Minimum Manufacturing Costs, National Prices, and Estimated Global Availability of New Repurposed Therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019

Colchicine for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I2=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I2=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I2=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I2=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022369850.

Effect of Anti-Interleukin-6 Agents on Psychopathology in a Sample of Patients with Post-COVID-19 Syndrome: An Observational Study

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors tocilizumab and sarilumab have recently been approved for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). They also affect mood, even though their effect on the post-COVID-19 syndrome-related psychopathology still has to be investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate their effect on psychopathology in a sample of patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome. We included 246 patients (34% female, 66% male) aged 18-75 years who had been hospitalized for COVID. Patients were split into those who received anti-IL-6 receptor agents (Anti-IL-6-R, N = 88) and those who did not (Ctrl, N = 158). The former group was further split into those receiving tocilizumab (TOC, N = 67) and those receiving sarilumab (SAR, N = 21). Groups were compared based on clinical characteristics before and during COVID-19 as well as on physical and psychiatric symptoms after COVID-19. Ctrl had less psychiatric and physical symptoms during hospitalization and more post-COVID-19 diarrhea, headache, cough, and dyspnea upon exertion than those receiving IL-6-receptor inhibitors. Ctrl also showed greater difficulties in emotion regulation. These differences were driven by TOC vs. Ctrl, whereas differences between SAR and Ctrl or TOC did not reach significance. IL-6 receptor inhibitors are related to a lower post-COVID-19 illness burden and seem to be effective in emotion regulation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

"We usually see a lot of delay in terms of coming for or seeking care": an expert consultation on COVID testing and care pathways in seven low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Rapid diagnostic testing may support improved treatment of COVID patients. Understanding COVID testing and care pathways is important for assessing the impact and cost-effectiveness of testing in the real world, yet there is limited information on these pathways in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). We therefore undertook an expert consultation to better understand testing policies and practices, clinical screening, the profile of patients seeking testing or care, linkage to care after testing, treatment, lessons learnt and expected changes in 2023.

METHODS

We organized a qualitative consultation with ten experts from seven LMICs (India, Indonesia, Malawi, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, and Zimbabwe) identified through purposive sampling. We conducted structured interviews during six regional consultations, and undertook a thematic analysis of responses.

RESULTS

Participants reported that, after initial efforts to scale-up testing, the policy priority given to COVID testing has declined. Comorbidities putting patients at heightened risk (e.g., diabetes) mainly relied on self-identification. The decision to test following clinical screening was highly context-/location-specific, often dictated by local epidemiology and test availability. When rapid diagnostic tests were available, public sector healthcare providers tended to rely on them for diagnosis (alongside PCR for Asian/Latin American participants), while private sector providers predominantly used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Positive test results were generally taken at 'face value' by clinicians, although negative tests with a high index of suspicion may be confirmed with PCR. However, even with a positive result, patients were not always linked to care in a timely manner because of reluctance to receiving care or delays in returning to care centres upon clinical deterioration. Countries often lacked multiple components of the range of therapeutics advised in WHO guidelines: notably so for oral antivirals designed for high-risk mild patients. Severely ill patients mostly received corticosteroids and, in higher-resourced settings, tocilizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing does not always prompt enhanced care, due to reluctance on the part of patients and limited therapeutic availability within clinical settings. Any analysis of the impact or cost-effectiveness of testing policies post pandemic needs to either consider investment in optimal treatment pathways or constrain estimates of benefits based on actual practice.

Probiotics for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Although numerous modalities are currently in use for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, probiotics are a cost-effective alternative that could be used in diverse clinical settings. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the role of probiotics in preventing and treating COVID-19 infection.

Methods

We searched several databases from inception to 30 May 2023 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies that evaluated probiotics (irrespective of the regimen) for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. We conducted our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as the effect measures.

Results

A total of 18 studies (11 RCTs and 7 observational studies) were included in our review. Probiotics reduced the risk of mortality (RR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.65, I2 = 0%). Probiotics also decreased the length of hospital stay, rate of no recovery, and time to recovery. However, probiotics had no effect on the rates of ICU admission. When used prophylactically, probiotics did not decrease the incidence of COVID-19 cases (RR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.37-1.12; I2 = 66%). The results for all outcomes were consistent across the subgroups of RCTs and observational studies (P for interaction >0.05).

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis support the use of probiotics as an adjunct treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, probiotics are not useful as a prophylactic measure against COVID-19. Large-scale RCTs are still warranted for determining the most efficacious and safe probiotic strains.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023390275: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=390275).

"We usually see a lot of delay in terms of coming for or seeking care": an expert consultation on COVID testing and care pathways in low- and middle-income countries

Background

Rapid diagnostic testing may support improved treatment of COVID patients. Understanding COVID testing and care pathways is important for assessing the impact and cost-effectiveness of testing in the real world, yet there is limited information on these pathways in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). We therefore undertook an expert consultation to better understand testing policies and practices, clinical screening, the profile of patients seeking testing or care, linkage to care after testing, treatment, lessons learnt and expected changes in 2023 in LMICs.

Methods

We organized a qualitative consultation with ten experts from seven LMICs identified through purposive sampling. We conducted structured interviews during six regional consultations, and undertook a thematic analysis of the responses to our questions.

Results

Participants reported that, after initial efforts to scale-up testing (which often encountered delays), the policy priority given to COVID testing has declined. Comorbidities putting patients at heightened risk (e.g., diabetes) mainly relied on self-identification. The decision to test following clinical screening was highly context- and location-specific, often dictated by local epidemiology and test availability. When rapid diagnostic tests were available, public sector healthcare providers tended to rely on them for diagnosis, while private sector providers predominantly used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Positive test results were generally taken at 'face value' by clinicians, although negative tests with a high index of suspicion may be confirmed with PCR. However, even with a positive result, patients were not always linked to care in a timely manner because of reluctance to receiving care or delays in returning to care centres upon clinical deterioration. Countries often lacked multiple components of the range of therapeutics advised in WHO guidelines: notably so for oral antivirals designed for high-risk mild patients. Severely ill patients mostly received corticosteroids and, in higher-resourced settings, tocilizumab.

Conclusions

Testing does not always prompt enhanced care, due to reluctance on the part of patients and limited therapeutic availability within clinical settings. Any analysis of the impact or cost-effectiveness of testing policies post pandemic needs to either consider investment in optimal treatment pathways or constrain estimates of benefits based on actual practice.

Effective inhibition of HCoV-OC43 and SARS-CoV-2 by phytochemicals in vitro and in vivo

OBJECTIVE

Several coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43), can cause respiratory infections in humans. To address the need for reliable anti-coronavirus therapeutics, we screened 16 active phytochemicals selected from medicinal plants used in traditional applications for respiratory-related illnesses.

METHODS

An initial screen was completed using HCoV-OC43 to identify compounds that inhibit virus-induced cytopathic effect (CPE) and cell death inhibition. Then the top hits were validated in vitro against both HCoV-OC43 and SARS-CoV-2 by determining virus titer in cell supernatant and virus-induced cell death. Finally, the most active phytochemical was validated in vivo in the SARS-CoV-2-infected B6.Cg-Tg(K18-ACE2)2Prlmn/J mouse model.

RESULTS

The phytochemicals lycorine (LYC), capsaicin, rottlerin (RTL), piperine and chebulinic acid (CHU) inhibited HCoV-OC43-induced cytopathic effect and reduced viral titres by up to 4 log. LYC, RTL and CHU also suppressed virus replication and cell death following SARS-CoV-2 infection. In vivo, RTL significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2-induced mortality by ∼40% in human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)-expressing K18 mice.

CONCLUSION

Collectively, these studies indicate that RTL and other phytochemicals have therapeutic potential to reduce SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV-OC43 infections.

Antimicrobial stewardship and drug formulary restrictions during COVID-19: what is restricted and who decides?

COVID-19 therapies were challenging to deploy due to evolving literature and conflicting guidelines. Antimicrobial stewardship can help optimize drug use. We conducted a survey to understand the role of stewardship and formulary restrictions during the pandemic. Restrictions for COVID-19 therapies were common and approval by infectious disease physicians often required.

Intrathecal Dexamethasone in Febrile Infection-Related Epilepsy Syndrome: A Case Report

Objectives

Febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES) is characterized by explosive onset refractory status epilepticus (RSE) in healthy individuals that is refractory to antiseizure medication (ASM), continuous anesthetic infusions (CIs), and immunomodulators. Recently, a case series of patients receiving intrathecal dexamethasone (IT-DEX) was reported with improved RSE control.

Methods

We present a child with FIRES with favorable outcome after receiving concomitant anakinra and IT-DaEX. A 9-year-old male patient presented with encephalopathy following a febrile illness. He developed seizures evolving to RSE refractory to multiple ASM, 3 CIs, steroids, IVIG, plasmapheresis, ketogenic diet (KD), and anakinra. After continued seizures and inability to wean off CI, IT-DEX was initiated.

Results

He received 6 doses of IT-DEX with resolution of RSE, rapid wean off CI, and improved inflammatory markers. At discharge, he was ambulating with assistance, speaking 2 languages, and ingesting food orally.

Discussion

FIRES is a neurologically devastating syndrome with high mortality and morbidity. Proposed guidelines and various treatment strategies are becoming available in the literature. Although treatment with KD, anakinra, and tocilizumab has been successful in previous FIRES cases, our results suggest that the addition of IT-DEX may allow for faster weaning off CI and better cognitive outcomes when initiated early in the course.

Efficacy and safety of single-dose ivermectin in mild-to-moderate COVID-19: the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled CORVETTE-01 trial

Background

To investigate whether ivermectin inhibits SARS-CoV-2 proliferation in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 using time to a negative COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.

Methods

CORVETTE-01 was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (August 2020-October 2021) conducted in Japan. Overall, 248 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 using RT-PCR were assessed for eligibility. A single oral dose of ivermectin (200  μg/kg) or placebo was administered under fasting. The primary outcome was time to a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid, assessed using stratified log-rank test and Cox regression models.

Results

Overall, 112 and 109 patients were randomized to ivermectin and placebo, respectively; 106 patients from each group were included in the full analysis set (male [%], mean age: 68.9%, 47.9 years [ivermectin]; 62.3%, 47.5 years [placebo]). No significant difference was observed in the occurrence of negative RT-PCR tests between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.32; p = 0.785). Median (95% CI) time to a negative RT-PCR test was 14.0 (13.0-16.0) and 14.0 (12.0-16.0) days for ivermectin and placebo, respectively; 82.1% and 84% of patients achieved negative RT-PCR tests, respectively.

Conclusion

In patients with COVID-19, single-dose ivermectin was ineffective in decreasing the time to a negative RT-PCR test.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04703205.

Global Challenges with Oral Antivirals for COVID-19

Oral antivirals for COVID-19 can be game changers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Challenges that may hinder current and future oral antiviral rollouts span use in special populations, drug-drug and herb-drug interactions, adverse events, development of resistance, black markets, and equity in access and prescribing. Future antivirals may address some of these barriers; however, health systems around the world should be equipped to receive and administer COVID-19 oral antivirals. Improvements in manufacturing capacity, community engagement, capacity for testing and linkage to care, and systems for surveillance and safety monitoring could "change the game" for LMICs, irrespective of any specific antiviral drug. Investments in health care infrastructure can promote resilience, not only for COVID-19 but also for future local and global health crises.

Concessão rápida de patentes para enfrentamento da COVID-19 no Brasil

Com o objetivo de estimular a produção e o licenciamento de novas tecnologias, o Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI), autarquia responsável pela concessão de patentes no Brasil, criou uma modalidade de trâmite prioritário para processos de patentes relativos a inovações que possam ser usadas no combate à COVID-19. Os primeiros efeitos dessa medida institucional foram avaliados no presente trabalho, a partir da identificação e análise do tempo dos processos prioritários de patente solicitados por ofício pelo Ministério da Saúde ou por meio de petição pelos próprios depositantes. Os resultados demonstram que o INPI foi capaz de atender de forma exitosa à emergência de saúde pública, concedendo patentes em um período médio de 5,3 meses a contar do pedido de priorização, um tempo consideravelmente inferior à média exigida nos processos usuais.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies

Background

We aimed to quantitatively summarise the health economic evaluation evidence of prevention and control programs addressing COVID-19 globally.

Methods

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the economic and health benefit of interventions for COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of economic evaluation from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2022, to identify relevant literature. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled incremental net benefit (INB). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021267475.

Results

Of 16 860 studies identified, 85 articles were included in the systematic review, and 25 articles (10 studies about non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs), five studies about vaccinations and 10 studies about treatments) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled INB of NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments were $1378.10 (95% CI = $1079.62, $1676.59), $254.80 (95% CI = $169.84, $339.77) and $4115.11 (95% CI = $1631.09, $6599.14), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Conclusions

NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments are all cost-effective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence was mostly from high-income and middle-income countries. Further studies from lower-income countries are needed.

Ivermectin under scrutiny: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and possible sources of controversies in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria.

RESULTS

19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR - 0.27 [95% CI - 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI - 0.18-0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI - 0.22-0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.85-0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD - 0.36 [95% CI - 0.89-0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR - 0.67 [95% CI - 1.20 to - 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality.

CONCLUSION

Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.

The potential role of resveratrol as supportive antiviral in treating conditions such as COVID-19 - A formulator's perspective

With an increased transmissibility but milder form of disease of the omicron variant of COVID-19 and the newer antivirals often still out of reach of many populations, a refocus of the current treatment regimens is required. Safe, affordable, and available adjuvant treatments should also be considered and known drugs and substances need to be repurposed and tested. Resveratrol, a well-known antioxidant of natural origin, shown to act as an antiviral as well as playing a role in immune stimulation, down regulation of the pro-inflammatory cytokine release and reducing lung injury by reducing oxidative stress, is such an option. New initiatives and collaborations will however need to be found to unleash resveratrol's full potential in the pharmaceutical market.

Anti-high mobility group box protein 1 monoclonal antibody downregulating P-glycoprotein as novel epilepsy therapeutics

Epilepsy, a neurological illness, is characterized by recurrent uncontrolled seizures. There are many treatments of options that can be used as the therapy of epilepsy. However, anti-seizure medications as the primary treatment choice for epilepsy show many possible adverse effects and even pharmacoresistance to the therapy. High Mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) as an initiator and amplifier of the neuroinflammation is responsible for the onset and progression of epilepsy by overexpressing P-glycoprotein on the blood brain barrier. HMGB1 proteins then activate TLR4 in neurons and astrocytes, in which proinflammatory cytokines are produced. Anti-HMGB1 mAb works by blocking the HMGB1, reducing inflammatory activity in the brain that may affect epileptogenesis. Through the process, anti-HMGB1 mAb reduces the TLR4 activity and other receptors that may involve in promote signal of epilepsy such as RAGE. Several studies have shown that anti-HMGB1 has the potential to inhibit the increase in serum HMGB1 in plasma and brain tissue. Further research is needed to identify the mechanism of the inhibiting of overexpression of P-glycoprotein through anti-HMGB1 mAb.