Effect of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin on the mortality of COVID-19 patients: authors' response

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

Current evidence on the use of anakinra in COVID-19

Despite the progressing knowledge in COVID-19 management, remdesivir is the only agent that got approval to inhibit viral replication. However, there are limited data about effective immunomodulatory agents to prevent cytokine release in COVID-19. Cytokine release syndrome in COVID-19 resembles secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, in which interleukin-1 (IL-1) plays a key role. Anakinra is the first recombinant IL-1 receptor antagonist studied for off-label use in COVID-19 treatment. This study reviews the current clinical evidence on the role of interleukin-1 in COVID-19-related cytokine storm, therapeutic effects, significant clinical concerns, and pros and cons of anakinra administration in the management of COVID-19 patients. In this review, four items are shown to be important for achieving the optimal therapeutic effects of anakinra in COVID-19 patients. These items include duration of treatment ≥ 10 days, doses ≥ 100 mg, intravenous administration, and early initiation of therapy. Also, anakinra might be more beneficial in the early stages of the disease when higher levels of cytokines are yet to be observed, which could prevent progression to severe illness and mechanical ventilation. Further studies are required to address the SARS-CoV-2 induced cytokine release syndrome and the role of anakinra in identifying ideal treatment approaches for COVID-19 patients based on their clinical status.

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Bacterial and Fungal Isolates in COVID-19

Background: The pattern of bacterial infection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients differ worldwide. Objectives: This study aimed to determine the patterns of bacterial infections and the antibiotic resistance profile by VITEK 2 (bioMérieux, France) in the culture of blood samples from hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective descriptive cross-sectional was conducted on a total of 25 patients with critical COVID-19 admitted to Imam Reza Hospital in Mashhad, Iran, during the first three COVID-19 peaks (2019 - 2020). Results: Among Gram-positive bacteria, two strains isolated from Staphylococcus aureus were methicillin-resistant S. aureus at a concentration of > 2 μg/mL. Enterococcus was vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus at a concentration of higher than 4 μg/mL (the minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] ≥ 32). Among Gram-negative bacteria, three strains of Acinetobacter baumannii complex were extensively drug-resistant. Conclusions: There is evidence of the remarkable increase of various antibiotics’ MIC during the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlights the impact of the use of steroids on the risk of developing antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, with or without azithromycin, in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 tests, length of stay, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to normalization of body temperature, incidence of adverse events and incidence of QT prolongations. Results: Fifty-one studies (n = 61,221) were included. Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine showed no efficacy in all primary efficacy outcomes, but was associated with increased odds of QT prolongations. Conclusion: Due to a lack of efficacy and increased odds of cardiac adverse events, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine should not be used for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Drug repurposing of dermatologic medications to treat coronavirus disease 2019: Science or fiction?

No pharmaceutical products have been demonstrated to be safe and effective to specifically treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); therefore, the therapy administered to infected patients remains symptomatic and empiric. Alongside the development of new, often high-cost drugs, a different tactic is being applied in parallel, investigating long-established, inexpensive medications originally designed for a variety of diseases to study their potential in treating COVID-19. The skin is the largest organ of the human body. With more than 3,000 skin conditions identified, the specialty of dermatology offers a rich armamentarium of systemic therapeutic agents aimed to treat the various chronic immunologically mediated, metabolic, infectious, occupational, inherited, or paraneoplastic dermatoses. Dermatologists have extensive experience with many drugs that have demonstrated promising in vitro antiviral action (directly targeting the viral replication). Many of these drugs have been used as nonspecific immunosuppressive strategies, such as glucocorticoids, synthetic antimalarials, colchicine, or other immunomodulators, and a number of targeted therapeutics have been directed at controlling hyperinflammatory processes similar to the "cytokine storm" associated with COVID-19 infection. We discuss several dermatologic drugs that have already been used or may have a promising role in the treatment of COVID-19.

Therapeutic strategies for severe COVID-19: a position paper from the Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT)

SCOPE

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become pandemic, reaching almost one million death worldwide. At present standard treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not well defined because the evidence, either from randomized or observational studies, with conflicting results, has led to rapid changes in treatment guidelines. Our aim was to narratively summarize the available literature on the management of COVID-19 in order to combine current evidence and interpretation of the data by experts who are treating patients in the frontline setting.

METHODS

The panel conducted a detailed review of the literature and eventual press releases from randomized clinical trials for each possible available treatment. Inductive PubMed search waws performed for publications relevant to the topic, including all clinical trials conducted. The result was a flowchart with treatment indications for patients with COVID-19.

IMPLICATIONS

After 6 months of a pandemic situation and before a possible second coronavirus wave descends on Europe, it is important to evaluate which drugs proved to be effective while also considering that results from many randomized clinical trials are still awaited. Indeed, among treatments for COVID-19, only glucocorticoids have resulted in an association with a significant decrease in mortality in published randomized controlled trials. New therapeutic strategies are urgently needed.

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Impact of Hydroxychloroquine on Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused significant health and economic havoc around the globe. One of the early agents targeted for repurposing to treat and prevent COVID-19 was hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, HCQ is evaluated for its potential role in decreasing mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and medRxiv databases using combinations of the terms "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "coronavirus", "hydroxychloroquine", and "mortality". Articles were selected for further review based on the content of their abstracts. Studies were excluded if they were of poor methodological quality, were not based in the inpatient setting, or did not have available data to assess the primary outcome of death between patients treated with HCQ versus standard of care. Once the final dataset was compiled, a meta-analysis using the random-effects model was performed. Our search identified 14 studies involving 24,780 patients of whom 12,707 patients were on HCQ alone or in combination with other adjuvant therapies. HCQ alone or in combination with other drugs did not significantly decrease mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.26; p = 0.732; I2 = 91.05). Similar findings were observed in all subgroup analyses. HCQ did not significantly impact mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additional well-designed studies are essential due to the heterogeneity in available studies.