Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Innate immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection: a review

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, first notified in China, has spread around the world causing high morbidity and mortality, which is due to factors such as the subversion of the immune response. The aims of the study are to summarise and present the immunopathological relationship of COVID-19 with innate immunity. This is a systematic review conducted by the National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health, USA (PUBMED), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SCIELO) databases with clinical trials, in vitro assays, case-controls, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses between February 2020 and July 2021. The version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs (RoB 2), Joana Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal (for the review articles) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools were used to evaluate the quality and the risk of bias of the studies included in this review. The innate immune response through the generation of interferons, alternative pathways and complement system lectins and the joint action of innate immune cells and cytokines and chemokines lead to different clinical outcomes, taking into account the exacerbated inflammatory response and pathogenesis. Then, in addition to interacting as a bridge for adaptive immunity, the innate immune response plays an essential role in primary defense and is one of the starting points for immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2.

SARS-CoV-2: Current trends in emerging variants, pathogenesis, immune responses, potential therapeutic, and vaccine development strategies

More than a year after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is still a major global challenge for scientists to understand the different dimensions of infection and find ways to prevent, treat, and develop a vaccine. On January 30, 2020, the world health organization (WHO) officially announced this new virus as an international health emergency. While many biological and mechanisms of pathogenicity of this virus are still unclear, it seems that cytokine storm resulting from an immune response against the virus is considered the main culprit of the severity of the disease. Despite many global efforts to control the SARS-CoV-2, several problems and challenges have been posed in controlling the COVID-19 infection. These problems include the various mutations, the emergence of variants with high transmissibility, the short period of immunity against the virus, the possibility of reinfection in people improved, lack of specific drugs, and problems in the development of highly sensitive and specific vaccines. In this review, we summarized the results of the current trend and the latest research studies on the characteristics of the structure and genome of the SARS-CoV- 2, new mutations and variants of SARS-CoV-2, pathogenicity, immune response, virus diagnostic tests, potential treatment, and vaccine candidate.

Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review

Background

Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published.

Methods

We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs.

Results

We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence.

Conclusions

Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.