Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine for patients admitted to intensive care due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-protocol of randomised controlled trial AZIQUINE-ICU

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Combination Use in COVID-19 Patients - An Umbrella Review

Background

Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin combination was used rampantly in management of COVID-19 patients in different countries. Present review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin combination compared to the control (standard care) and any adverse effect following this combination use in COVID-19 patients if any.

Material and Methods

We included all the systematic review with or without meta-analysis reporting the effect of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Azithromycin (AZM) combination use in COVID-19 patient using three databases namely PubMed, medline, CINHAL, Web of Science from July 2020 till Jan 2022.

Results

The systematic search strategy has identified 104 studies in total, after removal of duplicates only 4 systematic reviews were included in the qualitative synthesis. The various tools for assessing and reporting the data in the reviews were PRISMA, ROBINS-I, Robs2, AMSTAR, MASTER checklists. Mortality among the hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin combination group was significantly higher than among the Standard Care group. The duration of hospital stay in days was shorter in the Standard Care group in comparison with the hydroxychloroquine group or the hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination group. Of the 4 systematic reviews included, 3 had low risk of bias and one had unclear risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine combination did not shorten the duration of hospital stay.

Conclusion

Rampant use of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine alone or with Azithromycin combination caused adverse effects like QT prolongation. Finally, there is no evidence to support use of either Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin, for the treatment of COVID-19.

Efficacy of antiviral therapies for COVID-19: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

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.

Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies

Background

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need to discover effective therapies for COVID-19 prompted questions about the ethical problem of randomization along with its widely accepted solution: equipoise. In this scoping review, uses of equipoise in discussions of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of COVID-19 therapies are evaluated to answer three questions. First, how has equipoise been applied to COVID-19 research? Second, has equipoise been employed accurately? And third, do concerns about equipoise pose a barrier to the ethical conduct of COVID-19 RCTs?

Methods

Google Scholar and Pubmed were searched for articles containing substantial discussion about equipoise and COVID-19 RCTs. 347 article titles were screened, 91 full text articles were assessed, and 48 articles were included. Uses of equipoise were analyzed and abstracted into seven categories.

Results and discussion

Approximately two-thirds of articles (33/48 articles) used equipoise in a way that is consistent with the concept. They invoked equipoise to support (1) RCTs of specific therapies, (2) RCTs in general, and (3) the early termination of RCTs after achieving the primary outcome. Approximately one-third of articles (15/48 articles) used equipoise in a manner that is inconsistent with the concept. These articles argued that physician preference, widespread use of unproven therapies, patient preference, or expectation of therapeutic benefit may undermine equipoise and render RCTs unethical. In each case, the purported ethical problem can be resolved by correcting the use of equipoise.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the continued relevance of equipoise as it supports the conduct of well-conceived RCTs and provides moral guidance to physicians and researchers as they search for effective therapies for COVID-19.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00712-5.

Hydroxychloroquine Does Not Increase the Risk of Cardiac Arrhythmia in Common Rheumatic Diseases: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

Objectives

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is widely used to treat rheumatic diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and Sjögren's syndrome (SS). Cardiac arrhythmia has been concerned as important safety issue for HCQ. The aim of this study was to investigate whether hydroxychloroquine increases new-onset arrhythmia among patients with RA, SLE or SS.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study that conducted from the longitudinal health insurance database of Taiwan. Patients with newly diagnosed RA, SLE or SS with age ≥20 years old were selected from 2000 to 2012. Patients who received HCQ and without HCQ treatment groups were matched by propensity score to minimize the effect of selection bias and confounders. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze the risk of arrhythmia between the two groups after controlling for related variables.

Results

A total of 15892 patients were selected to participate and finally 3575 patients were enrolled in each group after matching. There was no different risk of all arrhythmia in patients using HCQ than without HCQ (adjusted hazards ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.61-1.07) and ventricular arrhythmia as well. The incidence of arrhythmia did not increase when HCQ co-administrated with macrolides. The arrhythmia risk was also not different regardless of daily HCQ dose <400mg or ≥400mg or follow-up duration of ≦4 months or >4 months.

Conclusion

The administration of HCQ did not increase the risk of all cardiac arrhythmia and ventricular arrhythmia regardless of different duration of treatment (≦4 months or >4 months) or cumulative dose (<400mg or ≥400mg) in patients with common autoimmune diseases such as RA, SLE and SS.

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.