The COVIRL-001 Trial: A multicentre, prospective, randomised trial comparing standard of care (SOC) alone, SOC plus hydroxychloroquine monotherapy or SOC plus a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in the treatment of non- critical, SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive population not requiring immediate resuscitation or ventilation but who have evidence of clinical decline: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Clinical Protocol for Early Treatment of COVID-19 in a real-world scenario: results of a series of patients

Introduction

Despite the advance in vaccination, the SARS-CoV-2 infection remains a challenge for the medical community. Outpatient and hospital therapy for COVID-19 are still improving. Our study aimed to report the results of a series of patients with COVID-19 who participated in an outpatient treatment protocol since the first clinical manifestation.

Methods

A case series report of individuals aged ≥ 18 years with clinical symptoms and a confirmed test for COVID-19 submitted to a treatment protocol. Patients were enrolled between May and September 2020 and followed for at least 15 days. The assessed clinical outcomes were the need for hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, orotracheal intubation, and death.

Results

We studied a 116 patients. The mean age was 48 ± 14 years. Females formed 53%. The main comorbidities wereobesity (15.5%), systemic arterial hypertension (10.3%) ,type II diabetes (6%), and lung diseases (6.0%). Temperature > 37.7 °C (51.7%), cough (55.2%), myalgia (37.1%), headache (37.9%), and fatigue (34.5%) were the most frequent signs and symptoms. According to different disease staging, the most administered drugs were: azithromycin, ivermectin, corticosteroid, antibiotics, and anticoagulants. There was no death, and hospitalization accounted for only 8.6% of the patients (1 in ICU); none required orotracheal intubation. The mean length of hospital stay was 5.8 days.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.

Both Chloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir Are Ineffective for COVID-19 Treatment and Combined Worsen the Pathology: A Single-Center Experience with Severely Ill Patients

The off-label use of antiviral and antimalarial drugs has been considered by many researchers as a fast and relatively safe alternative to provide therapeutic options to treat COVID-19, but the assessment of such drug-specific effectiveness in this regard is far from complete. Especially, the current body of knowledge about COVID-19 therapeutics needs more data regarding drug effectiveness and safety in the severely ill patients with comorbidities. In the present article, we retrospectively analyze data from 61 patients that received treatment with chloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, both drugs administered together, or a standard treatment with no antiviral drugs, and the study was carried in severely ill patients. We found that either drug is ineffective at treating COVID-19, as they are not able to reduce hospitalization length, mortality, C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), d-Dimer, or ferritin, or to enhance gasometric parameters, lymphocytes, total leukocytes, and neutrophil levels, whereas both drugs administered together decrease circulating lymphocytes, increase LDH and ferritin levels, and more importantly, enhance mortality. In this way, our results show that both drugs are ineffective and even potentially harmful alternatives against SARS-CoV-2.

Investigational Treatments for COVID-19 may Increase Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Through Drug Interactions

Many drugs that have been proposed for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are reported to cause cardiac adverse events, including ventricular arrhythmias. In order to properly weigh risks against potential benefits, particularly when decisions must be made quickly, mathematical modeling of both drug disposition and drug action can be useful for predicting patient response and making informed decisions. Here, we explored the potential effects on cardiac electrophysiology of four drugs proposed to treat COVID-19: lopinavir, ritonavir, chloroquine, and azithromycin, as well as combination therapy involving these drugs. Our study combined simulations of pharmacokinetics (PKs) with quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) modeling of ventricular myocytes to predict potential cardiac adverse events caused by these treatments. Simulation results predicted that drug combinations can lead to greater cellular action potential prolongation, analogous to QT prolongation, compared with drugs given in isolation. The combination effect can result from both PK and pharmacodynamic drug interactions. Importantly, simulations of different patient groups predicted that women with pre-existing heart disease are especially susceptible to drug-induced arrhythmias, compared with diseased men or healthy individuals of either sex. Statistical analysis of population simulations revealed the molecular factors that make certain women with heart failure especially susceptible to arrhythmias. Overall, the results illustrate how PK and QSP modeling may be combined to more precisely predict cardiac risks of COVID-19 therapies.

Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 Patients: Pros and Cons

The pandemic of COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has recently overwhelmed medical centers and paralyzed economies. The unparalleled public distress caused by this pandemic mandated an urgent quest for an effective approach to manage or treat this disease. Due to their well-established anti-infectious and anti-inflammatory properties, quinine derivatives have been sought as potential therapies for COVID-19. Indeed, these molecules were originally employed in the treatment and prophylaxis of malaria, and later in the management of various autoimmune rheumatic and dermatologic diseases. Initially, some promising results for the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating COVID-19 patients were reported by a few in vitro and in vivo studies. However, current evidence is not yet sufficiently solid to warrant its use as a therapy for this disease. Additionally, the therapeutic effects of HCQ are not without many side effects, which range from mild gastrointestinal effects to life-threatening cardiovascular and neurological effects. In this review, we explore the controversy associated with the repurposing of HCQ to manage or treat COVID-19, and we discuss the cellular and molecular mechanisms of action of HCQ.