Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin early treatment of mild COVID-19 in an outpatient setting: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating viral clearance

Comprehensive analysis of gastrointestinal side effects in COVID-19 patients undergoing combined pharmacological treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several drugs were repositioned and combined to quickly find a way to mitigate the effects of the infection. However, the adverse effects of these combinations on the gastrointestinal tract are unknown. We aimed investigate whether Hydroxychloroquine (HD), Azithromycin (AZ), and Ivermectin (IV) used in combination for the treatment of COVID-19, can lead to the development of gastrointestinal disorders. This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted using Stata and Revman software, respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023372802). A search of clinical trials in Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov conducted on November 26, 2023. The eligibility of the studies was assessed based on PICO criteria, including trials that compared different treatments and control group. The analysis of the quality of the evidence was carried out according to the GRADE. Six trials involving 1,686 COVID-19 patients were included. No trials on the association of HD or AZ with IV met the inclusion criteria, only studies on the association between HD and AZ were included. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and increased transaminases were related. The symptoms of vomiting and nausea were evaluated through a network meta-analysis, while the symptom of abdominal pain was evaluated through a meta-analysis. No significant associations with these symptoms were observed for HD, AZ, or their combination, compared to control. Low heterogeneity and absence of inconsistency in indirect and direct comparisons were noted. Limitations included small sample sizes, varied drug dosages, and potential publication bias during the pandemic peak. This review unveils that there are no associations between gastrointestinal adverse effects and the combined treatment of HD with AZ in the management of COVID-19, as compared to either the use of a control group or the administration of the drugs individually, on the other hand, highlighting the very low or low certainty of evidence for the evaluated outcomes. To accurately conclude the absence of side effects, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Hydroxychloroquine and the associated risk of arrhythmias

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which was initially used as an antimalarial drug, is now being used to treat other illnesses, especially rheumatic autoimmune disorders  such as systemic lupus erythematosus, primary Sjögren's syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis, because it is safe, effective, and cost efficient. This drug has shown high efficacy and has become the first-line treatment for many of these diseases. Although HCQ has many therapeutic effects, it has unfortunately shown some complications, especially with its long-term use. One of these side effects is arrhythmia through prolongation of the QT interval. This narrative literature review focuses on the effects of HCQ on the QT interval in patients with rheumatologic diseases who have been prescribed this drug. In particular, we will focus on the increased risk of arrhythmia when HCQ is administered with other drugs, such as azithromycin and many others, along with drug-drug interactions. In addition, we investigated the safety of this drug in pregnant women.

Evaluation of Global Post-Outbreak COVID-19 Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic with millions of cases and deaths. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to establish effective therapies. However, the methodological quality of these trials is paramount, as it directly impacts the reliability of results. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to assess the methodological approach, execution diversity, global trends, and distribution of COVID-19 treatment RCTs post-outbreak, covering the period from the second wave and onward up to the present.

Methods

We utilize articles from three electronic databases published from September 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant RCTs. Data extraction involved the collection of various study details. Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool assessed methodological quality, while implementation variability was evaluated against registration information. Bibliometric analysis, including keyword co-occurrence and country distribution, used VOSviewer and Tableau software.

Results

Initially, 501 studies were identified, but only 22 met the inclusion criteria, of which 19 had registration information. The methodological quality assessment revealed deficiencies in five main domains: randomization process (36%), deviations from intended interventions (9%), missing outcome data (4%), measurement of the outcome (18%), and selection of reported results (4%). An analysis of alignment between research protocols and registration data revealed common deviations in eight critical aspects. Bibliometric findings showcased global collaboration in COVID-19 treatment RCTs, with Iran and Brazil prominently contributing, while keyword co-occurrence analysis illuminated prominent research trends and terms in study titles and abstracts.

Conclusion

This study offers valuable insights into the evaluation of COVID-19 treatment RCTs. The scarcity of high-quality RCTs highlights the importance of enhancing trial rigor and transparency in global health emergencies.

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Chemosensory Dysfunction 3-Months After COVID-19, Medications and Factors Associated with Complete Recovery

OBJECTIVES

To examine the longitudinal prevalence and recovery of olfactory, gustatory, and oral chemesthetic deficits in a sizable cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected persons using quantitative testing. To determine whether demographic and clinical factors, mainly the medications used after the COVID-19 diagnosis, influence the test measures.

METHODS

Prospective cohort in a hospital with primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary care. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were tested during the acute infection phase (within 15 days of initial symptom, n = 187) and one (n = 113) and 3 months later (n = 73). The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, the Global Gustatory Test, and a novel test for chemesthesis were administered at all visits.

RESULTS

During the acute phase, 93% were anosmic or microsmic and 29.4% were hypogeusic. No one was ageusic. A deficit in oral chemesthesis was present in 13.4%. By 3 months, taste and chemesthesis had largely recovered, however, some degree of olfactory dysfunction remained in 54.8%. Remarkably, patients who had been treated with anticoagulants tended to have more olfactory improvement. Recovery was greater in men than in women, but was unrelated to disease severity, smoking behavior, or the use of various medications prior to, or during, COVID-19 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

When using quantitative testing, olfactory disturbances were found in nearly all SARS-CoV-2 infected patients during the acute infection phase. Taste or chemesthetic deficits were low. Olfactory impairment persisted to some degree in over half of the patients at the 3-month follow-up evaluation, being more common in women and less common in those who had been treated earlier with anticoagulants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Early Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19: A Retrospective Analysis of 392 Cases in Italy

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020. The knowledge of COVID-19 pathophysiology soon provided a strong rationale for the early use of both anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic drugs; however, its evidence was slowly and partially incorporated into institutional guidelines. The unmet needs of COVID-19 outpatients were taken care of by networks of physicians and researchers. We analyse the characteristics, management and outcomes in COVID-19 outpatients who were taken care of by physicians within the IppocrateOrg Association. In this observational retrospective study, volunteering doctors provided data on 392 COVID-19 patients. The mean age of patients was 48.5 years (range: 0.5-97), and patients were taken care of in COVID-19 stage 0 (15.6%), stage 1 (50.0%), stage 2a (28.8%) and stage 2b (5.6%). Many patients were overweight (26%) or obese (11.5%), with chronic comorbidities (34.9%), mainly cardiovascular (23%) and metabolic (13.3%). The most frequently prescribed drugs included: vitamins and supplements (98.7%), aspirin (66.1%), antibiotics (62%), glucocorticoids (41.8%), hydroxychloroquine (29.6%), enoxaparin (28.6%), colchicine (8.9%), oxygen therapy (6.9%), and ivermectin (2.8%). Hospitalization occurred in 5.8% of cases, mainly in stage 2b (27.3%). A total of 390 patients (99.6%) recovered; one patient was lost at follow up, and one patient died after hospitalization. This is the first real-world study describing the behaviours of physicians caring for COVID-19 outpatients, and the outcomes of COVID-19 early treatment. The lethality in this cohort was 0.2%, while overall, and over the same period, the COVID-19 lethality in Italy was over 3%. The drug use described in this study appears effective and safe. The present evidence should be carefully considered by physicians and political decision makers.

Antiparasitic Drugs against SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Literature Survey

More than two years have passed since the viral outbreak that led to the novel infectious respiratory disease COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Since then, the urgency for effective treatments resulted in unprecedented efforts to develop new vaccines and to accelerate the drug discovery pipeline, mainly through the repurposing of well-known compounds with broad antiviral effects. In particular, antiparasitic drugs historically used against human infections due to protozoa or helminth parasites have entered the main stage as a miracle cure in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Despite having demonstrated promising anti-SARS-CoV-2 activities in vitro, conflicting results have made their translation into clinical practice more difficult than expected. Since many studies involving antiparasitic drugs are currently under investigation, the window of opportunity might be not closed yet. Here, we will review the (controversial) journey of these old antiparasitic drugs to combat the human infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

Azithromycin Misuse During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan

Objective

Since coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became a global pandemic, repurposing known drugs was the quickest way to combat the disease. The initial screening revealed that azithromycin (AZM) might have potential against COVID-19. Although clinical trials did not prove such efficacy, many countries have put AZM within their guidelines for treating COVID-19. Therefore, the present study was designed to assess the misuse of AZM in Jordan during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods and Results

A cross-sectional study was conducted among community pharmacies in Jordan from March 27 to May 8, 2021, and 184 pharmacies data were collected from the Google forms. During COVID-19, 42.9% of pharmacies sold more than 20 packs of prescribed AZM per month compared to 46.7% of pharmacies used to sell 0-5 packs AZM prescriptions per month before the pandemic. During COVID-19, pharmacists significantly dispensed AZM with and without prescriptions 107% and 127%, respectively, more than before the pandemic (p < 0.0001). Overall, pharmacists stocked 121% more AZM packs during COVID-19 than before the pandemic (p < 0.0001). Additionally, most pharmacists (59.7%) believed that AZM could cure COVID-19 patients. However, using multinomial logistic regression analysis, low-experienced pharmacists were unsure if AZM could positively affect COVID-19 patients (p < 0.05, OR = 3.76, 95% CI = 1.23-11.52). Furthermore, low-experienced pharmacists believed that increased use of AZM for the treatment of viral infections could lead to negative consequences (p < 0.001, OR = 0.161, 95% CI 0.063-0.414).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that AZM is misused by physicians, pharmacists, and the public in Jordan. Since AZM efficacy on SARS-CoV-2 is scarce, there is a need for new guidelines by governmental health authorities to implement strict enforcement of AZM dispensing during COVID-19 to avoid negative consequences of bacterial resistance.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Hydroxychloroquine and 3 Metabolites in COVID-19 Patients and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Application

We develop a population pharmacokinetic model for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and three of its metabolites (desethylhydroxychloroquine, Des HCQ; desethylchloroquine, DesCQ; and didesethylchloroquine, didesCQ) in COVID-19 patients in order to determine whether a pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) relationship was present. The population PK of HCQ was described using non-linear mixed effects modelling. The duration of hospitalization, the number of deaths, and poor clinical outcomes (death, transfer to ICU, or hospitalization ≥ 10 d) were evaluated as PD parameters. From 100 hospitalized patients (age = 60.7 ± 16 y), 333 BHCQ and M were available for analysis. The data for BHCQ were best described by a four-compartment model with a first-order input (KA) and a first-order output. For M, the better model of the data used one compartment for each metabolite with a first-order input from HCQ and a first-order output. The fraction of HCQ converted to the metabolites was 75%. A significant relationship was observed between the duration of hospitalization and BHCQ at 48 h (r² = 0.12; p = 0.0052) or 72 h (r² = 0.16; p = 0.0012). At 48 h or 72 h, 87% or 91% of patients vs. 63% or 62% had a duration < 25 d with a BHCQ higher or below 200 μg/L, respectively. Clinical outcome was significantly related to BHCQ at 48 h (good outcome 369 +/- 181 μg/L vs. poor 285 +/- 144 μg/L; p = 0.0441) but not at 72 h (407 +/- 207 μg/L vs. 311 +/- 174 μg/L; p = 0.0502). The number of deaths was not significantly different according to the trough concentration (p = 0.972 and 0.836 for 48 h and 72 h, respectively).