Update March 2022: management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

SFX-01 in hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Introduction

Sulforaphane can induce the transcription factor, Nrf2, promoting antioxidant and anti-inflammatory responses. In this study, hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were treated with stabilised synthetic sulforaphane (SFX-01) to evaluate impact on clinical status and inflammation.

Methods

Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of SFX-01 (300 mg oral capsule, once daily for 14 days) conducted in Dundee, UK, between November 2020 and May 2021. Patients had radiologically confirmed CAP and CURB-65 (confusion, urea >7 mmol·L-1, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths·min-1, blood pressure <90 mmHg (systolic) or ≤60 mmHg (diastolic), age ≥65 years) score ≥1. The primary outcome was the seven-point World Health Organization clinical status scale at day 15. Secondary outcomes included time to clinical improvement, length of stay and mortality. Effects on Nrf2 activity and inflammation were evaluated on days 1, 8 and 15 by measurement of 45 serum cytokines and mRNA sequencing of peripheral blood leukocytes.

Results

The trial was terminated prematurely due to futility with 133 patients enrolled. 65 patients were randomised to SFX-01 treatment and 68 patients to placebo. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was the cause of CAP in 103 (77%) cases. SFX-01 treatment did not improve clinical status at day 15 (adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.41-1.83; p=0.71), time to clinical improvement (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.70-1.49), length of stay (aHR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56-1.26) or 28-day mortality (aHR 1.45, 95% CI 0.67-3.16). The expression of Nrf2 targets and pro-inflammatory genes, including interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β and tumour necrosis factor-α, was not significantly changed by SFX-01 treatment. At days 8 and 15, respectively, 310 and 42 significant differentially expressed genes were identified between groups (false discovery rate adjusted p<0.05, log2FC >1).

Conclusion

SFX-01 treatment did not improve clinical status or modulate key Nrf2 targets in patients with CAP primarily due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Lifting the Zero COVID-19 Policy in China

Chinese government lifted its "Zero COVID-19" policy in December 2022. The estimated COVDI-19 new cases and deaths after the policy change are 167-279 million (about 12.0% to 20.1% of the Chinese population) and 0.68-2.1 million, respectively. Recent data also revealed continuous drops in fertility rate and historically lowest growth in gross domestic production in China. Thus, balancing COVID-19 control and economic recovery in China is of paramount importance yet very difficult. Supply chain disruption, essential service reduction and shortage of intensive care units have been discussed as the challenges associated with lifting "Zero COVID-19" policy. The additional challenges may include triple epidemic of COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus and influenza, mental health issues of healthcare providers, care givers and patients, impact on human mobility, lack of robust genomic and epidemiological data and long COVID-19. However, the policy-associated opportunities and other challenges are largely untouched, but warrant attention of and prompt reactions by the policy makers, healthcare providers, public health officials and other stakeholders. The associated benefits are quick reach of herd immunity, boost of economy and businesses activities and increase in social activities. At this moment, we must embrace the policy change, effectively mitigate its associated problems and timely and effectively maximize its associated benefits.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

OBJECTIVE

To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil.

METHODS

Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made.

CONCLUSION

New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

A case report of spontaneous pectoral hematoma in a male with background antiplatelet therapy after severe COVID-19 infection

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous muscle hematoma is a rare complication in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present a case of spontaneous pectoral hematoma occurring after COVID-19 infection and anticoagulation therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old male presented to the hospital with a two-week history of shortness of breath and a one-week history of high fever. Despite testing positive for COVID-19, the patient's symptoms did not improve with two doses of ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A chest CT scan revealed pulmonary infection and SpO2 tested between 80% and 85% at rest in local hospital. The patient transferred to our intensive care unit, then received multiple treatments, including high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), antibiotics, methylprednisolone, IL-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody (tocilizumab), and an increased D-Dimer level leaded to intermediate dose of anticoagulation therapy. However, on the 10th day of hospitalization, the patient developed a hematoma in the left pectoralis major muscle. This was accompanied by hemorrhagic shock, necessitating the administration of norepinephrine, fluid resuscitation, and a blood transfusion. Arterial embolization was performed to manage the bleeding, resulting in stabilization of the patient's condition. Following discharge, the patient experienced an uneventful recovery over a period of six months.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe COVID-19 patients undergoing routine therapeutic anticoagulation may experience fatal bleeding complications. The ideal dosage of anticoagulants for these patients remains uncertain, especially in the patient with a background of anticoagulation or dual antiplatelet therapy. We present a case of spontaneous muscle hematoma accompanied by hemorrhagic shock. The notable reduction in hemoglobin levels indicated significant bleeding, which was confirmed through contrast angiography and cured by arterial embolization. This case underscores the importance of additional research to determine the appropriate utilization of therapeutic anticoagulation in severe COVID-19 patients already undergoing antithrombotic therapy.

Systemic Corticosteroids for Treating Respiratory Diseases: Less Is Better, but… When and How Is It Possible in Real Life?

Systemic corticosteroids (CSs), a keystone in pulmonology, are drugs with strong antiinflammatory activity. They are cheap, easily available, and accessible, but with common and serious side effects. Moreover, the use of exogenous CSs may suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, predisposing to adrenal insufficiency. Safe CS treatment is a challenge of pharmacological research. This narrative review examined the indications of CSs in some respiratory diseases, analyzing what types, dosages, and length of treatment are required as the dosage and duration of CS treatments need to be minimized. Chronic maintenance treatments with CSs are associated with poor prognosis, but they are still prescribed in patients with severe asthma, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung diseases. When CS discontinuation is not possible, all efforts should be made to achieve clinically meaningful reductions. Guidelines suggest the use of methylprednisolone at a dose of 20-40 mg/day or equivalent for up to 10 days in subjects with COVID-19 pneumonia (but not other respiratory viral diseases) and respiratory failure, exacerbations of asthma, and COPD. Some guidelines suggest that CS treatment shorter than 10-14 days can be abruptly stopped, strictly monitoring subjects with unexplained symptoms after CS withdrawal, who should promptly be tested for adrenal insufficiency (AI) and eventually treated. CSs are often used in severe community-acquired pneumonia associated with markedly increased serum inflammation markers, in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in septic shock unresponsive to hydro-saline replenishment and vasopressors, and acute exacerbations of interstitial lung diseases. As these cases often require higher doses and longer duration of CS treatment, CS tapering should be gradual and, when useful, supported by an evaluation of HPA axis function.

Serial lung ultrasound in monitoring viral pneumonia: the lesson learned from COVID-19

Background

Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven to be useful in the evaluation of lung involvement in COVID-19. However, its effectiveness for predicting the risk of severe disease is still up for debate. The aim of the study was to establish the prognostic accuracy of serial LUS examinations in the prediction of clinical deterioration in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Prospective single-centre cohort study of patients hospitalised for COVID-19. The study protocol consisted of a LUS examination within 24 h from admission and a follow-up examination on day 3 of hospitalisation. Lung involvement was evaluated by a 14-area LUS score. The primary end-point was the ability of LUS to predict clinical deterioration defined as need for intensive respiratory support with high-flow oxygen or invasive mechanical ventilation.

Results

200 patients were included and 35 (17.5%) of them reached the primary end-point and were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU). The LUS score at admission had been significantly higher in the ICU group than in the non-ICU group (22 (interquartile range (IQR) 20-26) versus 12 (IQR 8-15)). A LUS score at admission ≥17 was shown to be the best cut-off point to discriminate patients at risk of deterioration (area under the curve (AUC) 0.95). The absence of progression in LUS score on day 3 significantly increased the prediction accuracy by ruling out deterioration with a negative predictive value of 99.29%.

Conclusion

Serial LUS is a reliable tool in predicting the risk of respiratory deterioration in patients hospitalised due to COVID-19 pneumonia. LUS could be further implemented in the future for risk stratification of viral pneumonia.

Pharmacological approaches to pulmonary fibrosis following COVID-19

Background: In the past few years, COVID-19 became the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although the World Health Organization has declared an end to COVID-19 as a public health emergency, it can be expected, that the emerging new cases at the top of previous ones will result in an increasing number of patients with post-COVID-19 sequelae. Despite the fact that the majority of patients recover, severe acute lung tissue injury can in susceptible individuals progress to interstitial pulmonary involvement. Our goal is to provide an overview of various aspects associated with the Post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis with a focus on its potential pharmacological treatment options. Areas covered: We discuss epidemiology, underlying pathobiological mechanisms, and possible risk and predictive factors that were found to be associated with the development of fibrotic lung tissue remodelling. Several pharmacotherapeutic approaches are currently being applied and include anti-fibrotic drugs, prolonged use or pulses of systemic corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs. In addition, several repurposed or novel compounds are being investigated. Fortunately, clinical trials focused on pharmacological treatment regimens for post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis have been either designed, completed or are already in progress. However, the results are contrasting so far. High quality randomised clinical trials are urgently needed with respect to the heterogeneity of disease behaviour, patient characteristics and treatable traits. Conclusion: The Post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis contributes to the burden of chronic respiratory consequences among survivors. Currently available pharmacotherapeutic approaches mostly comprise repurposed drugs with a proven efficacy and safety profile, namely, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and antifibrotics. The role of nintedanib and pirfenidone is promising in this area. However, we still need to verify conditions under which the potential to prevent, slow or stop progression of lung damage will be fulfilled.

Antiviral Therapy of COVID-19

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community has focused on prophylactic vaccine development. In parallel, the experience of the pharmacotherapy of this disease has increased. Due to the declining protective capacity of vaccines against new strains, as well as increased knowledge about the structure and biology of the pathogen, control of the disease has shifted to the focus of antiviral drug development over the past year. Clinical data on safety and efficacy of antivirals acting at various stages of the virus life cycle has been published. In this review, we summarize mechanisms and clinical efficacy of antiviral therapy of COVID-19 with drugs based on plasma of convalescents, monoclonal antibodies, interferons, fusion inhibitors, nucleoside analogs, and protease inhibitors. The current status of the drugs described is also summarized in relation to the official clinical guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19. In addition, here we describe innovative drugs whose antiviral effect is provided by antisense oligonucleotides targeting the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Analysis of laboratory and clinical data suggests that current antivirals successfully combat broad spectra of emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2 providing reliable defense against COVID-19.

Validation of the qSOFA and CRB-65 in SARS-CoV-2-infected community-acquired pneumonia

Rationale

Prognostic accuracy of the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and CRB-65 (confusion, respiratory rate, blood pressure and age (≥65 years)) risk scores have not been widely evaluated in patients with SARS-CoV-2-positive compared to SARS-CoV-2-negative community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The aim of the present study was to validate the qSOFA(-65) and CRB-65 scores in a large cohort of SARS-CoV-2-positive and SARS-CoV-2-negative CAP patients.

Methods

We included all cases with CAP hospitalised in 2020 from the German nationwide mandatory quality assurance programme and compared cases with SARS-CoV-2 infection to cases without. We excluded cases with unclear SARS-CoV-2 infection state, transferred to another hospital or on mechanical ventilation during admission. Predefined outcomes were hospital mortality and need for mechanical ventilation.

Results

Among 68 594 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, hospital mortality (22.7%) and mechanical ventilation (14.9%) were significantly higher when compared to 167 880 SARS-CoV-2-negative patients (15.7% and 9.2%, respectively). All CRB-65 and qSOFA criteria were associated with both outcomes, and age dominated mortality prediction in SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio >9). Scores including the age criterion had higher area under the curve (AUCs) for mortality in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients (e.g. CRB-65 AUC 0.76) compared to SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (AUC 0.68), and negative predictive value was highest for qSOFA-65=0 (98.2%). Sensitivity for mechanical ventilation prediction was poor with all scores (AUCs 0.59-0.62), and negative predictive values were insufficient (qSOFA-65=0 missed 1490 out of 10 198 patients (∼15%) with mechanical ventilation). Results were similar when excluding frail and palliative patients.

Conclusions

Hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation rates were higher in SARS-CoV-2-positive than SARS-CoV-2-negative CAP. For SARS-CoV-2-positive CAP, the CRB-65 and qSOFA-65 scores showed adequate prediction of mortality but not of mechanical ventilation.

Host-Based Treatments for Severe COVID-19

COVID-19 has been a global health problem since 2020. There are different spectrums of manifestation of this disease, ranging from asymptomatic to extremely severe forms requiring admission to intensive care units and life-support therapies, mainly due to severe pneumonia. The progressive understanding of this disease has allowed researchers and clinicians to implement different therapeutic alternatives, depending on both the severity of clinical involvement and the causative molecular mechanism that has been progressively explored. In this review, we analysed the main therapeutic options available to date based on modulating the host inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with severe and critical illness. Although current guidelines are moving toward a personalised treatment approach titrated on the timing of presentation, disease severity, and laboratory parameters, future research is needed to identify additional biomarkers that can anticipate the disease course and guide targeted interventions on an individual basis.

Antibiotic consumption and antimicrobial resistance in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A single-center experience

Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance and the rapid spread of multiresistant bacteria represent one of the main public health problem in limited resources countries. This issue is significantly worsening since the COVID-19 pandemic due to the unreasonably increased antibiotics prescription to patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this study was to examine whether COVID-19 pandemic (2020, 2021) was associated with increased antibiotic consumption in inpatient and outpatient settings in the middle size urban region (Republic of Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina) in comparison to period before the pandemic (2019). Additionally, we aimed to determine antimicrobial resistance and the presence of multiresistant bacteria in the regional hospital (“Saint Apostol Luka” Hospital Doboj) in 2021.

Methodology: The consumption of antibiotics in inpatient was calculated as Defined Daily Dose per one hundred of patient-days. The consumption of antibiotics in outpatient was calculated as Defined Daily Dose per thousand inhabitants per day. Resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is expressed as a rates and density for each observed antibiotic. The rate of resistance was calculated as a percentage in relation to the total number of isolates of individual bacteria. The density of resistance of isolated bacteria against a specific antibiotic was expressed as the number of resistant pathogens/1000 patient days.

Results: Antibiotic consumption in hospital setting registered during 2019, 2020 and 2021 was as follows: carbapenems (meropenem: 0.28; 1.91; 2.33 DDD/100 patient-days, respectively), glycopeptides (vancomycin: 0.14; 1.09, 1.54 DDD/100 patient-days, respectively), cephalosporins (ceftriaxone: 6.69; 14.7; 14.0 DDD/100 patient-days, respectively) and polymyxins (colistin: 0.04; 0.25; 0.35 DDD/100 bed-days, respectively). Consumption of azithromycin increased drastically in 2020, and dropped significantly in 2021 (0.48; 5.61; 0.93 DDD/100 patient-days). In outpatient setting, an increase in the consumption of oral forms of azithromycin, levofloxacin and cefixime, as well as parenteral forms of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, ciprofloxacin and ceftriaxone, was recorded. In 2021, antimicrobial resistance to reserve antibiotics in hospital setting was as follows: Acinetobacter baumanii to meropenem 66.0%, Klebsiella spp to cefotaxime 67.14%, Pseudomonas to meropenem 25.7%.

Conclusion: Recent COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased antibiotic consumption in inpatient and outpatient settings, with characteristic change of pattern of azithromycin consumption. Also, high levels of antimicrobial resistance to reserve antibiotics were registered in hospital setting with low prevalence of identified pathogen-directed antimicrobial prescription. Strategies toward combat antimicrobial resistance in the Doboj region are urgently needed.

Treating COVID-19: Targeting the Host Response, Not the Virus

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), inexpensive generic drugs like statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs, especially if used in combination, might be the only practical way to save the lives of patients with severe COVID-19. These drugs will already be available in all countries on the first pandemic day. Because they target the host response to infection instead of the virus, they could be used to save lives during any pandemic. Observational studies show that inpatient statin treatment reduces 28–30-day mortality but randomized controlled trials have failed to show this benefit. Combination treatment has been tested for antivirals and dexamethasone but, with the exception of one observational study in Belgium, not for inexpensive generic drugs. Future pandemic research must include testing combination generic drug treatments that could be used in LMICs.

Tocilizumab versus baricitinib in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: an open label, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials comparing tocilizumab and baricitinib in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial aiming to address this unmet need.

METHODS

To determine whether baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab, we assessed whether the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1.50. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to hospital discharge by day 28 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10.

RESULTS

We assigned 251 patients with COVID-19 and a PaO_2/FiO₂ ratio of <200 to receive either tocilizumab (n = 126) or baricitinib (n = 125) plus standard of care. Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 (mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received baricitinib, 39.2% [n = 49/125]; mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received tocilizumab, 44.4% [n = 56/126]; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.21; p 0.001 for non-inferiority). Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the time to hospital discharge within 28 days (patients who received baricitinib- discharged alive: 58.4% [n = 73/125] vs. patients who received tocilizumab- discharged alive: 52.4% [n = 66/126]; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61-1.18; p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and tocilizumab arms in the change in WHO scale at day 10 (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0] vs. 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-1.0]; p 0.83).

DISCUSSION

In the setting of this trial, baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab with regards to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 and the time to discharge by day 28 in patients with severe COVID-19.

Plasma enzymatic activity, proteomics and peptidomics in COVID-19-induced sepsis: A novel approach for the analysis of hemostasis

Introduction: Infection by SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 can cause viral sepsis. We investigated plasma protease activity patterns in COVID-19-induced sepsis with bacterial superinfection, as well as plasma proteomics and peptidomics in order to assess the possible implications of enhanced proteolysis on major protein systems (e.g., coagulation). Methods: Patients (=4) admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center with confirmed positive test for COVID-19 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were enrolled in a study approved by the UCSD Institutional Review Board (IRB# 190699, Protocol #20-0006). Informed consent was obtained for the collection of blood samples and de-identified use of the data. Blood samples were collected at multiple time points and analyzed to quantify a) the circulating proteome and peptidome by mass spectrometry; b) the aminopeptidase activity in plasma; and c) the endopeptidase activity in plasma using fluorogenic substrates that are cleaved by trypsin-like endopeptidases, specific clotting factors and plasmin. The one patient who died was diagnosed with bacterial superinfection on day 7 after beginning of the study. Results: Spikes in protease activity (factor VII, trypsin-like activity), and corresponding increases in the intensity of peptides derived by hydrolysis of plasma proteins, especially of fibrinogen degradation products and downregulation of endogenous protease inhibitors were detected on day 7 for the patient who died. The activity of the analyzed proteases was stable in survivors. Discussion: The combination of multiomics and enzymatic activity quantification enabled to i) hypothesize that elevated proteolysis occurs in COVID-19-induced septic shock with bacterial superinfection, and ii) provide additional insight into malfunctioning protease-mediated systems, such as hemostasis.

[Should we interfere with the interleukin-6 receptor during COVID-19: What do we know?]

COVID-19 is a viral infection with predominant respiratory tropism. In its most severe forms, the initial viral aggression leads to acute respiratory failure due to damage secondary to an exacerbated inflammatory response provoked by the activation of innate, followed by adaptive immunity. The inflammatory response may entail respiratory distress syndrome, if not multivisceral failure and death. IL-6 receptor inhibitors (Tocilizumab and Sarilumab) have been proposed as treatments. Numerous studies have provided new information, which remains heterogeneous and difficult to interpret. This review is aimed at clarifying the potential role of IL-6 receptor inhibitors in severe forms of COVID-19.

Consumption of Antibiotics in Primary Care Setting before and during COVID-19 Pandemic in Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina

The pandemic of COVID-19 has brought many changes in health care systems at all levels of health care. The increase in the number of cases of COVID-19 has led to overuse and misuse of antibiotics.The aim of this study was to compare the consumption of antibiotics for systemic use in outpatients in the Republic of Srpska (RS), before and during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the association between antibiotic consumption and the rate of incidence and mortality of COVID-19. The total consumption of the antibiotics for systemic use (J01) in outpatients in the Republic of Srpska during 2019 was 19.40 DDD/TID, with an increase to 30.80 DDD/TID in 2020.Significantly higher use of penicillin (10.58 ± 11.01 DDD/TID in 2019 vs. 17.10 ± 13.63 DDD/TID in 2020), cephalosporins (2.68 ± 1.90 DDD/TID in 2019 vs. 5.93 ± 2.77 DDD/TID in 2020) and macrolides (2.14 ± 2.22 DDD/TID in 2019 vs. 3.40 ± 3.44 DDD/TID in 2020) was observed during the pandemic period. It is necessary to improve the prescribing practice of antibiotics at the primary health care level, public awareness about rational use of antibiotics, as well as the current antibiotic stewardship programs and control their implementation.