Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Review of the WHO guideline on preventive chemotherapy for public health control of strongyloidiasis

Strongyloidiasis is a soil-transmitted helminthiasis that is estimated to affect 300-600 million people across Asia, Africa, South and central America, and the Pacific. This neglected parasitic disease is most known for its ability to persist as a lifelong infection due to autoinfection and its risk of hyperinfection and disseminated disease during immunosuppression, which has a more than 60% case fatality. Despite the large global burden of strongyloidiasis, there have been no large-scale public health programmes or WHO guidelines directed towards its control and elimination. However, over the past decade, key scientific and policy changes along with requests from endemic countries have led to WHO incorporating strongyloidiasis into its 2021-30 roadmap and public health targets for control and elimination of neglected tropical diseases. In 2024, WHO published its first guideline on public health control of strongyloidiasis with a single recommendation: in endemic settings with a Strongyloides stercoralis infection prevalence of 5% or higher (measured either with Baermann or agar plate culture from stool specimens), WHO conditionally recommends mass drug administration with single-dose ivermectin (200 μg/kg; oral therapy) in all age groups from 5 years and older to reduce strongyloidiasis. This Review, written by the 2023-24 strongyloidiasis guidelines development group along with WHO colleagues and international experts, presents a summary of the recently published WHO guideline recommendation for strongyloidiasis, and the supporting evidence, considerations for public health implementation, and future research needs.

Assessing the comparative effects of interventions in COPD: a tutorial on network meta-analysis for clinicians

To optimize patient outcomes, healthcare decisions should be based on the most up-to-date high-quality evidence. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are vital for demonstrating the efficacy of interventions; however, information on how an intervention compares to already available treatments and/or fits into treatment algorithms is sometimes limited. Although different therapeutic classes are available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), assessing the relative efficacy of these treatments is challenging. Synthesizing evidence from multiple RCTs via meta-analysis can help provide a comprehensive assessment of all available evidence and a "global summary" of findings. Pairwise meta-analysis is a well-established method that can be used if two treatments have previously been examined in head-to-head clinical trials. However, for some comparisons, no head-to-head studies are available, for example the efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapies for the treatment of COPD. In such cases, network meta-analysis (NMA) can be used, to indirectly compare treatments by assessing their effects relative to a common comparator using data from multiple studies. However, incorrect choice or application of methods can hinder interpretation of findings or lead to invalid summary estimates. As such, the use of the GRADE reporting framework is an essential step to assess the certainty of the evidence. With an increasing reliance on NMAs to inform clinical decisions, it is now particularly important that healthcare professionals understand the appropriate usage of different methods of NMA and critically appraise published evidence when informing their clinical decisions. This review provides an overview of NMA as a method for evidence synthesis within the field of COPD pharmacotherapy. We discuss key considerations when conducting an NMA and interpreting NMA outputs, and provide guidance on the most appropriate methodology for the data available and potential implications of the incorrect application of methods. We conclude with a simple illustrative example of NMA methodologies using simulated data, demonstrating that when applied correctly, the outcome of the analysis should be similar regardless of the methodology chosen.

Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine therapies for the treatment of mild/moderate acute COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence has emerged for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) to treat COVID-19 which requires systematic summaries of the net benefits of interventions against standard care and one another. The study aims to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) regarding TCIM therapies for treating mild/moderate acute COVID-19, potentially informing the WHO guideline development and clinical decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Embase, MEDLINE, Virtual Health Library on Traditional Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform with additional searches of Chinese and Korean literature sources for randomised controlled trials comparing TCIM with placebo, standard care, no treatment or with an alternate type of TCIM to treat COVID-19. We will limit the search dates from 2020 to 28 March 2024. Reviewers will, in duplicate, screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the risk of bias. We will conduct frequentist network meta-analyses for network comparisons and each outcome. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach and classify interventions from most to least effective or harmful.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This NMA is based on the existing trials and data which is not subject to ethical approval. We will publish the NMA in a peer-reviewed journal. This may provide methodological reference and clinical evidence for TCIM on future epidemic-prone diseases.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024517321.

A systematic survey of 200 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (published 2020-2021) reveals that few reviews report structured evidence summaries

OBJECTIVES

To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries - here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) - and (b) NMA results in general.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met prespecified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions.

RESULTS

The 200 eligible SRs, from 158 unique Journals, utilized 1133 presentation formats. We found structured evidence summaries in 10 publications (5.0%), with 3 (1.5%) reporting structured evidence summaries across all outcomes, including benefits and harms. Sixteen of the 133 SRs (11.7%) reporting dichotomous outcomes included estimates of absolute effects. Seventy-six SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms and 26 SRs (13.0%) reported certainty ratings in presentation formats, 20 (76.9%) used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and 6 (23.1%) used Confidence In Network Meta-analysis. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve was the most common method to rate interventions (69 SRs, 34.5%). NMA results were most often reported using forest plots (108 SRs, 54.0%) and league tables (93 SRs, 46.5%).

CONCLUSION

Most SRs with NMA do not report structured evidence summaries and only rarely do such summaries include reporting of both benefits and harms; those that do offer effective user-friendly communication and provide models for optimal NMA presentation practice.

Physicians found an interactive tool displaying structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons understandable and useful: a qualitative user testing study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and improve "Making Alternative Treatment Choices Intuitive and Trustworthy" (MATCH-IT)-a digital, interactive decision support tool displaying structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons-to help physicians interpret and apply evidence from network meta-analysis (NMA) for their clinical decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a qualitative user testing study, applying principles from user-centered design in an iterative development process. We recruited a convenience sample of practicing physicians in Norway, Belgium, and Canada, and asked them to interpret structured evidence summaries for multiple comparisons-linked to clinical guideline recommendations-displayed in MATCH-IT. User testing included (a) introduction of a clinical scenario, (b) a think-aloud session with participant-tool interaction, and (c) a semistructured interview. We video recorded, transcribed, and analyzed user tests using directed content analysis. The results informed new updates in MATCH-IT.

RESULTS

Distributed across 5 development cycles we tested MATCH-IT with 26 physicians. Of these, 24 (94%) reported either no or sparse prior experience with interpretation of NMA. Physicians perceived MATCH-IT as easy to interpret and navigate, and appreciated its ability to provide an overview of the evidence. Visualization of effects in pictograms and inclusion of information on burden of treatment ("practical issues") were highlighted as potentially useful features in interacting with patients. We also identified problems, including undiscovered functionalities (drag and drop), suboptimal tutorial, and cumbersome navigation of the tool. In addition, physicians wanted definition/explanation of key terms (eg, outcomes and "certainty"), and there were concerns that overwhelming evidence from a large NMA would complicate applicability to clinical practice. This led to several updates with development of a new start page, tutorial, updated user interface for more efficient maneuvering, solutions to display definition of key terms and a "frequently asked questions" section. To facilitate interpretation of large networks, we improved categorization of results using color coding and added filtering functionality. These modifications allowed physicians to focus on interventions of interest and reduce information overload.

CONCLUSION

This study provides proof of concept that physicians can use MATCH-IT to understand NMA evidence. Key features of MATCH-IT in a clinical context include providing an overview of the evidence, visualization of effects, and the display of information on burden of treatments. However, unfamiliarity with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation concepts, time constraints, and accessibility at the point of care may be challenges for use. To what extent our results are transferable to real-world clinical contexts remains to be explored.

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis and clinical assessment: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that affected tens of millions of people, upended the lives of countless individuals around the globe. The chloroquine (CQ) and its analogue hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were the most frequently cited as potential treatments and preventatives against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The primary aim of this investigation was to scrutinize the effectiveness and safety of HCQ for COVID-19 prevention and to present powerful evidence and reference for clinical practice.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were systematically searched from inception to January 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) trials that included participants who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at the time of registration were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The intervention group took HCQ or CQ orally. The control group was not blinded by quinine or placebo. Pooled relative risk (RR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mortality, hospitalization, adverse events, and compliance were calculated. The software tools utilized for statistical analyses were Stata 14 and Review Manager 5.3.

Results

A total of 9 studies including 7,825 participants were enrolled. Bias of individual studies were assessed as low risk. The pooled RR for SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.83] (z=-4.01, P<0.0001; I2=11%). The pooled RR for hospitalization was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35-1.50) (z=0.87, P=0.39; I2=0.0%). The pooled RR for mortality and adverse events were 3.26 (95% CI: 0.13-79.74) (z=0.72, P=0.47; I2=0.0%) and 1.90 (95% CI: 1.20-3.02) (z=2.73, P=0.0063; I2=94%).

Conclusions

Results of this meta-analysis indicated significant impact of HCQ on SARS-CoV-2 infection with higher risk of adverse events. These findings must be considered with caution, and further research is necessary to delineate the specific circumstances where HCQ may be effective for COVID-19 prevention.

Conduct and reporting of multivariate network meta-analyses: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Combining multivariate and network meta-analysis methods simultaneously in a multivariate network meta-analysis (MVNMA) provides the methodological framework to analyze the largest amount of evidence relevant to decision-makers (i.e., from indirect evidence and correlated outcomes). The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize the characteristics of MVNMAs published in the health sciences literature and map the methodological guidance available for MVNMA.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to 28 August 2023, along with citations of included studies, for quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and articles addressing MVNMA methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies. Collected data included bibliographic, methodological, and analytical characteristics of included studies. We reported results as total numbers, frequencies, and percentages for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables that were not normally distributed.

RESULTS

After screening 1,075 titles and abstracts, and 112 full texts, we included 38 unique studies, of which, 10 were quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and 28 were articles addressing MVNMA methods. Among the 10 MVNMAs, the first was published in 2013, four used studies identified from already published systematic reviews, and eight addressed pharmacological interventions, which were the most common interventions. They evaluated interventions for metastatic melanoma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, oral hygiene, disruptive behavior disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, narcolepsy, type 2 diabetes, and overactive bladder syndrome. Five MVNMAs analyzed two outcomes simultaneously, and four MVNMAs analyzed three outcomes simultaneously. Among the articles addressing MVNMA methods, the first was published in 2007 and the majority provided methodological frameworks for conducting MVNMAs (26/28, 93%). One study proposed criteria to standardize reporting of MVNMAs and two proposed items relevant to the quality assessment of MVNMAs. Study authors used data from 18 different illnesses to provide illustrative examples within their methodological guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of MVNMA in the health sciences literature is uncommon. Many methodological frameworks are published; however, standardization and specific criteria to guide reporting and quality assessment are lacking. This overview of the current landscape may help inform future conduct of MVNMAs and research on MVNMA methods.

Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials

BACKGROUND

Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article.

RESULTS

The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint-article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73-187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71-464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint-article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments.

METHODS

For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s).

RESULTS

The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments.

METHODS

For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna).

RESULTS

The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain.

CONCLUSIONS

Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

Targeting the Spike: Repurposing Mithramycin and Dihydroergotamine to Block SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The urgency to find complementary therapies to current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, whose effectiveness is preserved over time and not compromised by the emergence of new and emerging variants, has become a critical health challenge. We investigate the possibility of jamming the opening of the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 with small compounds. Through in silico screening, we identified two potential candidates that would lock the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) in a closed configuration, preventing the virus from infecting the host cells. We show that two drugs already approved by the FDA, mithramycin and dihydroergotamine, can block infection using concentrations in the μM range in cell-based assays. Further STD-NMR experiments support dihydroergotamine's direct interaction with the spike protein. Overall, our results indicate that repurposing of these compounds might lead to potential clinical drug candidates for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

COVID-19 Treatments: Then and Now

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over the past 3+ years, and strategies to prevent illness and treat infection have changed over time. As COVID-19 transitions from a pandemic to an endemic infection, widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask mandates and governmental policies requiring social distancing have given way to more selective strategies for risk mitigation. Monoclonal antibody therapies used for disease prevention and treatment lost utility owing to the emergence of resistant viral variants. Oral antiviral medications have become the mainstay of treatment in nonhospitalized individuals, whereas systemic corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy in those requiring supplemental oxygen. Emerging literature also supports the use of additional immune-modulating therapies in select admitted patients. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both unprecedented research and development of medical interventions while also drawing attention to significant pitfalls in the global response. This review provides a comprehensive update in prevention and management of COVID-19.

Impact of Allocation Concealment and Blinding in Trials Addressing Treatments for COVID-19: A Methods Study

We aimed to assess the impact of allocation concealment and blinding on the results of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) trials, using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database (to February 2022). We identified 488 randomized trials comparing drug therapeutics with placebo or standard care in patients with COVID-19. We performed random-effects meta-regressions comparing the results of trials with and without allocation concealment and blinding of health-care providers and patients. We found that, compared with trials with allocation concealment, trials without allocation concealment may estimate treatments to be more beneficial for mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation, but results were imprecise. We did not find compelling evidence that, compared with trials with blinding, trials without blinding produce consistently different results for mortality, mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospitalization. We found that trials without blinding may estimate treatments to be more beneficial for hospitalizations and duration of mechanical ventilation. We did not find compelling evidence that COVID-19 trials in which health-care providers and patients are blinded produce different results from trials without blinding, but trials without allocation concealment estimate treatments to be more beneficial compared with trials with allocation concealment. Our study suggests that lack of blinding may not always bias results but that evidence users should remain skeptical of trials without allocation concealment.

No evidence of important difference in summary treatment effects between COVID-19 preprints and peer-reviewed publications: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

Preprints became a major source of research communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate whether summary treatment effect estimates differ between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A meta-epidemiological study. Data were derived from the COVID-NMA living systematic review (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified all meta-analyses evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care or placebo for patients with COVID-19 that included at least one preprint and one peer-reviewed journal article. Difference in effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials were estimated by the ratio of odds ratio (ROR); ROR <1 indicated larger effects in preprint trials.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven meta-analyses including 114 trials (44 preprints and 70 peer-reviewed publications) were selected. The median number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) per meta-analysis was 2 (interquartile range [IQR], 2-4; maximum, 11), median sample size of RCTs was 199 (IQR, 99-478). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in summary effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials (ROR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.09; I2 = 17.8%; τ2 = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

We did not find an important difference between summary treatment effects of preprints and summary treatment effects of peer-reviewed publications. Systematic reviewers and guideline developers should assess preprint inclusion individually, accounting for risk of bias and completeness of reporting.

Community Use of Repurposed Drugs Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic in the Netherlands: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

Background

Repurposing registered drugs could reduce coronavirus disease (COVID-19) burden before novel drugs are authorized. Little is known about how the pandemic and imposed restrictions changed their dispensing. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on repurposed drugs dispensing in the Netherlands.

Methods

We performed interrupted time-series study using University of Groningen prescription database IADB.nl to evaluate dispensing trends of 24 repurposed drugs before (2017-February 2020) and after (March 2020-2021) the pandemic' start. Primary outcomes were monthly prevalence and incidence rates. An autoregressive integrated moving average model assessed the effect of pandemic and stringency index (measuring strictness of government's restriction policies).

Results

Annual number of IADB.nl population ranged from 919,697 to 952,400. Generally, dispensing of common long-term-used drugs was not significantly affected by pandemic. The prevalence of antibacterials (-4.20 users per 1000 people), antivirals (-0.04), corticosteroids (-1.29), prednisolone (-1.32), calcium channel blocker (-0.41), and diuretics (-1.29) was lower than expected after the pandemic's start, while the prevalence of ivermectin (0.07), sulfonylureas (0.15), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (0.17), and anticoagulants (1.95) was higher than expected. The pandemic was associated with statistically significant decreases in the incidence of antibacterials (-1.21), corticosteroids (-0.60), prednisolone (-0.64) and anticoagulants (-0.02), and increases in ivermectin (0.02), aggregated antidiabetic drugs (0.13), and SGLT2 inhibitors (0.06). These trends were positively associated with pandemic and negatively associated with stringency index.

Conclusion

Dispensing of most drugs was not significantly associated with pandemic and government's response. Despite some statistically significant disruptions, these were not necessarily clinically relevant due to small absolute differences observed.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of early studies on ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been repurposed for COVID-19 treatment during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Although its antiviral efficacy was confirmed early in vitro and in preclinical studies, its clinical efficacy remained ambiguous. Our purpose was to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in terms of time to viral clearance based on the meta-analysis of available clinical trials at the closing date of the data search period, one year after the start of the pandemic. This meta-analysis was reported by following the PRISMA guidelines and by using the PICO format for formulating the question. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), bioRvix, and medRvix were searched for human studies of patients receiving ivermectin therapy with control groups. No language or publication status restrictions were applied. The search ended on 1/31/2021 exactly one year after WHO declared the public health emergency on novel coronavirus. The meta-analysis of three trials involving 382 patients revealed that the mean time to viral clearance was 5.74 days shorter in case of ivermectin treatment compared to the control groups [WMD = -5.74, 95% CI (-11.1, -0.39), p = 0.036]. Ivermectin has significantly reduced the time to viral clearance in mild to moderate COVID-19 diseases compared to control groups. However, more eligible studies are needed for analysis to increase the quality of evidence of ivermectin use in COVID-19.

Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY

Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020-28 September 2022).

RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies.

DATA ANALYSIS

Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available.

RESULTS

In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I2=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I2=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021292797.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Mechanisms of gastrointestinal barrier dysfunction in COVID-19 patients

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a major global public health event, resulting in a significant social and economic burden. Although COVID-19 was initially characterized as an upper respiratory and pulmonary infection, recent evidence suggests that it is a complex disease including gastrointestinal symptoms, such as diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the gastrointestinal symptoms are caused by direct infection of the gastrointestinal tract by SARS-CoV-2 or are the result of systemic immune activation and subsequent dysregulation of homeostatic mechanisms. This review provides a brief overview of the mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 disrupts the integrity of the gastrointestinal barrier including the mechanical barrier, chemical barrier, microbial barrier, and immune barrier.

Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists and Proton Pump Inhibitors Are Associated With Reduced Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Without Comorbidities Including Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dyslipidemia: A Propensity Score-Matched Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify the effect of histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use on the positivity rate and clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We performed a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching using medical claims data and general health examination results from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Individuals aged ≥ 20 years who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 1 January and 4 June 2020 were included. Patients who were prescribed H2RA or PPI within 1 year of the test date were defined as H2RA and PPI users, respectively. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, and the secondary outcome was the instance of severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19, including death, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation administration.

RESULTS

Among 59,094 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, 21,711 were H2RA users, 12,426 were PPI users, and 24,957 were non-users. After propensity score matching, risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in H2RA users (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.98) and PPI users (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.74) compared to non-users. In patients with comorbidities including diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, the effect of H2RA and PPI against SARS-CoV-2 infection was not significant, whereas the protective effect was maintained in patients without such comorbidities. Risk of severe clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients showed no difference between users and non-users after propensity score matching either in H2RA users (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.54) or PPI users (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.60-2.51).

CONCLUSION

H2RA and PPI use is associated with a decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but does not affect clinical outcome. Comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia seem to offset the protective effect of H2RA and PPI.

FXR inhibition may protect from SARS-CoV-2 infection by reducing ACE2

Preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection by modulating viral host receptors, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)1, could represent a new chemoprophylactic approach for COVID-19 that complements vaccination2,3. However, the mechanisms that control the expression of ACE2 remain unclear. Here we show that the farnesoid X receptor (FXR) is a direct regulator of ACE2 transcription in several tissues affected by COVID-19, including the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems. We then use the over-the-counter compound z-guggulsterone and the off-patent drug ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) to reduce FXR signalling and downregulate ACE2 in human lung, cholangiocyte and intestinal organoids and in the corresponding tissues in mice and hamsters. We show that the UDCA-mediated downregulation of ACE2 reduces susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro, in vivo and in human lungs and livers perfused ex situ. Furthermore, we reveal that UDCA reduces the expression of ACE2 in the nasal epithelium in humans. Finally, we identify a correlation between UDCA treatment and positive clinical outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection using retrospective registry data, and confirm these findings in an independent validation cohort of recipients of liver transplants. In conclusion, we show that FXR has a role in controlling ACE2 expression and provide evidence that modulation of this pathway could be beneficial for reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection, paving the way for future clinical trials.

Protective effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on COVID-19 in patients with chronic liver disease

Objective

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) may reduce susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by downregulating angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), based on recent experimental investigation. This study aimed to determine the potential protective effect of UDCA against SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with chronic liver disease.

Methods

Patients with chronic liver disease receiving UDCA (taking UDCA ≥1 month) at Beijing Ditan Hospital between January 2022 and December 2022 were consecutively enrolled. These patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio to those with liver disease not receiving UDCA during the same period by using a propensity score matching analysis with nearest neighbor matching algorithm. We conducted a phone survey of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection during the early phase of the pandemic liberation (from 15 December 2022 to 15 January 2023). The risk of COVID-19 was compared in two matched cohorts of 225 UDCA users and 225 non-UDCA users based on patient self-report.

Results

In the adjusted analysis, the control group was superior to the UDCA group in COVID-19 vaccination rates and liver function indicators, including γ-glutamyl transpeptidase and alkaline phosphatase (p < 0.05). UDCA was associated with a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (UDCA 85.3% vs. control 94.2%, p = 0.002), more mild cases (80.0% vs. 72.0%, p = 0.047), and shorter median time from infection to recovery (5 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that UDCA was a significant protective factor against COVID-19 infection (OR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.16-0.64, p = 0.001). Furthermore, diabetes mellitus (OR: 2.48, 95%CI: 1.11-5.54, p = 0.027) and moderate/severe infection (OR: 8.94, 95%CI: 1.07-74.61, p = 0.043) were more likely to prolong the time from infection to recovery.

Conclusion

UDCA therapy may be beneficial in reducing COVID-19 infection risk, alleviating symptoms, and shortening the recovery time in patients with chronic liver disease. However, it should be emphasized that the conclusions were based on patient self-report rather than classical COVID-19 detection by experimental investigations. Further large clinical and experimental studies are needed to validate these findings.

The Comparison of Clinical Epidemiology of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 during the Third and Fourth Waves of the Pandemic in Gorgan

Background

COVID-19 has turned into a global public health crisis. This study intended to compare demographic characteristics, disease severity, treatment methods, and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the third and fourth waves of the pandemic in Golestan Province, Iran.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, the clinical epidemiology of all COVID-19 patients, who were hospitalized in two educational hospitals in Golestan Province for 30 days from the start of the third and fourth waves of the coronavirus pandemic in 2021-2022, was assessed. Their electronic medical records were used to collect their epidemiological, demographic, laboratory, and clinical information and treatment outcome.

Results

In all, 930 electronic medical records of the hospitalized patients (351 in the third wave and 579 in the fourth wave) were studied. In the third and fourth waves, 29.06% and 13.13% of the patients had severe COVID-19, respectively (P = 0.001). The number of deaths in the third wave was larger compared to the fourth wave (P = 0.015). The mean duration of hospitalization was longer in the third wave than in the fourth wave (P = 0.001). The drugs administered most in these two waves were remdesivir, dexamethasone, and heparin, and the patients who received these drugs were compared in the third and fourth waves (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

The reduced rate of mortality in the fourth wave was compared to the third wave. This reduction can be attributed to the change in the national strategy adopted in terms of hospitalization criteria and treatment protocols taking into account the acquired experience, earlier hospitalization, and start of drug therapy.

The Impact of Serum Levels of Vitamin D3 and Its Metabolites on the Prognosis and Disease Severity of COVID-19

Vitamin D is among the increasingly consumed dietary supplements during the COVID-19 pandemic. It plays a regulatory role in the immune system and moderates the renin-angiotensin system, which is implicated in infection pathogenesis. However, the investigation of serum levels of vitamin D3 forms and their relative ratios in COVID-19 patients is worth investigation to understand the impacts of disease severity. Hence, we investigated the serum levels of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) and its metabolites (calcifediol and calcitriol), in addition to their relative ratios and correlations with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), interleukin-6 (Il-6), and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in COVID-19 patients compared with healthy controls. Oropharyngeal specimens were collected from the study subjects for polymerase chain reaction testing for COVID-19. Whole blood samples were obtained for blood count and NLR testing, and sera were used for the analysis of the levels of the vitamin and its metabolites, ACE2, and IL-6. We enrolled 103 patients and 50 controls. ACE2, Il-6, and NLR were significantly higher in the patients group (72.37 ± 18.67 vs. 32.36 ± 11.27 U/L, 95.84 ± 25.23 vs. 2.76 ± 0.62 pg/mL, and 1.61 ± 0.30 vs. 1.07 ± 0.16, respectively). Cholecalciferol, calcifediol, and calcitriol were significantly lower in patients (18.50 ± 5.36 vs. 29.13 ± 4.94 ng/mL, 14.60 ± 3.30 vs. 23.10 ± 3.02 ng/mL, and 42.90 ± 8.44 vs. 65.15 ± 7.11 pg/mL, respectively). However, their relative ratios were normal in both groups. Levels of the vitamin and metabolites were strongly positively, strongly negatively, and moderately negatively correlated with ACE2, Il-6, and NLR, respectively. COVID-19 infection severity is associated with a significant decrease in vitamin D3 and its metabolites in a parallel pattern, and with a significant increase in ACE2, Il-6, and NLR. Higher levels of vitamin D and its metabolites are potentially protective against severe infection.

Model exploration for discovering COVID-19 targeted traditional Chinese medicine

In terms of treatment, a particularly targeted drug is needed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there are currently no specific drugs for COVID-19, traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) is clearly effective. It is recommended that through data analysis and mining of TCM cases (expert experience) and population evidence (RCT and cohort studies), core prescriptions for various efficacy can be obtained. Starting from a multidimensional model of regulating immunity, improving inflammation, and protecting multiple organs, this paper constructs a multidimensional model of targeted drug discovery, integrating molecular, cellular, and animal efficacy evaluation. Through functional activity testing, biophysical detection of compound binding to target proteins, multidimensional pharmacodynamic evaluation systems of cells (Vero E6, Vero, Vero81, Huh7, and caca2) and animals (mice infected with the new coronavirus, rhesus macaques, and hamsters), the effectiveness of effective preparations was evaluated, and various efficacy effects including lung moisturizing, dehumidification and detoxification were obtained. Using modern technology, it is now possible to understand how the immune system is controlled, how inflammation is reduced, and how various organs are protected. Complete early drug characterization and finally obtain effective targeted TCM. This article provides a demonstration resource for the development of new drugs specifically for TCM.

COVID-19 incidence, severity, medication use, and vaccination among dentists: survey during the second wave in Brazil

Objective

This cross-sectional study with dentists in Brazil assessed the COVID-19 incidence and severity, its vaccination status, and the level of confidence in vaccines in May 2021 (COVID-19 second wave). The medications used to prevent or treat COVID-19, including controversial substances (vitamin D, ivermectin, zinc, and chloroquine), were analyzed.

Methodology

Dentists were recruited by email and responded to a pretested questionnaire until May 31, 2021. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed (α=0.05). Prevalence ratios were calculated for the association between professional characteristics and two outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection and use of controversial substances.

Results

In total, 1,907 responses were received (return rate of 21.2%). One third of dentists reported intermediate levels of confidence in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, but 96% had received at least one vaccine dose, mainly CoronaVac. The effect of the pandemic on dental practice was classified as lower/much lower, in comparison with the first wave, by 46% of participants. Moreover, 27% of dentists had already tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and about 50% had relatives or friends who had been hospitalized or died from COVID-19. At least one medication was used by 59% of participants and 43% used two or more substances. Vitamin D (41%), ivermectin (35%), and zinc (29%) were the most frequent substances. More experienced dentists (≥21 years of professional experience) were 42% more likely to use controversial substances than less experienced dentists. The prevalence of use of controversial substances was 30% higher among dentists with residency or advanced training, such as postgraduate degrees, in comparison with participants holding MSc or PhD degrees. Participants with low confidence in vaccines were 2.1 times more likely to use controversial substances than participants with a very high confidence.

Conclusion

The results of this study show the high severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil and raised questions about the use of scientific evidence by dentists in their decision to use controversial substances.

Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review

Objective

To assess the trustworthiness (ie, complete and consistent reporting of key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports) and impact (ie, effects of preprints on meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence) of preprint trial reports during the covid-19 pandemic.

Design

Retrospective review.

Data sources

World Health Organization covid-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) covid-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to 3 August 2021).

Main outcome measures

Comparison of characteristics of covid-19 trials with and without preprints, estimates of time to publication of covid-19 preprints, and description of differences in reporting of key methods and results between preprints and their later publications. For the effects of eight treatments on mortality and mechanical ventilation, the study comprised meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at one, three, and six months after the first trial addressing the treatment became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total, 60 of which included preprints and 60 of which excluded preprints) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.

Results

Of 356 trials included in the study, 101 were only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. The median time to publication of preprints was about six months. Key methods and results showed few important differences between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. Apart from two (3.3%) of 60 comparisons, point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including preprints versus those excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. For nine (15%) of 60 comparisons, the rating of the certainty of evidence was different when preprints were included versus being excluded-the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher in four comparisons and lower in five comparisons.

Conclusion

No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months-an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.

Perceptions of COVID-19 symptoms, prevention, and treatment strategies among people in seven Arab countries: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUP

the widespread COVID-19 infection worldwide has resulted in the inability of healthcare facilities to receive all infected patients; therefore, most are treated at home. In addition, factors such as high mortality, types and severity of symptoms, and the prevalence of unreliable information have prompted patients to resort to self-treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess prevention, treatment, degree of symptoms, and sources of information among patients with COVID-19 in Arab countries METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in seven Arab countries: Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and the United Arab of Emirates. People who have recovered from COVID-19 completed the study questionnaire. Score of symptoms during and after COVID-19 infection has been calculated by giving the participants a list of 13 symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 3519 participants completed the survey. Mostly females (68.3%), and aged between 18 and 40 years old (59.4%). Prophylaxis treatments, including vaccines and antibiotics, have been used in around 40% of the participants. The total average score of symptoms during the infection period was found 7.31 ± 3.66 out of 13. However, the symptoms score upon recovery was low (0.48 ± 1.11 score). The significant associations with increased incidence of symptoms during infection were reported with older people, married, divorced or widowed, people with chronic diseases, and obese. Moreover, significant associations with decreased symptoms were reported with those who worked in the health sector, non- or ex-smokers, and vaccinated people.

CONCLUSION

The use of medication and other treatments to prevent infection with COVID-19 was common among the participants in the seven countries. Taking the vaccine was the only effect on the number of symptoms experienced by patients. Although nearly two years have passed since the onset of the disease, there is still a need to raise treatment awareness among patients at home.

Single Dose of Ivermectin is not Useful in Patients with Hematological Disorders and COVID-19 Illness: A Phase II B Open Labelled Randomized Controlled Trial

Repurposed drugs may reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with hematological disorders who develop COVID-19 illness. 112 patients with predominantly hematological illnesses were randomized to receive standard of care, ivermectin 12 mg [Iv 12] or 24 mg [Iv24] for asymptomatic, mild, or moderate COVID 19 illness. Serial respiratory samples for rRT-PCR samples were sent on Day 3, 5 and 7. rRT-PCR negativity and ≥ 2 log10 reduction in viral loads on day 3, 5 and 7 were similar between the 3 treatment groups across all disease categories. Symptom progression occurred in 26 patients [21.6%] with no difference across 3 treatment groups. Twenty-two patients [18.3%] have expired while 98 [81.7%] survived. Survival rates were similar across treatment groups [controls-80.5%, Iv12-77.5%, Iv24-87.2% respectively]. Overall, poorer survival was seen with moderate illness compared to others [51.6% vs 92.1%; p = 0.000] and was the only significant risk factor identified on multivariate analysis. In this Phase II randomised trial, single dose of 12 or 24 mg of ivermectin did not reduce viral loads, prevent symptom progression, or reduce mortality in patients with predominantly haematological illnesses who develop mild to moderate COVID 19 illness.

Medications for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the most effective treatments of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Our objective was to compare effects of medications for PAH.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to December 2021. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis on all included trials. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 53 randomised controlled trials with 10 670 patients. Combination therapy with endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) plus phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i) reduced clinical worsening (120.7 fewer events per 1000, 95% CI 136.8-93.4 fewer; high certainty) and was superior to either ERA or PDE5i alone, both of which reduced clinical worsening, as did riociguat monotherapy (all high certainty). PDE5i (24.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 35.2 fewer to 2.1 more); intravenous/subcutaneous prostanoids (18.3 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 28.6 fewer deaths to 0) and riociguat (29.1 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 38.6 fewer to 8.7 more) probably reduce mortality as compared to placebo (all moderate certainty). Combination therapy with ERA+PDE5i (49.9 m, 95% CI 25.9-73.8 m) and riociguat (49.5 m, 95% CI 17.3-81.7 m) probably increase 6-min walk distance as compared to placebo (moderate certainty).

CONCLUSION

Current PAH treatments improve clinically important outcomes, although the degree and certainty of benefit vary between treatments.

Potential limitations in systematic review studies assessing the effect of the main intervention for treatment/therapy of COVID-19 patients: An overview

Background

Although several studies have assessed the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of interventions in treating the COVID-19, many of them have limitations that can have an immense impact on their results. This study aims to assess the potential limitations in systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the effect of interventions on the treatment of the COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences (WOS) databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2022. All systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness, efficacy, safety, and outcome of the main intervention (Favipiravir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, or Tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and reported the potential limitations of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) for review articles. We conducted a content analysis and prepared a narrative summary of the limitations.

Results

Forty-six studies were included in this review. Ninety one percent of the included studies scored as strong quality and the remaining (9%) as moderate quality. Only 29.7% of the included systematic reviews have a registered protocol. 26% of the included studies mentioned a funding statement. The main limitations of the included studies were categorized in 10 domains: sample size, heterogeneity, follow-up, treatment, including studies, design, definitions, synthesis, quality, and search.

Conclusion

Various limitations have been reported in all the included studies. Indeed, the existence of limitations in studies can affect their results, therefore, identifying these limitations can help researchers design better studies. As a result, stronger studies with more reliable results will be reported and disseminated. Further research on COVID-19 SRs is essential to improve research quality and also, efficiency among scientists across the world.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Recruitment into randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prevention of COVID-19 has been adversely affected by a widespread conviction that HCQ is not effective for prevention. In the absence of an updated systematic review, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov combined with expert consultation found 11 completed randomized trials: 7 pre-exposure prophylaxis trials and 4 post-exposure prophylaxis trials. We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each trial, and then pooled the risk ratio estimates.

RESULTS

The pooled risk ratio estimate of the pre-exposure prophylaxis trials was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.58-0.90) when using either a fixed effect or a standard random effects approach, and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.55-0.95) when using a conservative modification of the Hartung-Knapp random effects approach. The corresponding estimates for the post-exposure prophylaxis trials were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.62-1.35). All trials found a similar rate of serious adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups.

DISCUSSION

A benefit of HCQ as prophylaxis for COVID-19 cannot be ruled out based on the available evidence from randomized trials. However, the "not statistically significant" findings from early prophylaxis trials were widely interpreted as definite evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ. This interpretation disrupted the timely completion of the remaining trials and thus the generation of precise estimates for pandemic management before the development of vaccines.

Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 evidence syntheses was underutilized, but impactful: a methodological study

OBJECTIVES

A rapidly developing scenario like a pandemic requires the prompt production of high-quality systematic reviews, which can be automated using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. We evaluated the application of AI tools in COVID-19 evidence syntheses.

STUDY DESIGN

After prospective registration of the review protocol, we automated the download of all open-access COVID-19 systematic reviews in the COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database, indexed them for AI-related keywords, and located those that used AI tools. We compared their journals' JCR Impact Factor, citations per month, screening workloads, completion times (from pre-registration to preprint or submission to a journal) and AMSTAR-2 methodology assessments (maximum score 13 points) with a set of publication date matched control reviews without AI.

RESULTS

Of the 3,999 COVID-19 reviews, 28 (0.7%, 95% CI 0.47-1.03%) made use of AI. On average, compared to controls (n = 64), AI reviews were published in journals with higher Impact Factors (median 8.9 vs. 3.5, P < 0.001), and screened more abstracts per author (302.2 vs. 140.3, P = 0.009) and per included study (189.0 vs. 365.8, P < 0.001) while inspecting less full texts per author (5.3 vs. 14.0, P = 0.005). No differences were found in citation counts (0.5 vs. 0.6, P = 0.600), inspected full texts per included study (3.8 vs. 3.4, P = 0.481), completion times (74.0 vs. 123.0, P = 0.205) or AMSTAR-2 (7.5 vs. 6.3, P = 0.119).

CONCLUSION

AI was an underutilized tool in COVID-19 systematic reviews. Its usage, compared to reviews without AI, was associated with more efficient screening of literature and higher publication impact. There is scope for the application of AI in automating systematic reviews.

Lessons from SARS‑CoV‑2 and its variants (Review)

COVID-19 has swept through mainland China by human-to-human transmission. The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, including the currently prevalent Omicron strain, pose a serious threat worldwide. The present review summarizes epidemiological investigation and etiological analysis of genomic, epidemiological, and pathological characteristics of the original strain and its variants, as well as progress in diagnosis and treatment. Prevention and control measures used during the current Omicron pandemic are discussed to provide further knowledge of SARS-CoV-2.

Improving the adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures in the community: Evidence brief for policy

Objectives

To identify evidence-based strategies to improve adherence to the preventive measures against the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at the community level.

Method

This is an evidence brief for policy, combining research evidence specific to contextual knowledge from stakeholders. A systematic search was performed in 18 electronic databases, gray literature, and a handle search, including only secondary and tertiary studies that focused on the adherence of the general population to COVID-19 preventive measures in the community. Two reviewers, independently, performed the study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the quality of the studies. Relevant evidence has been synthesized to draft evidence-based strategies to improve adherence. These strategies were circulated for external endorsement by stakeholders and final refinement. Endorsement rates >80%, 60-80% and <60% were considered high, moderate, and low respectively.

Results

Eleven studies, with varying methodological qualities were included: high (n = 3), moderate (n = 3), low (n = 1), and critically low (n = 4). Three evidence based strategies were identified: i. Risk communication; ii. Health education to the general public, and iii. Financial support and access to essential supplies and services. The rates of endorsement were: 83% for risk communication, 83% for health education, and 92% for financial support and access to essential supplies and services. The evidence showed that an increase in knowledge, transparent communication, and public awareness about the risks of COVID-19 and the benefits of adopting preventive measures results in changes in people's attitudes and behavior, which can increase adherence. In addition, the guarantee of support and assistance provides conditions for people to adopt and sustain such measures.

Conclusions

These strategies can guide future actions and the formulation of public policies to improve adherence to preventive measures in the community during the current COVID-19 pandemic and other epidemics.

Ayurvedic formulations: Potential COVID-19 therapeutics?

BACKGROUND

While Molnupiravir and Paxlovid have recently been approved for use in some countries, there are no widely available treatments for COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Herbal extracts have been used to treat respiratory clinical indications by Ayurvedic medicine practitioners with minimal adverse reactions and intense research efforts are currently under way to develop some of these formulations for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

Literature search for in silico, in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on the topic of Ayurvedic formulations for potential COVID-19 treatment, in order to present the current state of current knowledge by integrating information across all systems.

RESULTS

The search yielded 20 peer reviewed articles on in silico studies examining the interaction of phytoconstituents of popular Ayurvedic formulations with SARS-CoV-2 components and its receptors; five articles on preclinical investigations of the ability of selected Ayurvedic formulations to inhibit functions of SARS-CoV-2 proteins; and 51 completed clinical trials on the efficacy of using Ayurvedic formulations for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. Clinical data was available from 17 of the 51 trials. There was a considerable overlap between formulations used in the in silico studies and the clinical trials. This finding was unexpected as there is no clearly stated alignment between studies and the traditional pathway to drug discovery- basic discovery leading to in vitro and in vivo proof of concept, followed by validation in clinical trials. This was further demonstrated in the majority of the in silico studies where focus was on potential antiviral mechanisms, while the clinical trials were focused on patient recovery using oral treatments. In all 17 clinical trials where data was available, Ayurvedic treatments lead to a shorter period to recovery in participants with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

The most commonly used Ayurvedic treatments for management of respiratory symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection appear to have prophylactic and/or therapeutic properties. It would be of particular interest to assess synergistic and concomitant systemic effects and antiviral activities of individual phytoconstituents and their combinations in the Ayurvedic treatments.

Treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: A narrative review of phase 2 and 3 trials

INTRODUCTION

Ventilatory management and general supportive care of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the adult population have led to significant clinical improvements, but morbidity and mortality remain high. Pharmacologic strategies acting on the coagulation cascade, inflammation, oxidative stress, and endothelial cell injury have been targeted in the last decade for patients with ARDS, but only a few of these have shown potential benefits with a meaningful clinical response and improved patient outcomes. The lack of availability of specific pharmacologic treatments for ARDS can be attributed to its complex pathophysiology, different risk factors, huge heterogeneity, and difficult classification into specific biological phenotypes and genotypes.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we briefly discuss the relevance and current advances in pharmacologic treatments for ARDS in adults and the need for the development of new pharmacological strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

Identification of ARDS phenotypes, risk factors, heterogeneity, and pathophysiology may help to design clinical trials personalized according to ARDS-specific features, thus hopefully decreasing the rate of failed clinical pharmacologic trials. This concept is still under clinical investigation and needs further development.

Safety and Non-Inferiority Evaluation of Two Immunization Schedules with an Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. CoronaVac®, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has demonstrated safety and immunogenicity, preventing severe COVID-19 cases. We investigate the safety and non-inferiority of two immunization schedules of CoronaVac® in a non-inferiority trial in healthy adults. A total of 2302 healthy adults were enrolled at 8 centers in Chile and randomly assigned to two vaccination schedules, receiving two doses with either 14 or 28 days between each. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days of each dose, and comparing the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection 14 days after the second dose between the schedules, respectively. The most frequent local AE was pain at the injection site, which was less frequent in participants aged ≥60 years. Other local AEs were reported in less than 5% of participants. The most frequent systemic AEs were headache, fatigue, and myalgia. Most AEs were mild and transient. There were no significant differences for local and systemic AEs between schedules. A total of 58 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, and all but 2 of them were mild. No differences were observed in the proportion of COVID-19 cases between schedules. CoronaVac® is safe, especially in ≥60-year-old participants. Both schedules protected against COVID-19 hospitalization.

Prevention of venous thromboembolic events in patients with lower leg immobilization after trauma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis with meta-epsidemiological approach

BACKGROUND

Lower limb trauma requiring immobilization is a significant contributor to overall venous thromboembolism (VTE) burden. The clinical effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for this indication and the optimal agent strategy are still a matter of debate. Our main objective was to assess the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients with isolated temporary lower limb immobilization after trauma. We aimed to estimate and compare the clinical efficacy and the safety of the different thromboprophylactic treatments to determine the best strategy.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) including all available randomized trials comparing a pharmacological thromboprophylactic treatment to placebo or to no treatment in patients with leg immobilization after trauma. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science until July 2021. Only RCT or observational studies with analysis of confounding factors including adult patients requiring temporary immobilization for an isolated lower limb injury treated conservatively or surgically and assessing pharmacological thromboprophylactic agents or placebo or no treatment were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major VTE (proximal deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic VTE, and pulmonary embolism-related death). We extracted data according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for NMA and appraised selected trials with the Cochrane review handbook. Fourteen studies were included (8,198 patients). Compared to the control group, rivaroxaban, fondaparinux, and low molecular weight heparins were associated with a significant risk reduction of major VTE with an odds ratio of 0.02 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.00 to 0.19), 0.22 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.65), and 0.32 (95% CrI 0.15 to 0.56), respectively. No increase of the major bleeding risk was observed with either treatment. Rivaroxaban has the highest likelihood of being ranked top in terms of efficacy and net clinical benefit. The main limitation is that the network had as many indirect comparisons as direct comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA confirms the favorable benefit/risk ratio of thromboprophylaxis for patients with leg immobilization after trauma with the highest level of evidence for rivaroxaban.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021257669.

Changes in dispensing of medicines proposed for re-purposing in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

Background

Since COVID-19 was first recognised, there has been ever-changing evidence and misinformation around effective use of medicines. Understanding how pandemics impact on medicine use can help policymakers act quickly to prevent harm. We quantified changes in dispensing of common medicines proposed for “re-purposing” due to their perceived benefits as therapeutic or preventive for COVID-19 in Australia.

Methods

We performed an interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study using nationwide dispensing claims data (January 2017-November 2020). We focused on six subsidized medicines proposed for re-purposing: hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, colchicine, corticosteroids, and calcitriol (Vitamin D analog). We quantified changes in monthly dispensing and initiation trends during COVID-19 (March-November 2020) using autoregressive integrated moving average models and compared characteristics of initiators in 2020 and 2019.

Results

In March 2020, we observed a 99% (95%CI: 96%-103%) increase in hydroxychloroquine dispensing (approximately 22% attributable to new users), and a 199% increase (95%CI: 184%-213%) in initiation, with an increase in prescribing by general practitioners (42% in 2020 vs 25% in 2019) rather than specialists. These increases subsided following regulatory restrictions on prescribing. There was a small but sustained increase in ivermectin dispensing over multiple months, with an 80% (95%CI 42%-118%) increase in initiation in May 2020 following its first identification as potentially disease-modifying in April. Other than increases in March related to stockpiling, we observed no change in the initiation of calcitriol or colchicine during COVID-19. Dispensing of corticosteroids and azithromycin was lower than expected from April through November 2020.

Conclusions

While most increases in dispensing observed early on during COVID-19 were temporary and appear to be related to stockpiling among existing users, we observed increases in the initiation of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and a shift in prescribing patterns which may be related to the media hype around these medicines. A quick response by regulators can help limit inappropriate repurposing to lessen the impact on medicine supply and patient harm.

Pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19 disease: A rapid review

The aim of this rapid review was to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions (excluding vaccines) to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) or reduce the severity of disease. A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2020 to 17 August 2021. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-RCT were included; three trials (two RCTs and one non-RCT) tested ivermectin with or without carrageenan. While all reported some potential protective effect of ivermectin, these trials had a high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was deemed to be 'very low'. One RCT tested bamlanivimab compared to placebo and reported a significantly reduced incidence of Covid-19 in the intervention group; this trial had a low risk of bias however the certainty of evidence was deemed 'very low'. The fifth RCT tested casirivimab plus imdevimab versus placebo and reported that the combination of monoclonal antibodies significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral load, duration of symptomatic disease and the duration of a high viral load; this trial was deemed to have a low risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was 'low'. The designations 'low' and 'very low' regarding the certainty of evidence indicate that the estimate of effect is uncertain and therefore is unsuitable for informing decision-making. At the time of writing, there is insufficient high quality evidence to support the use of pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19.

Maoto, a traditional herbal medicine, for post-exposure prophylaxis for Japanese healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19: A single center study

Background

Little research has been done on post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for COVID-19. This study was done to determine if maoto, a traditional herbal medicine commonly used for diseases with symptoms similar to those of COVID-19, can be repurposed for post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the spread of nosocomial infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

A cohort analysis was done of the data of 55 health care workers (HCWs) whether to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in a Japanese hospital experiencing a COVID-19 cluster in April of 2021. Of these subjects, maoto granules for medical use were prescribed for PEP to 42 HCWs and taken for three days in mid-April. Controls were 13 HCWs who rejected the use of maoto. Polymerase chain reaction was performed routinely once or twice a week or when a participant presented with symptoms of COVID-19.

Result

There were no background differences between the maoto and control groups by profession, sex, or mean age. No severe adverse reactions were observed. During the observation period of 1 week, significantly fewer subjects were diagnosed with COVID-19 in the maoto group (N = 3, 7.1%) than in the control group (N = 6, 46.2%). The prophylactic effectiveness of maoto was 84.5%.

Conclusion

Oral administration of maoto is suggested to be effective as PEP against nosocomial COVID-19 infection.

Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.

[Potentially useful drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 in Primary Care]

The consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have exceeded any forecast made. Today we know that the level of severity of the infection in its initial stages will correspond to the evolution and the presence of sequelae in the future. There are no specific treatments that have shown sufficient evidence to allow their recommendation, especially in the mild-moderate stages of the disease. The anti-Covid vaccination is showing clear benefits, both in the prevention of the disease and in its evolution, with the consequent improvement in the numbers of those affected by the pandemic. The use of different drugs used in other indications has been proposed as possible beneficial treatments for COVID-19 that, if used, will be prescribed individually taking into account the characteristics and situation of the patient, the evolutionary phase of the disease as well as well as the limitations of the lack of evidence in its administration.