Comparing ICU admission rates of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, favipiravir, and hydroxychloroquine plus favipiravir

When antivirals backfire: An evaluation of favipiravir's clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Favipiravir is an oral antiviral, that might treat COVID-19 by enhancing viral eradication, particularly in patients with mild-to-moderate disease. Yet, the findings on the use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHOD

A multicenter retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) was conducted from March 2020 to July 2021. Patients were categorized based on favipiravir use (control vs. favipiravir). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during the stay.

RESULTS

After propensity score (PS) matching (1:1 ratio), 146 patients were included in the final analysis. A higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality were observed in patients receiving favipiravir compared to the control group at crude analysis (65.3% vs. 43.8%; P-value=0.009 and 56.3% vs. 40.3; P-value=0.06, respectively); however, no differences were observed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.73, 1.87; P-value =0.51 and HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53, 1.39; P-value=0.53, respectively). Conversely, the MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in patients who received favipiravir than the control group (β coefficient 0.51; CI 0.09, 0.92; P-value = 0.02, β coefficient 0.41; CI 0.17, 0.64; P-value = 0.0006, respectively). Complications during the stay were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate a reduction in mortality; instead, it was linked with longer MV duration and ICU stay. This finding suggests limiting favipiravir use to infections where it is more effective, other than COVID-19. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

The Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Favipiravir Treatment with Telemedicine Monitoring in Preventing Disease Progression in Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Patients; A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Favipiravir has complex pharmacokinetics, and varied efficacy has been reported in treating COVID-19. Telehealth and telemonitoring are disruptive challenges used for COVID-19 care during pandemics. Objective: This study aimed to assess the outcome of favipiravir treatment to prevent clinical deterioration in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases with adjunctive telemonitoring during the COVID-19 surge. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of PCR-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 cases subjected to home isolation. Chest computed tomography (CT) was performed in all cases, and favipiravir was administrated. Results: This study involved 88 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases. In addition, 42/42 (100%) cases were Alpha variants. COVID-19 pneumonia was found in 71.5% of the cases, according to chest X-rays and chest CT on the first visit. Favipiravir started 4 days after symptoms, which was part of the standard of care. The 12.5% of the patients required supplemental oxygen and intensive care unit admission rate was 1.1%; 1.1% required mechanical ventilation, and the rate of all-cause mortality was 1.1%, with a value of 0% of severe COVID-19 deaths. All mild illness cases showed no clinical deterioration or requirement for supplemental oxygen. No significant deterioration in either obesity or diabetes mellitus was observed. Conclusions: Favipiravir treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings, coupled with telemonitoring, was both safe and effective in preventing clinical deterioration, including the need for oxygen supplementation. This approach proved valuable during surges of COVID-19 cases.

Effectiveness of different treatment regimens on patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in Sanandaj hospitals: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Different drugs have different effects on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different drug regimens on patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in Sanandaj city.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 660 patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in the Tohid, Kowsar and Besat hospitals located Sanandaj (Kurdistan Province, Iran) were studied from February 2020 to February 2021 with clinical symptoms and positive test results.

RESULTS

The results of multivariate regression analysis showed the days of hospitalization for patients who had received the drug regimen 2 (Interferons (ReciGen/Ziphron) or Interferon Vectra (lopinavir/ritonavir)) was 1.92 times higher than those who had received the drug regimen 1 (hydroxychloroquine group or a combination of chloroquine and azithromycin) while a significant association was observed (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.16-3.16, P = 0.011). Also, the hospitalization in ICU was longer in patients treated by the drug regimen 2 (Interferons (ReciGen/Ziphron) or Interferon Vectra (lopinavir/ritonavir)) (OR = 4.63, 95% CI: 1.80-11.82, P = 0.001), however, drug regimens did not show a significant effect on mortality and use of ventilator in patients (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study results showed the drug regimens 2 and 5 increased the days of hospitalization and hospitalization in ICU, respectively, while the other drug regimens had no significant effect on mortality and use a ventilator in the studied patients and none of the drug regimens had an effect on reducing mortality compared to other ones.

COVID-19 in pediatric nephrology centers in Turkey

BACKGROUND

There is limited data on COVID-19 disease in children with kidney disease. We aimed to investigate the characteristics and prognosis of COVID-19 in pediatric nephrology patients in Turkey.

METHODS

This was a national, multicenter, retrospective cohort study based on an online survey evaluating the data between 11th March 2020 and 11th March 2021 as an initial step of a detailed pediatric nephrology COVID-19 registry.

RESULTS

Two hundred and three patients (89 girls and 114 boys) were diagnosed with COVID-19. One-third of these patients (36.9%) were between 10-15 years old. Half of the patients were on kidney replacement therapy: kidney transplant (KTx) recipients (n = 56, 27.5%), patients receiving chronic hemodialysis (n = 33, 16.3%) and those on peritoneal dialysis (PD) (n = 18, 8.9%). Fifty-four (26.6%) children were asymptomatic. Eighty-two (40.3%) patients were hospitalized and 23 (28%) needed intensive care unit admission. Fifty-five percent of the patients were not treated, while the remaining was given favipiravir (20.7%), steroid (16.3%), and hydroxychloroquine (11.3%). Acute kidney injury developed in 19.5% of hospitalized patients. Five (2.4%) had MIS-C. Eighty-three percent of the patients were discharged without any apparent sequelae, while 7 (3.4%) died. One hundred and eight health care staff were infected during the study period.

DISCUSSION

COVID-19 was most commonly seen in patients who underwent KTx and received HD. The combined immunosuppressive therapy and frequent exposure to the hospital setting may increase these patients' susceptibility. Staff infections before vaccination era were alarming, various precautions should be taken for infection control, particularly optimal vaccination coverage.

The association of antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity: The retrospective analysis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort

Background and objectives

Although several repurposed antiviral drugs have been used for the treatment of COVID-19, only a few such as remdesivir and molnupiravir have shown promising effects. The objectives of our study were to investigate the association of repurposed antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity.

Methods

Patients admitted to 26 different hospitals located in 16 different provinces between March 11–July 18, 2020, were enrolled. Case definition was based on WHO criteria. Patients were managed according to the guidelines by Scientific Board of Ministry of Health of Turkey. Primary outcomes were length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and intubation.

Results

We retrospectively evaluated 1,472 COVID-19 adult patients; 57.1% were men (mean age = 51.9 ± 17.7years). A total of 210 (14.3%) had severe pneumonia, 115 (7.8%) were admitted to ICUs, and 69 (4.7%) were intubated during hospitalization. The median (interquartile range) of duration of hospitalization, including ICU admission, was 7 (5–12) days. Favipiravir (n = 328), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 55), and oseltamivir (n = 761) were administered as antiviral agents, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, n = 1,382) and azithromycin (n = 738) were used for their immunomodulatory activity. Lopinavir/ritonavir (β [95% CI]: 4.71 [2.31–7.11]; p = 0.001), favipiravir (β [95% CI]: 3.55 [2.56–4.55]; p = 0.001) and HCQ (β [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.02–1.67]; p = 0.046) were associated with increased risk of lengthy hospital stays. Furthermore, favipiravir was associated with increased risks of ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 3.02 [1.70–5.35]; p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (OR [95% CI]: 2.94 [1.28–6.75]; p = 0.011).

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrated that antiviral drugs including lopinavir, ritonavir, and favipiravir were associated with negative clinical outcomes such as increased risks for lengthy hospital stay, ICU admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. Therefore, repurposing such agents without proven clinical evidence might not be the best approach for COVID-19 treatment.

Antiviral Used among Non-Severe COVID-19 Cases in Relation to Time till Viral Clearance: A Retrospective Cohort Study

(1) Background: The WHO identified COVID-19 as a fast-growing epidemic worldwide. A few antivirals have shown promising effectiveness in treating COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the correlation between antiviral drugs and the time until viral clearance of SARS-CoV-2. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that included 1731 non-severe COVID-19 patients treated in NMC Royal Hospital, UAE. (3) Results: A total of 1446 patients received symptomatic treatment only (mean age of 35.6 ± 9.0 years). The analyzed antiviral treatment protocols were azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and favipiravir. The produced Kaplan–Meier plots showed no significant differences in the time until viral clearance among the compared protocols, which showed overlapping confidence intervals, which were determined by performing the log-rank and adjusted pairwise log-rank tests (p = 0.2, log-rank = 9.3). The age and gender of patients did not significantly affect the rate of viral clearance regardless of the antiviral therapy administered, even when compared to patients who received symptomatic treatment only, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin, and favipiravir, which increased the odds of a faster rate of viral clearance by 46% after adjustments. (4) Conclusions: No significant differences were observed regarding the time until viral clearance among non-severe COVID-19 patients following the prescription of different antiviral drugs.

COVID-19 and the liver: A brief and core review

Coronavirus disease 2019 has a wide range of clinical spectrum from asymptomatic infection to severe infection resulting in death within a short time. Currently, it is known that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) does not only cause a respiratory tract infection but a more complicated disease that can lead to multiple system involvement including the liver. Herein, we evaluate the epidemiology, the impact of liver injury/ dysfunction on disease prognosis, the pathophysiological mechanisms and management of liver injury. More than one-fourth of the patients have abnormal liver function tests, mostly a mild-to-moderate liver dysfunction. Liver injury is significantly associated with a poor clinical outcome. Direct cytotoxic effect of SARS-CoV-2, the immune response (“cytokine storm”), the complications related to the disease, and drugs used in the treatments are the pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for liver injury. However, the exact mechanism is not yet clearly explained. The binding of SARS-CoV-2 to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors and entering the hepatocyte and cholangiocytes can cause cytotoxic effects on the liver. Excessive immune response has an important role in disease progression and causes acute respiratory distress syndrome and multi-organ failures accompanied by liver injury. Treatment drugs, particularly lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir and antibiotics are a frequent reason for liver injury. The possible reasons should be meticulously investigated and resolved.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Drugs in the Extended Use against COVID-19: What We Know So Far

Human beings around the globe have been suffering from a devastating novel pandemic and public health emergency, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), for more than one and a half years due to the deadly and highly pathogenic severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection worldwide. Notably, no effective treatment strategy has been approved for the complete recovery of COVID-19 patients, though several vaccines have been rolled out around the world upon emergency use authorization. After the emergence of the COVID-19 outbreak globally, plenty of clinical investigations commenced to screen the safety and efficacy of several previously approved drugs to be repurposed against the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen. This concise review aims at exploring the current status of the clinical efficacy and safety profile of several antiviral medications for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and other respiratory complications caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. The paper covers all kinds of human studies (January 2020 to June 2021) except case reports/series to highlight the clear conclusion based on the current clinical evidence. Among the promising repositioned antivirals, remdesivir has been recommended in critical conditions to mitigate the fatality rate and improve clinical conditions. In addition, boosting the immune system is believed to be beneficial in treating COVID-19 patients, so interferon type I might exert immunomodulation through its antiviral effects by stimulating interferon-stimulated gene (ISG). However, more extensive clinical studies covering all ethnic groups globally are warranted based on current data to better understand the clinical efficacy of the currently proposed repurposed drugs against COVID-19.

Effectiveness and Safety of Favipiravir Compared to Hydroxychloroquine for Management of Covid-19: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease due to SARS-COV-2. Patients with risk factors are vulnerable to severe morbidity and mortality. Favipiravir (FPV) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are considered possible COVID-19 treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of FPV compared to HCQ in patients with COVID-19 as the standard of care approved by the national protocol there.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study on patients with COVID-19 who were administered either FPV or HCQ at King Faisal Medical Complex, Taif, Saudi Arabia, from June 2020 to August 2020.

RESULTS

In total, 508 patients were included in the analysis. Patients were categorized into three groups by medication. Patients enrolled in this study were 244 (55.8%) on FPV, 193 (44.2%) on HCQ and 71 (13.81%) on neither medication. Patients who received FPV had higher age and greater comorbidity. Most of the patients were discharged on day 14 (n = 303, 59.6%), 26 (36.6%) in neither med, 154 (63.1%) in FPV and 123 (63.7%) in HCQ groups with significant difference between groups (P < 0.0001). Mortality rate was 8.2% (n = 20) in FPV and 7.3% (n = 14) in HCQ groups with significant difference between groups (P = 0.048). Regarding drug safety, 19.7% of patients treated with FPV vs 7.8% HCQ have adverse effects with significant difference between groups (P < 0.0001). Most of the side effects were increase ALT and AST. Meanwhile, prolonged Q-T interval was reported only in the HCQ group (2.6%). From Cox regression modeling, only mechanical ventilation due to Covid 19 was predictive for mortality (HR: 16.598, 95% CI: 7.095-38.828, P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in the prediction of discharge of FPV (vs HCQ) (HR: 0.933, 95% CI: 0.729-1.195, P = 0.5843), predictors of mortality were HCQ (vs FPV) (HR: 2.3, 95% CI: 0.994-5.487, P = 0.0518). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed improved survival time and discharged time among patients in the HCQ versus FPV group with an insignificant difference between them (P = 0.85, P = 0.06, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The present study concluded that FPV and HCQ showed comparable efficacy in decrease mortality and oxygen requirements. FPV likely has a more favorable safety profile regarding cardiac toxicity. A randomized clinical trial with large patient numbers is recommended to confirm the effectiveness of these drugs in COVID-19 patients.

Favipiravir versus standard of care in patients with severe COVID-19 infections: A retrospective comparative study

Objective

To assess the efficacy of Favipiravir compared to the standard therapy in treating patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were treated with favipiravir, versus comparison group that received the standard of care.

Results

A total of 226 patients were included; 110 patients received favipiravir and 116 patients received standard of care. Patients who received favipiravir had longer time to recovery (14.2 ± 8.8 versus 12.8 ± 5.2, p = 0.17). Favipiravir was associated with an improved early day 14 mortality (4 [3.6%] versus 11 [9.5%]), p = 0.008), but was associated with a higher day 28 mortality (26 [23.6%] versus 11 [9.5%], p = 0.02). The overall mortality was higher in the favipiravir versus the standard of care group but difference was not statistically significant (33 [30.0%] versus 24 [20.7%], p = 0.10).

Conclusion

The addition of favipiravir to standard of care was not associated with any improvement in clinical outcomes or mortality. Larger randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to further assess the efficacy of favipiravir.