether the available evidence is in favor or against the use of azithromycin in COVID-19 patients. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of azithromycin in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Four independent reviewers selected relevant studies from PubMed, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, and ProQuest published prior to March 2021. The protocol used in this study has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020224967).

RESULTS

We included 17 studies and found that the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.19), need of respiratory support (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.73), hospitalization rate (standardized mean difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.27), and intensive care unit transfer (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.79-1.86) of azithromycin-treated group did not differ significantly (p>0.05) from those of the control group. Azithromycin treatment did not significantly increase the risk of getting secondary infection (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.83-1.82), hypoglycemia (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.38-1.40), gastrointestinal problems (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.73-1.45) or electrocardiogram abnormalities (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.42). The overall quality of evidence ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSION

Azithromycin did not result in a superior clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients, although it was well-tolerated and safe to use.

Lower antibiotic prescription rates in hospitalized COVID-19 patients than influenza patients, a prospective study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 patients are extensively treated with antibiotics despite few bacterial complications. We aimed to study antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to influenza patients in two consecutive years. Furthermore, we investigated changes in antibiotic use from the first to second pandemic wave.

METHODS

This prospective study included both patients from two referral hospitals in Bergen, Norway, admitted with influenza (n = 215) during the 2018/2019 epidemic and with COVID-19 (n = 82) during spring/summer 2020, and national data on registered Norwegian COVID-19 hospital admissions from March 2020 to January 2021 (n = 2300). Patient characteristics were compared, and logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for antibiotic use.

RESULTS

National and local COVID-19 patients received significantly less antibiotics (53% and 49%) than influenza patients (69%, p < .001). Early antibiotics contributed to >90% of antibiotic prescriptions in the two local hospitals, and >70% of prescriptions nationally. When adjusted for age, comorbidities, symptom duration, chest X-ray infiltrates and oxygen treatment, local COVID-19 patients still had significantly lower odds of antibiotic prescription than influenza patients (aOR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09-0.50). At the national level, we observed a significant reduction in antibiotic prescription rates in the second pandemic wave compared to the first (aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.29-0.43).

CONCLUSION

Fewer COVID-19 patients received antibiotics compared to influenza patients admitted to the two local hospitals one year earlier. The antibiotic prescription rate was lower during the second pandemic wave, possibly due to increased clinical experience and published evidence refuting the efficacy of antibiotics in treating COVID-19 pneumonia.

Safe-in-Man Broad Spectrum Antiviral Agents

Emerging and re-emerging viral diseases occur with regularity within the human population. The conventional 'one drug, one virus' paradigm for antivirals does not adequately allow for proper preparedness in the face of unknown future epidemics. In addition, drug developers lack the financial incentives to work on antiviral drug discovery, with most pharmaceutical companies choosing to focus on more profitable disease areas. Safe-in-man broad spectrum antiviral agents (BSAAs) can help meet the need for antiviral development by already having passed phase I clinical trials, requiring less time and money to develop, and having the capacity to work against many viruses, allowing for a speedy response when unforeseen epidemics arise. In this chapter, we discuss the benefits of repurposing existing drugs as BSAAs, describe the major steps in safe-in-man BSAA drug development from discovery through clinical trials, and list several database resources that are useful tools for antiviral drug repositioning.

The Role of Macrolides for the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia and Pneumonia by the Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): A Position Paper by Four Medical Societies from Greece

In light of the accumulating evidence for survival benefit coming from the use of macrolides for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), a group of experts from the field of internal medicine and infectious diseases frame a position statement on the use of macrolides for the management of bacterial CAP and for infection by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). The statement is framed taking into consideration existing publications and own research experience. The main content of this statement is that the combination of one β-lactam and a macrolide should be the first treatment of choice for patients with severe bacterial CAP. Severity is assessed as scoring 2 or more points on the CURB65 scoring system of severity or as pneumonia severity index III to V or C-reactive protein more than 150 mg/l; the suggested macrolide is either azithromycin or clarithromycin. The experts also suggest that in COVID-19 pneumonia, the combination of one β-lactam and a macrolide should be reserved only when there is strong suspicion of bacterial co-infection.

Macrolides May Prevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Entry into Cells: A Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship Study and Experimental Validation

The global pandemic caused by the emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is threatening the health and economic systems worldwide. Despite the enormous efforts of scientists and clinicians around the world, there is still no drug or vaccine available worldwide for the treatment and prevention of the infection. A rapid strategy for the identification of new treatments is based on repurposing existing clinically approved drugs that show antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, after developing a quantitative structure activity relationship analysis based on molecular topology, several macrolide antibiotics are identified as promising SARS-CoV-2 spike protein inhibitors. To confirm the in silico results, the best candidates were tested against two human coronaviruses (i.e., 229E-GFP and SARS-CoV-2) in cell culture. Time-of-addition experiments and a surrogate model of viral cell entry were used to identify the steps in the virus life cycle inhibited by the compounds. Infection experiments demonstrated that azithromycin, clarithromycin, and lexithromycin reduce the intracellular accumulation of viral RNA and virus spread as well as prevent virus-induced cell death, by inhibiting the SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. Even though the three macrolide antibiotics display a narrow antiviral activity window against SARS-CoV-2, it may be of interest to further investigate their effect on the viral spike protein and their potential in combination therapies for the coronavirus disease 19 early stage of infection.

Is there a need to widely prescribe antibiotics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19?

BACKGROUND

Debate continues regarding the usefulness and benefits of wide prescription of antibiotics in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

All patients hospitalized in the Infectious Diseases Department, Dijon University Hospital, Dijon, France between 27 February and 30 April 2020 with confirmed COVID-19 were included in this study. Clinical, biological and radiological data were collected, as well as treatment and outcome data. An unfavourable outcome was defined as death or transfer to the intensive care unit. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients who did and did not receive antibiotic therapy using propensity score matching.

FINDINGS

Among the 222 patients included, 174 (78%) received antibiotic therapy. The univariate analysis showed that patients who received antibiotic therapy were significantly older, frailer and had more severe presentation at admission compared with patients who did not receive antibiotic therapy. Unfavourable outcomes were more common in patients who received antibiotic therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 2.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-8.11; P = 0.04]. Multi-variate analysis and propensity score matching indicated that antibiotic therapy was not significantly associated with outcome (HR 1.612, 95% CI 0.562-4.629; P = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

Antibiotics were frequently prescribed in this study and this was associated with more severe presentation at admission. However, antibiotic therapy was not associated with outcome, even after adjustment. In line with recent publications, such data support the need to streamline antibiotic therapy in patients with COVID-19.

Influenza Therapeutics in Clinical Practice-Challenges and Recent Advances

In the last few years, several new direct-acting influenza antivirals have been licensed, and others have advanced in clinical development. The increasing diversity of antiviral classes should allow an adequate public health response should a resistant virus to one agent or class widely circulate. One new antiviral, baloxavir marboxil, has been approved in the United States for treatment of influenza in those at high risk of developing influenza-related complications. Except for intravenous zanamivir in European Union countries, no antivirals have been licensed specifically for the indication of severe influenza or hospitalized influenza. This review addresses recent clinical developments involving selected polymerase inhibitors, neuraminidase inhibitors, antibody-based therapeutics, and host-directed therapies. There are many knowledge gaps for most of these agents because some data are not published and multiple pivotal studies are in progress at present. This review also considers important clinical research issues, including regulatory pathways, study designs, endpoints, and target populations encountered during the clinical development of novel therapeutics.

Disputes over the production and dissemination of misinformation in the time of COVID-19

Ultimate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation and crisis resolution is dependent on trustworthy data and actionable information. At present time, there is still no cure for COVID-19, although some treatments are being used in severe illness. Regrettably, as the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus spreads, the lack of cure has been accompanied by an increasing amount of medical misinformation. In particular, there is a lot of misinformation about how to treat patients who have tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 and who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms and for whom management at home is deemed appropriate. In this editorial, we highlight the risks deriving from this misinformation, which often arises from the publication of studies that are not conceptually and methodologically accurate.

Pharmacological basis for the potential role of Azithromycin and Doxycycline in management of COVID-19

A novel corona virus SARS-CoV-2 has led to an outbreak of the highly infectious pandemic COVID-19 complicated viral pneumonia. Patients with risk factors frequently develop secondary infections where the role of appropriate antibiotics is mandatory. However, the efforts of drug repurposing lead to recognizing the role of certain antibiotics beyond the management of infection. The current review provided the detailed antiviral, immunomodulatory effect, unique pharmacokinetic profile of two antibiotics namely azithromycin (AZ) and doxycycline (DOX). It summarizes current clinical trials and concerns regarding safety issues of these drugs. Azithromycin (AZ) has amazing lung tissue access, wide range antibacterial efficacy, conceivable antiviral action against COVID-19. It also showed efficacy when combined with other antiviral drugs in limited clinical trials, but many clinicians raise concerns regarding cardiovascular risk in susceptible patients. DOX has a considerable role in the management of pneumonia, it has some advantages including cardiac safety, very good access to lung tissue, potential antiviral, and immunomodulation impact by several mechanisms. The pharmacological profiles of both drugs are heightening considering these medications for further studies in the management of COVID-19.

Azithromycin in viral infections

Azithromycin (AZM) is a synthetic macrolide antibiotic effective against a broad range of bacterial and mycobacterial infections. Due to an additional range of anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties, it has been given to patients with the coronaviruses SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV. It is now being investigated as a potential candidate treatment for SARS-CoV-2 having been identified as a candidate therapeutic for this virus by both in vitro and in silico drug screens. To date there are no randomised trial data on its use in any novel coronavirus infection, although a large number of trials are currently in progress. In this review, we summarise data from in vitro, murine and human clinical studies on the anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties of macrolides, particularly AZM. AZM reduces in vitro replication of several classes of viruses including rhinovirus, influenza A, Zika virus, Ebola, enteroviruses and coronaviruses, via several mechanisms. AZM enhances expression of anti-viral pattern recognition receptors and induction of anti-viral type I and III interferon responses. Of relevance to severe coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19), which is characterised by an over-exuberant innate inflammatory response, AZM also has anti-inflammatory properties including suppression of IL-1beta, IL-2, TNF and GM-CSF. AZM inhibits T cells by inhibiting calcineurin signalling, mammalian target of rapamycin activity and NFκB activation. AZM particularly targets granulocytes where it concentrates markedly in lysosomes, particularly affecting accumulation, adhesion, degranulation and apoptosis of neutrophils. Given its proven safety, affordability and global availability, tempered by significant concerns about antimicrobial stewardship, there is an urgent mandate to perform well-designed and conducted randomised clinical trials.

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

BACKGROUND

Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.

FINDINGS

Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98-1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87-1·03; p=0·24).

INTERPRETATION

In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Immunomodulatory Effects of Azithromycin Revisited: Potential Applications to COVID-19

The rapid advancement of the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an accelerated pursuit to identify effective therapeutics. Stages of the disease course have been defined by viral burden, lung pathology, and progression through phases of the immune response. Immunological factors including inflammatory cell infiltration and cytokine storm have been associated with severe disease and death. Many immunomodulatory therapies for COVID-19 are currently being investigated, and preliminary results support the premise of targeting the immune response. However, because suppressing immune mechanisms could also impact the clearance of the virus in the early stages of infection, therapeutic success is likely to depend on timing with respect to the disease course. Azithromycin is an immunomodulatory drug that has been shown to have antiviral effects and potential benefit in patients with COVID-19. Multiple immunomodulatory effects have been defined for azithromycin which could provide efficacy during the late stages of the disease, including inhibition of pro-inflammatory cytokine production, inhibition of neutrophil influx, induction of regulatory functions of macrophages, and alterations in autophagy. Here we review the published evidence of these mechanisms along with the current clinical use of azithromycin as an immunomodulatory therapeutic. We then discuss the potential impact of azithromycin on the immune response to COVID-19, as well as caution against immunosuppressive and off-target effects including cardiotoxicity in these patients. While azithromycin has the potential to contribute efficacy, its impact on the COVID-19 immune response requires additional characterization so as to better define its role in individualized therapy.

Efficacy comparison of oseltamivir alone and oseltamivir-antibiotic combination for early resolution of symptoms of severe influenza-A and influenza-B hospitalized patients

Objectives:

To assess the comparative efficacy of oseltamivir alone and oseltamivir-antibiotic therapy for early relief of symptoms associated with severe influenza-A (non-H1N1) and influenza-B infection hospitalized patients.

Methods:

In this retrospective multicenter study conducted from 2016-2019, enrolled patients were divided into 2 treatment groups. Group 1 patients were started on Antiviral drug (oseltamivir) alone therapy. Group 2 patients were initiated on Antiviral drug (oseltamivir) in combination with Antibiotic therapy. Using acute respiratory illness scoring, symptom severity score was assessed daily for 8 symptoms namely, fever, fatigue, headache, cough, sore throat, wheezing, muscle ache and nasal congestion. For each symptom the severity was scored from scale 0-3.

Results:

Overall mean ARI severity score was statistically significantly lower (p<0.05) on day 2 (14.65-vs-13.68), day 3 (12.95-vs-11.67) and day 4 (10.31-vs-9.12 ) for influenza-A (non-H1N1) while day 3 (12.52-vs-11.87) and day 4 (11.21-vs-10.18) for influenza-B patients for patients who were initiated on oseltamivir-antibiotic combination therapy. Fever, cough and nasal congestion showed statistically significant improvement within 4 days of initiation of combination treatment. Fatigue, sore throat and muscle ache improvement pattern was same for both treatment protocols.

Conclusion:

Oseltamivir-antibiotic combination treatment showed early resolution of some symptoms with cumulatively reduced mean symptom severity score in severe influenza infection hospitalized patients.

Prevention and treatment of COVID-19: Focus on interferons, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and vaccine

The ongoing pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has drawn the attention of researchers and clinicians from several disciplines and sectors who are trying to find durable solutions both at preventive and treatment levels. To date, there is no approved effective treatment or vaccine available to control the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The preliminary in vitro studies on viral infection models showed potential antiviral activities of type I and III interferons (IFNs), chloroquine (CQ)/hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and azithromycin (AZM); however, the clinical studies on COVID-19 patients treated with CQ/HCQ and AZM led to controversies in different regions due to their adverse side effects, as well as their combined treatment could prolong the QT interval. Interestingly, the treatment with type I IFNs showed encouraging results. Moreover, the different preliminary reports of COVID-19 candidate vaccines showcase promising results by inducing the production of a high level of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and specific T cell-mediated immune response in almost all participants. The present review aims to summarize and analyze the recent progress evidence concerning the use of IFNs, CQ/HCQ, and AZM for the treatment of COVID-19. The available data on immunization options to prevent the COVID-19 are also analyzed with the aim to present the promising options which could be investigated in future for sustainable control of the pandemic.

Rationale for azithromycin in COVID-19: an overview of existing evidence

Azithromycin has rapidly been adopted as a repurposed drug for the treatment of COVID-19, despite the lack of high-quality evidence. In this review, we critically appraise the current pharmacological, preclinical and clinical data of azithromycin for treating COVID-19. Interest in azithromycin has been fuelled by favourable treatment outcomes in other viral pneumonias, a documented antiviral effect on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and uncontrolled case series early in the pandemic. Its antiviral effects presumably result from interfering with receptor mediated binding, viral lysosomal escape, intracellular cell-signalling pathways and enhancing type I and III interferon expression. Its immunomodulatory effects may mitigate excessive inflammation and benefit tissue repair. Currently, in vivo reports on azithromycin in COVID-19 are conflicting and do not endorse its widespread use outside of clinical trials. They are, however, mostly retrospective and therefore inherently biased. The effect size of azithromycin may depend on when it is started. Also, extended follow-up is needed to assess benefits in the recovery phase. Safety data warrant monitoring of drug-drug interactions and subsequent cardiac adverse events, especially with hydroxychloroquine. More prospective data of large randomised controlled studies are expected and much-needed. Uniform reporting of results should be strongly encouraged to facilitate data pooling with the many ongoing initiatives.

When fear and misinformation go viral: Pharmacists' role in deterring medication misinformation during the 'infodemic' surrounding COVID-19

The world has faced an unprecedented challenge when coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged as a pandemic. Millions of people have contracted the virus and a significant number of them lost their lives, resulting in a tremendous social and economic shock across the globe. Amid the growing burden of the pandemic, there are parallel emergencies that need to be simultaneously tackled: the proliferation of fake medicines, fake news and medication misinformation surrounding COVID-19. Pharmacists are key health professionals with the required skills and training to contribute to the fight against these emergencies. Primarily, they can be a relevant source of accurate and reliable information to the public or other fellow health professionals thereby reducing the spread of COVID-19 medication misinformation. This can be achieved by providing accurate and reliable information based on recommendations given by relevant health authorities and professional associations to make sure the community understand the importance of the message and thus minimise the detrimental consequences of the pandemic. This commentary aims to summarise the existing literature in relation to the promising treatments currently under trial, the perils of falsified medications and medicine-related information and the role of pharmacists in taking a leading role in combating these parallel global emergencies.

Clinical evidences on the antiviral properties of macrolide antibiotics in the COVID-19 era and beyond

Macrolides are a large group of antibiotics characterised by the presence of a macro-lactone ring of variable size. The prototype of macrolide antibiotics, erythromycin was first produced by Streptomyces and associated species more than half a century ago; other related drugs were developed. These drugs have been shown to have several pharmacological properties: in addition to their antibiotic activity, they possess some anti-inflammatory properties and have been also considered against non-bacterial infections. In this review, we analysed the available clinical evidences regarding the potential anti-viral activity of macrolides, by focusing on erythromycin, clarithromycin and azithromycin. Overall, there is no significant evidences so far that macrolides might have a direct benefit on most of viral infections considered in this review (RSV, Influenza, coronaviruses, Ebola and Zika viruses). However, their clinical benefit cannot be ruled out without further and focused clinical studies. Macrolides may improve the clinical course of viral respiratory infections somehow, at least through indirect mechanisms relying on some and variable anti-inflammatory and/or immunomodulatory effects, in addition to their well-known antibacterial activity.

Pharmaco-Immunomodulatory Therapy in COVID-19

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness is a syndrome of viral replication in concert with a host inflammatory response. The cytokine storm and viral evasion of cellular immune responses may play an equally important role in the pathogenesis, clinical manifestation, and outcomes of COVID-19. Systemic proinflammatory cytokines and biomarkers are elevated as the disease progresses towards its advanced stages, and correlate with worse chances of survival. Immune modulators have the potential to inhibit cytokines and treat the cytokine storm. A literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted through 8 July 2020 using the search terms ‘coronavirus’, ‘immunology’, ‘cytokine storm’, ‘immunomodulators’, ‘pharmacology’, ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome 2’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, and ‘COVID-19’. Specific immune modulators include anti-cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 receptor antagonists (e.g. anakinra, tocilizumab, sarilumab, siltuximab), Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (e.g. baricitinib, ruxolitinib), anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (e.g. adalimumab, infliximab), granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factors (e.g. gimsilumab, lenzilumab, namilumab), and convalescent plasma, with promising to negative trials and other data. Non-specific immune modulators include human immunoglobulin, corticosteroids such as dexamethasone, interferons, statins, angiotensin pathway modulators, macrolides (e.g. azithromycin, clarithromycin), hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, colchicine, and prostaglandin D2 modulators such as ramatroban. Dexamethasone 6 mg once daily (either by mouth or by intravenous injection) for 10 days may result in a reduction in mortality in COVID-19 patients by one-third for patients on ventilators, and by one-fifth for those receiving oxygen. Research efforts should focus not only on the most relevant immunomodulatory strategies but also on the optimal timing of such interventions to maximize therapeutic outcomes. In this review, we discuss the potential role and safety of these agents in the management of severe COVID-19, and their impact on survival and clinical symptoms.

Efficacy of clarithromycin-naproxen-oseltamivir combination therapy versus oseltamivir alone in hospitalized pediatric influenza patients

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of clarithromycin-naproxen-oseltamivir combination therapy to that of oseltamivir therapy alone in hospitalized pediatric influenza patients.

METHODS

This prospective, single-blind study included children aged 1-18 years hospitalized with influenza, in MacKay Children's Hospital, Taiwan, between December 2017 and December 2019. The primary outcomes were the time to defervescence and decrease of the Pediatric Respiratory Severity Score (PRESS) during hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were serial changes in virus titers, measured using real-time polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were enrolled (28 in the control group and 26 in the combination group) in total. There were no differences in the patients' baseline characteristics between the groups. The time to defervescence was significantly shorter in the combination group than the oseltamivir group (13.2 h vs. 32.1 h, p = 0.002). The decrease in the virus titer from days 1-3 (log Δ13) was more pronounced in the combination group than the oseltamivir group. (39% vs. 19%, p = 0.001). There were no differences in adverse effects such as vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain during the study or within 30 days after antiviral therapy.

CONCLUSION

The clarithromycin-naproxen-oseltamivir combination group experienced a more rapid defervescence and a more rapid decline of influenza virus titer than the group treated with oseltamivir alone. Further consideration should be given to whether the overall benefits of combination therapy in hospitalized pediatric influenza patients outweigh the risks.

A multi-centre open-label two-arm randomised superiority clinical trial of azithromycin versus usual care in ambulatory COVID-19: study protocol for the ATOMIC2 trial

Background

Azithromycin is an orally active synthetic macrolide antibiotic with a wide range of anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. It is a safe, inexpensive, generic licenced drug available worldwide and manufactured to scale and is a potential candidate therapy for pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Azithromycin was widely used to treat severe SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, but to date, no randomised data are available in any coronavirus infections.

Other ongoing trials are exploring short courses of azithromycin either in early disease, within the first 7 days of symptoms, when azithromycin’s antiviral properties may be important, or late in disease when anti-bacterial properties may reduce the risk of secondary bacterial infection. However, the molecule’s anti-inflammatory properties, including suppression of pulmonary macrophage-derived pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukins-1β, -6, -8, and -18 and cytokines G-CSF and GM-CSF may provide a distinct therapeutic benefit if given in as a prolonged course during the period of progression from moderate to severe disease.

Methods

ATOMIC2 is a phase II/III, multi-centre, prospective, open-label, two-arm randomised superiority clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care for adults presenting to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms who are not admitted at initial presentation. We will enrol adults, ≥ 18 years of age assessed in acute hospitals in the UK with clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 infection where management on an ambulatory care pathway is deemed appropriate. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or to azithromycin 500 mg orally daily for 14 days with telephone follow-up at days 14 and 28. The primary objective is to compare the proportion with either death or respiratory failure requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation over 28 days from randomisation. Secondary objectives include mortality/respiratory failure in those with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis; all-cause mortality; progression to pneumonia; progression to severe pneumonia; peak severity of illness and mechanistic analysis of blood and nasal biomarkers.

Discussion

This trial will determine the clinical utility of azithromycin in patients with moderately severe, clinically diagnosed COVID-19 and could be rapidly applicable worldwide.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04381962. Registered on 11 May 2020. EudraCT identifier 2020-001740-26. Opened for accrual on 29 May 2020.

Macrolides and viral infections: focus on azithromycin in COVID-19 pathology

•

It is necessary to quickly find therapeutic options for treating novel SARS-CoV2

•

Azithromycin has been demonstrated to have antiviral and immunomodulatory effects, which could be effective in the hyper-inflammatory syndrome caused by SARS-CoV2

•

Azithromycin has also shown clinical efficacy in respiratory distress syndrome and viral infections

•

Preliminary results regarding the efficacy of the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 are conflicting

•

There are some concerns regarding the association of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine because of QT prolongation

•

Further studies have to be performed to investigate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin and the combination with hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19

The emergence of the new COVID-19 virus is proving to be a challenge in seeking effective therapies. Since the most severe clinical manifestation of COVID-19 appears to be a severe acute respiratory syndrome, azithromycin has been proposed as a potential treatment. Azithromycin is known to have immunomodulating and antiviral properties. In vitro studies have demonstrated the capacity of azithromycin in reducing production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-8, IL-6, TNF alpha, reduce oxidative stress, and modulate T-helper functions. At the same time there are multiple clinical evidences of the role of azithromycin in acute respiratory distress syndrome and against Middle East Respiratory syndrome (MERS). Some preliminary evidence has demonstrated controversial results regarding efficacy of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. First, a French trial demonstrated 100% virological negativizing of six patients treated with azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine vs. 57.1% of patients treated with only hydroxychloroquine and 12.5% of the control group (P < 0.05). On the other hand, another case series revealed no efficacy at all on 11 patients treated with the same combination and doses. Furthermore, there are some concerns regarding the association of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine because of potential QT prolongation. In fact, both drugs have this as a potential side effect and evidence regarding the safe use of this combination is controversial. Despite the necessity to quickly find solutions for COVID-19, extreme caution must be used in evaluating the risk-benefit balance. However, based on preclinical and clinical evidence and some preliminary results in COVID-19, azithromycin could have potential in the fight against this new disease.

RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19.

METHODS

We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation).

FINDINGS

96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223-1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368-1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218-1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273-1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935-2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106-5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760-4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344-4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation.

INTERPRETATION

We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.

FUNDING

William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19.

METHODS

We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation).

FINDINGS

96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223-1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368-1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218-1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273-1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935-2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106-5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760-4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344-4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation.

INTERPRETATION

We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.

FUNDING

William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 2018 Update on Diagnosis, Treatment, Chemoprophylaxis, and Institutional Outbreak Management of Seasonal Influenzaa

These clinical practice guidelines are an update of the guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) in 2009, prior to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This document addresses new information regarding diagnostic testing, treatment and chemoprophylaxis with antiviral medications, and issues related to institutional outbreak management for seasonal influenza. It is intended for use by primary care clinicians, obstetricians, emergency medicine providers, hospitalists, laboratorians, and infectious disease specialists, as well as other clinicians managing patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed influenza. The guidelines consider the care of children and adults, including special populations such as pregnant and postpartum women and immunocompromised patients.

Assessment of efficacy of Oseltamivir-Azithromycin combination therapy in prevention of Influenza-A (H1N1)pdm09 infection complications and rapidity of symptoms relief

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of oseltamivir-Azithromycin combination therapy for prevention of Influenza-A (H1N1)pdm09 infection associated complications and early relief of influenza symptoms.Methods: In a retrospective observational cohort study, Influenza-A (H1N1)pdm09 infection hospitalized patients were identified and divided into two groups based on the initial therapy. Group-AV patients were initiated on Oseltamivir without any antibiotic in treatment regimen while Group-AV+AZ patients were initiated on Oseltamivir and Azithromycin combination therapy for at least 3-5 days. Patients were evaluated for different clinical outcomes.Results: A total of 227 and 102 patients were identified for Group-AV and Group-AV+AZ respectively. Multivariate regression analysis showed that incidences of secondary bacterial infections were significantly less frequent (23.4% vs 10.4%; P-value = 0.019) in Group-AV+AZ patients. Group-AV+AZ patients were associated with shorter length of hospitalization (6.58 vs 5.09 days; P-value = <0.0001) and less frequent incidences of respiratory support (38.3% vs 17.6%; P-value = 0.016). Overall influenza symptom severity score was statistically significant less for Group-AV+AZ patients on Day-5 (10.68 ± 2.09; P-value = 0.001) of hospitalization.Conclusion: Oseltamivir-Azithromycin combination therapy was found to be more efficacious as compared to oseltamivir alone in rapid recovery and prevention of Influenza associated complications especially in high risk patients.

Approaches for the Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Pharmacologic View and Literature Review

The emergence of a novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) inducing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was identified in Hubei province of China in December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide as pandemic and became a public health concern. COVID-19 disease is caused by a new virus known as SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2), which has recently offered many challenges and efforts to identify effective drugs for its prevention and treatment. Currently, there is no proven effective approach and medication against this virus. Quickly expanding clinical trials and studies on Coronavirus disease 2019 increase our knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 virus and introduce several potential drugs targeting virus moiety or host cell elements. Overall, 3 stages were suggested for SARS-CoV-2 infection according to the disease severity, clinical manifestations, and treatment outcomes, including mild, moderate, and severe. This review aimed to classify and summarize several medications and potential therapies according to the disease 3 stages; however, it is worth noting that no medication and therapy has been effective so far.

Passive immune therapy and other immunomodulatory agents for the treatment of severe influenza: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A range of immunomodulatory therapies have been proposed as adjuncts to conventional antivirals to suppress harmful inflammation during severe influenza infection. We conducted a systematic review to assess available data of the effect of adjunctive non-corticosteroid immunomodulatory therapy and potential adverse effects.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and clinical trial databases for published and unpublished studies, and screened the references of included articles. We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs and observational studies of virologically confirmed influenza infections in hospitalised patients. We did not restrict studies by language of publication, influenza type/subtype or age of participants. Where possible, we pooled estimates of effect using random-effects meta-analysis models.

RESULTS

We identified 11 eligible studies for inclusion: five studies (4 RCTs and 1 observational; 693 individuals) of passive immune therapy; four studies (3 RCTs and 1 observational; 1120 individuals) of macrolides and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one RCT of mTOR inhibitors (38 individuals), and one RCT of statin therapy (116 individuals). Meta-analysis of RCTs of passive immune therapy indicated no significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.84, 0.37-1.90), but better clinical outcomes at Day 7 (OR 1.42, 1.05-1.92). There was a significant reduction in mortality associated with macrolides and/or NSAIDs (OR 0.28; 0.10-0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Passive immune therapy is unlikely to offer substantial mortality benefit in treatment of severe seasonal influenza, but may improve clinical outcomes. The effect of other immunomodulatory agents is uncertain, but promising. There is a need for high-quality RCTs with sufficient statistical power to address this evidence gap.