Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)

Impact of Remdesivir on inflammatory and prognostic markers of COVID-19: Findings of an event-monitoring study

Introduction

Remdesivir is currently approved for treating hospitalised patients with COVID-19. However, it is a priority to monitor its safety and effectiveness in various clinical settings. This study was undertaken to assess the impact of remdesivir on inflammatory and prognostic markers of COVID-19.

Materials and Methods

A hospital-based prospective longitudinal study was conducted over two months comprising event monitoring of COVID-19 patients administered remdesivir as per standard guidelines. The demographic details, risk factors and all baseline parameters were collected. The patients were followed up for the appearance of any adverse drug reactions (ADRs) after the start of remdesivir therapy from Day 1 to discharge or death every day. Repeat Lab tests were done on days 2, 4, 6 and 10 days to assess the impact of remdesivir on inflammatory and prognostic markers of COVID-19 over time. Significant predictors of survival in the cohort were also assessed.

Results

A total of 60 COVID-19 patients were administered remdesivir. The mean age of the patients was 59.2 (+13.7) years. There was a significant improvement in the serum creatinine (decreased from 0.9 to 0.7 mg/dL), lymphocyte count {decreased from 9.2 to 7.3 (109 cells/L)} and serum sodium (increased from 134.6 to 137.4) of the patients over six days after the administration of remdesivir. The significant survival predictors were multiple organ failure (P 0.046) and WBC count on Day 10 (P 0.001).

Conclusion

Remdesivir administration improved the prognostic biomarker profile in COVID-19 patients.

Early treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin reduces mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, millions of people have been infected and died. Different therapeutic approaches have been recommended, but only a few have shown clinical advantages. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been recommended to prevent COVID-19-related thrombo-embolic events. We aimed to evaluate the impact of early treatment with LMWH on hospital admission and death in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We conducted an observational monocentric retrospective study to evaluate the preventive role of LMWH on the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were recruited from the beginning of the Italian epidemic to March 31, 2021. We excluded patients with missing data and those chronically exposed to LMWH. Treatment prescription was based on international and national guidelines and modified depending on clinical presentation and drug-drug interactions.

RESULTS

Seven hundred thirty-four SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were recruited, with 357 (48.6%) males and a median (IQR) age of 77.9 (65-85.7) years. 77.5% of people developed SARS-CoV-2-related symptoms and 62.8% were admitted to the hospital, and 20.2% died. Four hundred ninety-two (67%) started LMWH. In particular, 296 (40.3%) were treated within five days since symptoms onset. At logistic regression, early LMWH therapy was associated with lower mortality. Furthermore, remdesivir treatment showed a lower risk of death. On the contrary, age, BMI>30 kg/m2, neurological diseases, fever or dyspnea were associated with an increased risk of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment with LMWH was associated with lower mortality in our cohort. Further studies are needed to better assess the role of wider LMWH administration in terms of timing and regimen dose.

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.

Evidence in decision-making in the context of COVID-19 in Latin America

Background

The pace of the COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to the evidence-to-decision process. Latin American countries have responded to COVID-19 by introducing interventions to both mitigate the risk of infection and to treat cases. Understanding how evidence is used to inform government-level decision-making at a national scale is crucial for informing country and regional actors in ongoing response efforts.

Objectives

This study was undertaken between February-May 2021 and aims to characterise the best available evidence (BAE) and assess the extent to which it was used to inform decision-making in 21 Latin American countries, in relation to pharmaceutical (PI) and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) related to COVID-19, including the use of therapeutics (corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine and ivermectin), facemask use in the community setting and the use of diagnostic tests as a requirement for international travel.

Method

A three-phase methodology was used to; (i) characterise the BAE for each intervention using an umbrella review, (ii) identify government-level decisions for each intervention through a document review and (iii) assess the use of evidence to inform decisions using a novel adapted framework analysis.

Findings

The BAE is characterized by 17 living and non-living systematic reviews as evolving, and particularly uncertain for NPIs. 107 country-level documents show variation in both content and timing of decision outcomes across intervention types, with the majority of decisions taken at a time of evidence uncertainty, with only 5 documents including BAE. Seven out of eight key indicators of an evidence-to-decision process were identified more frequently among PIs than either NPI of facemask use or testing prior to travel. Overall evidence use was reported more frequently among PIs than either NPI of facemask use or travel testing (92%, 28% and 29%, respectively).

Interpretation

There are limitations in the extent to which evidence use in decision-making is reported across the Latin America region. Institutionalising this process and grounding it in existing and emerging methodologies can facilitate the rapid response in an emergency setting.

Funding

No funding was sourced for this work.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

RESULTS

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

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.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Background

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

Results

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

Conclusions

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

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.

Severity and prognostic factors of SARS-CoV-2-induced pneumonia: The value of clinical and laboratory biomarkers and the A-DROP score

Introduction

Numerous clinical and laboratory scores that include C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), interleukin 6 (IL-6), procalcitonin (PCT), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine levels and oxygenation (PaO₂ and SaO₂) have been used for the prognosis of COVID-19. In addition, composite scores have been developed for the assessment of general state and risk in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) that may be applied for COVID-19 as well. In this study, we assessed severity and potential prognostic risk factors for unfavorable outcome among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We also applied the A-DROP general scoring system used in CAP to COVID-19.

Patients and methods

Altogether 233 patients admitted to our center with COVID-19 were included in the study. Clinical status, several laboratory biomarkers described above, indicators of oxygenation were determined at hospital admission. We also applied the A-DROP composite scoring system that includes Age (≥ 70 years in males and ≥ 75 years in females), Dehydration (BUN ≥ 7.5 mmol/l), Respiratory failure (SaO₂ ≤ 90% or PaO₂ ≤ 60 mmHg), Orientation disturbance (confusion) and low blood Pressure (systolic BP ≤ 90 mmHg) to COVID-19.

Results

At the time of admission, most patients had elevated CRP, LDH, ferritin, D-dimer, and IL-6 levels indicating multisystemic inflammatory syndrome (MIS). Altogether 49 patients (21.2%) required admission to ICU, 46 (19.7%) needed ventilation and 40 patients (17.2%) died. In the binary analysis, admission to ICU, the need for ventilation and death were all significantly associated with the duration of hospitalization, history of hypertension or obesity, confusion/dizziness, as well as higher absolute leukocyte and neutrophil and lower lymphocyte counts, elevated CRP, PCT, LDH, ferritin, IL-6, BUN, and creatinine levels, low PaO₂ and SaO₂ and higher A-DROP score at the time of admission (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Numerous laboratory biomarkers in addition to obesity, dizziness at the time of admission and the history of hypertension may predict the need for ICU admission and ventilation, as well as mortality in COVID-19. Moreover, A-DROP may be a suitable scoring system for the assessment of general health and disease outcome in COVID-19.

Landscape of coronavirus disease 2019 clinical trials: New frontiers and challenges

BACKGROUND/AIM

The number of coronavirus disease 2019 deaths and cases continues to increase globally. Novel therapies are urgently needed to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019. We sought to provide a critical review of trials designed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our primary goal was to provide a critical review of the landscape of clinical trials designed to address the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Specifically, we were interested in assessing the design of phase II/III and phase III interventional trials.

METHODS

We utilized the ClinicalTrials.gov database to include trials registered between 1 December 2019 and 11 April 2021 to survey the current landscape of clinical trials for coronavirus disease 2019. Variables extracted included: National Clinical Trial number, title, location, sponsor, study type, start date, completion date, gender group, age group, primary outcome, secondary outcome, overall status, and associated references.

RESULTS

About 57% of studies were interventional, 14.5% were phase III trials, and the majority of the therapeutic trials included hospitalized patients. There were 52 primary composite outcomes and 285 unique interventions spanning 10 drug classes. The outcomes, disease severity, and comparators varied substantially across trials, and the trials were often too small to be definitive.

CONCLUSION

These findings are relevant as we strongly advocate for global coordination of efforts through the use of common platforms that enable harmonizing of endpoints, collection of common key variables and clear definition of disease severity to have clinically meaningful results from clinical trials.

Major mistakes and errors in the use of Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses - protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adequately conducted systematic reviews with meta-analyses are considered the highest level of evidence and thus directly defines many clinical guidelines. However, the risks of type I and II errors in meta-analyses are substantial. Trial Sequential Analysis is a method for controlling these risks. Erroneous use of the method might lead to research waste or misleading conclusions.

METHODS

The current protocol describes a systematic review aimed to identify common and major mistakes and errors in the use of Trial Sequential Analysis by evaluating published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include this method. We plan to include all studies using Trial Sequential Analysis published from January 2018 to January 2022, an estimated 400 to 600 publications. We will search Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, including studies with all types of participants, interventions, and outcomes. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, include relevant full text articles, extract data from the studies into a predefined checklist, and evaluate the methodological quality of the study using the AMSTAR 2, assessing the methodological quality of the systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION

This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The identified mistakes and errors will be published in peer reviewed articles and form the basis of a reviewed guideline for the use of Trial Sequential Analysis. Appropriately controlling for type I and II errors might reduce research waste and improve quality and precision of the evidence that clinical guidelines are based upon.

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapies for COVID-19: First iteration of a living systematic review and meta-analysis: MSCs and COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) and their secreted products are a promising therapy for COVID-19 given their immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities. Many small studies were launched at the onset of the pandemic, and repeated meta-analysis is critical to obtain timely and sufficient statistical power to determine efficacy.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

All English-language published studies identified in our systematic search (up to February 3, 2021) examining the use of MSC-derived products to treat patients with COVID-19 were identified. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed for all studies. Nine studies were identified (189 patients), four of which were controlled (93 patients). Three of the controlled studies reported on mortality (primary analysis) and were pooled through random-effects meta-analysis. MSCs decreased the risk of death at study endpoint compared with controls (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04 to 0.74; P = .02; I² = 0%), although follow-up differed. Among secondary outcomes, interleukin-6 levels were most commonly reported and were decreased compared with controls (standardized mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.22; P = .004; I² = 0%) (n = 3 studies). Other outcomes were not reported consistently, and pooled estimates of effect were not performed. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies in terms of study design. Adherence to published ISCT criteria for MSC characterization was low. In two of nine studies, RoB analysis revealed a low to moderate risk of bias in controlled studies, and uncontrolled case series were of good (3 studies) or fair (2 studies) quality.

CONCLUSION

Use of MSCs to treat COVID-19 appears promising; however, few studies were identified, and potential risk of bias was detected in all studies. More controlled studies that report uniform clinical outcomes and use MSC products that meet standard ISCT criteria should be performed. Future iterations of our systematic search should refine estimates of efficacy and clarify potential adverse effects.

Remdesivir: an overview of patenting trends, clinical evidence on COVID-19 treatment, pharmacology and chemistry

By December 2021, the COVID-19 caused approximately 6.1 million deaths around the world. Several vaccines have been approved, but there is still a need for non-prophylactic treatments for COVID-19. Remdesivir is an antiviral drug approved for emergency use against COVID-19 in several countries, but one of the first clinical trials was inconclusive about the mortality reduction, although the drug showed a reduction in the recovery time of hospitalized patients. Thus, the present investigation revisits the clinical evidence of using remdesivir for COVID-19 treatment, patent status, pharmacology and chemistry. We found 184 families of patents in the Cortellis database, and concerning the clinical evidence, we retrieved 14 systematic reviews with meta-analysis involving remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19, discussing the reduction of adverse events, hospitalization days, mortality rate and the mechanical ventilation period.

Agreement of treatment effects from observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone for covid-19: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify, match, and compare treatment effects and study demographics from individual or meta-analysed observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the same covid-19 treatments, comparators, and outcomes.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

National Institutes of Health Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines, a living review and network meta-analysis published in The BMJ, a living systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis in PLOS Medicine (The LIVING Project), and the Epistemonikos "Living OVerview of Evidence" (L·OVE) evidence database.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDIES

RCTs in The BMJ's living review that directly compared any of the three most frequently studied therapeutic interventions for covid-19 across all data sources (that is, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone) for any safety and efficacy outcomes. Observational studies that evaluated the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes that were reported in The BMJ's living review.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Safety and efficacy outcomes from observational studies were identified and treatment effects for dichotomous (odds ratios) or continuous (mean differences or ratios of means) outcomes were calculated and, when possible, meta-analyzed to match the treatment effects from individual RCTs or meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review with the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (that is, matched pairs). The analysis compared the distribution of study demographics and the agreement between treatment effects from matched pairs. Matched pairs were in agreement if both observational and RCT treatment effects were significantly increasing or decreasing (P<0.05) or if both treatment effects were not significant (P≥0.05).

RESULTS

17 new, independent meta-analyses of observational studies were conducted that compared hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone with an active or placebo comparator for any safety or efficacy outcomes in covid-19 treatment. These studies were matched and compared with 17 meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review. 10 additional matched pairs with only one observational study and/or one RCT were identified. Across all 27 matched pairs, 22 had adequate reporting of demographical and clinical data for all individual studies. All 22 matched pairs had studies with overlapping distributions of sex, age, and disease severity. Overall, 21 (78%) of the 27 matched pairs had treatment effects that were in agreement. Among the 17 matched pairs consisting of meta-analyses of observational studies and meta-analyses of RCTs, 14 (82%) were in agreement; seven (70%) of the 10 matched pairs consisting of at least one observational study or one RCT were in agreement. The 18 matched pairs with treatment effects for dichotomous outcomes had a higher proportion of agreement (n=16, 89%) than did the nine matched pairs with treatment effects for continuous outcomes (n=5, 56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs evaluating treatments for covid-19 have summary treatment effects that are generally in agreement. Although our evaluation is limited to three covid-19 treatments, these findings suggest that meta-analyzed evidence from observational studies might complement, but should not replace, evidence collected from RCTs.

Development of Evidence-Based COVID-19 Management Guidelines for Local Context: The Methodological Challenges

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented as a therapeutic challenge for clinicians worldwide due to its rapid spread along with evolving evidence and understanding of the disease. Internationally, recommendations to guide the management of COVID-19 have been created and updated continuously by the WHO and CDC, which have been locally adapted by different countries. Similarly, Pakistan's National Command Operation Center (NCOC), in its national COVID-19 management strategy, generated guidelines for national implementation. Keeping the guidelines updated has proved challenging globally and locally. Here, we present a summary of the process to assess the evidence, including a time-restricted systematic review based on NCOC Clinical Management Guidelines for COVID-19 Infections v4 published on 11^th December 2020 version, correlating it with current recommendations and with input one of the guidelines authors, particularly noting the methodological challenges.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review synthesizing global research on treatment options for COVID-19 hospitalized patients, limiting it to pharmacological interventions for hospitalized COVID-19 patients included in Pakistan's NCOC's national guidelines v4 published on 11^th December 2020. Each treatment recommendation's strength and quality of evidence was assessed based on the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. These were then compared to the most current living WHO COVID-19 pharmacological treatment guidelines v7.1. One of the authors of the NCOC guidelines reviewed and commented on the findings as well.

Results

We note that the data from our systematic review strongly supports corticosteroids use in treating severe and critically ill COVID-19 hospitalized patients correlating with WHO v7.1 guidelines 24 September 2021. However, evidence from our review and WHO v7.1 for the use of tocilizumab had some conflicting evidence, with data from our review until December 2020 supporting only a weak recommendation for its use, compared to the strong recommendation by the WHO for the use of tocilizumab in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infection. Regarding the use of antibiotics and ivermectin use in treating COVID-19 hospitalized patients, data from our review and WHO v 7.1 recommend against their use.

Conclusion

Research data about the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are rapidly evolving, and based on it, the evidence for or against recommendations changes accordingly. Our study illustrates the challenges of keeping up with the evidence; the recommendations were based on studies up till December 2021, and we have compared our recommendations with the WHO v7.1, which showed some significant changes in the use of pharmacological treatment options.

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions in COVID-19: A network meta-analysis

AIM

To perform network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of various interventions used in COVID - 19 on mortality, clinical recovery, time to clinical improvement and the occurrence of serious adverse events.

METHODS

Systematic search was performed using online databases with suitable MeSH terms including coronavirus, COVID-19, Randomized Controlled Trial, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone, and interferon-β. Data were independently extracted by two study investigators and analysed.

RESULTS

Out of 1225 studies screened, 23 were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among the drugs studied, dexamethasone reduces mortality by 10%, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.90 (95% CI [0.82-0.97]) and increases clinical recovery by 6% (RR 1.06, 95% CI [1.02-1.10]) compared to standard of care. Similarly, remdesivir administered for 10 days increased clinical recovery by 10%, reduced time to clinical improvement by 4 days and lowered the occurrence of serious adverse events by 27% as compared to standard of care.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to standard of care, dexamethasone was found to increase clinical recovery and lower mortality; remdesivir was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality as compared to tocilizumab and higher clinical recovery and shorter time to clinical improvement as compared to HCQ and tocilizumab; remdesivir followed by tocilizumab were found to have lesser occurrence of serious adverse events in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

Objective

To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach.

Study Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).

Results

We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4–57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.

Conclusion

There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Critically Ill Neurological Patients with COVID-19 Infection in Neuro-intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Study

Background

There are insufficient data about clinical outcomes in critically ill neurological patients with concomitant coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study describes the clinical characteristics, predictors of mortality, and clinical outcomes in COVID-19-positive neurological patients managed in a dedicated COVID-19 neurointensive care unit (CNICU).

Methods

This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted in critically ill neurological and neurosurgical patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection admitted to the CNICU at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, from July to November 2020. Patients’ demographic, clinical, laboratory, imaging, treatment, and outcome data were retrieved from the manual and electronic medical records. Predictors of mortality and neurological outcome were identified using logistic regression.

Results

During the study period, 50 COVID-19-positive neurological patients were admitted to the CNICU. Six patients were excluded from the analysis as they were managed in the CNICU for <24 hours. A poor outcome, defined as death or motor Glasgow Coma Scale <5 at hospital discharge, was observed in 34 of 44 patients (77.27%) with inhospital mortality in 26 of 44 patients (59%). Worst modified sequential organ failure assessment (MSOFA) score, lactate dehydrogenase maximum levels (LDH_max), and lymphocyte count were predictors of inhospital mortality with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.88, 1.01, and 0.87, respectively, whereas worst MSOFA and LDH_max levels were predictors for poor neurological outcome with OR of 1.99 and 1.01, respectively.

Conclusions

Mortality is high in neurological patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection. Elevated inflammatory markers of COVID-19 suggest the role of systemic inflammation on clinical outcomes. Predictors of mortality and poor outcome were higher MSOFA score and elevated LDH levels. Additionally, lymphopenia was associated with mortality.

How to cite this article

Surve RM, Mishra RK, Malla SR, Kamath S, Chakrabarti DR, Kulanthaivelu K, et al. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Critically Ill Neurological Patients with COVID-19 Infection in Neuro-intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(10):1126–1132.

[Citation misuse and its effects on public health]

In order to effectively contribute to scientific knowledge, biomedical observations have to be validated and debated by scientists in the relevant field. Along this debate that mainly takes place in the scientific literature, citation of previous studies plays a major role. However, only a few academic studies have quantitatively evaluated the suitability and accuracy of scientific citations. Here we review these academic studies. Two types of misuse have been pointed out: Citation bias and citation distortion. First, scientific citations favor positive results and those supporting authors' conclusion. Second, many statements linked to a reference actually misrepresent the referenced findings. About 10% of all citations in biomedicine are strongly inaccurate and misleading for the reader. Finally, we give two examples illustrating how some citation misuses do affect public health: The opioid crisis in the USA and the unjustified fostering of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 treatment in France.

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).

METHODS

In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.

Azithromycin in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Azithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.

Results

The initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66–1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87–1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79–1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.

Conclusions

The results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.

COVID-19-related research in Africa: a cross-sectional review of the International Clinical Trial Registration Platform (ICTRP)

Objective

The declaration of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), a pandemic in early 2020, has seen an upsurge in research globally to fill gaps in the epidemiology of the SARS-CoV-2 virus impact on health care and clinical management, as well as possible prevention and treatment modalities. Published literature on the different types of COVID-19 research conducted globally is varied and is particularly limited in Africa. This study sets out to describe the COVID-19-related research registered and conducted on the African continent.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of all COVID-19-related studies available in the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) repository. We extracted studies registered from March 1, 2020, to July 15, 2021. A descriptive analysis of the extracted data was performed, and the findings were presented.

Results

At extraction, a total of 12,533 COVID-19-related studies were listed on the ICTRP portal. We included 9803 studies, after excluding 2060 duplicate records and 686 records without a site/country. While 9347 studies (96%) were conducted outside of Africa, only 456 studies (4%) were conducted in the African continent, of which 270 (59.2%) were interventional studies, and 184 (40.4%) were observational studies. About 80% of the studies were conducted in Egypt and South Africa, and most of these involved testing of drugs and biologicals.

Conclusion

The African continent hosts considerably fewer COVID-19-related research compared to other parts of the world. This may have implications on scientific evidence available for implementing COVID-19 control efforts. There is, therefore, a need for local funding and ownership of research projects and north-south collaboration in research.

Increased serum catalytic iron may mediate tissue injury and death in patients with COVID-19

The pathophysiology and the factors determining disease severity in COVID-19 are not yet clear, with current data indicating a possible role of altered iron metabolism. Previous studies of iron parameters in COVID-19 are cross-sectional and have not studied catalytic iron, the biologically most active form of iron. The study was done to determine the role of catalytic iron in the adverse outcomes in COVID-19. We enrolled adult patients hospitalized with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 and measured serum iron, transferrin saturation, ferritin, hepcidin and serum catalytic iron daily. Primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, and kidney replacement therapy. Associations between longitudinal iron parameter measurements and time-to-event outcomes were examined using a joint model. We enrolled 120 patients (70 males) with median age 50 years. The primary composite outcome was observed in 25 (20.8%) patients-mechanical ventilation was needed in 21 (17.5%) patients and in-hospital mortality occurred in 21 (17.5%) patients. Baseline levels of ferritin and hepcidin were significantly associated with the primary composite outcome. The joint model analysis showed that ferritin levels were significantly associated with primary composite outcome [HR (95% CI) = 2.63 (1.62, 4.24) after adjusting for age and gender]. Both ferritin and serum catalytic iron levels were positively associated with in-hospital mortality [HR (95% CI) = 3.22 (2.05, 5.07) and 1.73 (1.21, 2.47), respectively], after adjusting for age and gender. The study shows an association of ferritin and catalytic iron with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. This suggests new pathophysiologic pathways in this disease, also raising the possibility of considering iron chelation therapy.

Secondary electronic sources demonstrated very good sensitivity for identifying studies evaluating interventions for COVID-19

Objectives

To assess the sensitivity of two secondary electronic sources of COVID-19 studies: 1) the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (https://covid-19.cochrane.org/); and, 2) the Living Overview of the Evidence (L•OVE) COVID-19 platform (https://iloveevidence.com/).

Study design and setting

We identified reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) assessing preventive interventions or treatment for COVID-19.

The reference standard comprised all reports included in the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com), in two major living systematic reviews of RCTs assessing pharmacologic treatment of COVID-19, or identified in either of the two secondary sources evaluated. The search for all sources was conducted through September 7, 2020.

Our primary outcome was the proportion of the reports included in the reference standard that were identified by each secondary source.

Results

We identified 680 reports, 91 RCT reports, 97 RCT protocols, and 492 OS reports. The Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register identified 88% [95% confidence interval, 79–94] of the RCT reports, 90% [82–95] of the RCT protocols, and 82% [78–85] of the OS reports. The L•OVE platform identified 100% [97–100] of the RCT reports and RCT protocols and 100% [99–100] of the OS reports.

Conclusion

These platforms proved to be a viable screening alternative to searching every individual source.

Mesenchymal stromal cells as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19: a living systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have significant immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities, mediated partly by conditioned media or through secreted extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs). Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can cause mild to life-threatening illness due to activated immune responses that may be dampened by MSCs or their secretome. Many clinical studies of MSCs have been launched since the beginning of the global pandemic, however, few have been completed and most lack power to assess efficacy. Repeated systematic searches and meta-analyses are needed to understand, in real time, the extent of potential benefit in different patient populations as the evidence emerges.

METHODS

This living systematic review will be maintained to provide up-to-date information as the pandemic evolves. A systematic literature search of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed. All clinical studies (e.g., randomized, pseudorandomized and non-randomized controlled trials, uncontrolled trials, and case series) employing MSCs or their secretome as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19 will be included. Patients must have confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Study screening and data extraction will be performed in duplicate. Information concerning interventions, patient populations, methods of MSC isolation and characterization, primary and secondary clinical and/or laboratory outcomes, and adverse events will be extracted. Key clinical outcomes will be pooled through random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of MSCs and their secreted products for COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review and subsequent updates will inform the scientific, medical, and health policy communities as the pandemic evolves to guide decisions on the appropriate use of MSC-related products to treat COVID-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD 42021225431.

Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Convalescent plasma (CP) from patients recovered from COVID-19 is one of the most studied anti-viral therapies against SARS-COV-2 infection. The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence from the available systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of CP in COVID-19 through an overview of the published systematic reviews (SRs). A systematic literature search was conducted up to August 2021 in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Medrxiv databases to identify systematic reviews focusing on CP use in COVID-19. Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews) and GRADE tools. The following outcomes were analyzed: mortality, viral clearance, clinical improvement, length of hospital stay, adverse reactions. In addition, where possible, subgroup analyses were performed according to study design (e.g., RCTs vs. non-RCTs), CP neutralizing antibody titer and timing of administration, and disease severity. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the checklist for systematic reviews AMSTAR-2 and the GRADE assessment. Overall, 29 SRs met the inclusion criteria based on 53 unique primary studies (17 RCT and 36 non-RCT). Limitations to the methodological quality of reviews most commonly related to absence of a protocol (11/29) and funding sources of primary studies (27/29). Of the 89 analyses on which GRADE judgements were made, effect estimates were judged to be of high/moderate certainty in four analyses, moderate in 38, low in 38, very low in nine. Despite the variability in the certainty of the evidence, mostly related to the risk of bias and inconsistency, the results of this umbrella review highlight a mortality reduction in CP over standard therapy when administered early and at high titer, without increased adverse reactions.

Nebulised Isotonic Hydroxychloroquine Aerosols for Potential Treatment of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an unprecedented pandemic that has severely impacted global public health and the economy. Hydroxychloroquine administered orally to COVID-19 patients was ineffective, but its antiviral and anti-inflammatory actions were observed in vitro. The lack of efficacy in vivo could be due to the inefficiency of the oral route in attaining high drug concentration in the lungs. Delivering hydroxychloroquine by inhalation may be a promising alternative for direct targeting with minimal systemic exposure. This paper reports on the characterisation of isotonic, pH-neutral hydroxychloroquine sulphate (HCQS) solutions for nebulisation for COVID-19. They can be prepared, sterilised, and nebulised for testing as an investigational new drug for treating this infection. The 20, 50, and 100 mg/mL HCQS solutions were stable for at least 15 days without refrigeration when stored in darkness. They were atomised from Aerogen Solo Ultra vibrating mesh nebulisers (1 mL of each of the three concentrations and, in addition, 1.5 mL of 100 mg/mL) to form droplets having a median volumetric diameter of 4.3-5.2 µm, with about 50-60% of the aerosol by volume < 5 µm. The aerosol droplet size decreased (from 4.95 to 4.34 µm) with increasing drug concentration (from 20 to 100 mg/mL). As the drug concentration and liquid volume increased, the nebulisation duration increased from 3 to 11 min. The emitted doses ranged from 9.1 to 75.9 mg, depending on the concentration and volume nebulised. The HCQS solutions appear suitable for preclinical and clinical studies for potential COVID-19 treatment.

Could pulmonary low-dose radiation therapy be an alternative treatment for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia? Preliminary results of a multicenter SEOR-GICOR nonrandomized prospective trial (IPACOVID trial)

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lung low-dose radiation therapy (LD-RT) for pneumonia in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Materials and methods

Inclusion criteria comprised patients with COVID-19-related moderate–severe pneumonia warranting hospitalization with supplemental O₂ and not candidates for admission to the intensive care unit because of comorbidities or general status. All patients received single lung dose of 0.5 Gy. Respiratory and systemic inflammatory parameters were evaluated before irradiation, at 24 h and 1 week after LD-RT. Primary endpoint was increased in the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO₂) or the pulse oximetry saturation (SpO₂) to fractional inspired oxygen (FiO₂) ratio of at least 20% at 24 h with respect to the preirradiation value.

Results

Between June and November 2020, 36 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and a mean age of 84 years were enrolled. Seventeen were women and 19 were men and all of them had comorbidities. All patients had bilateral pulmonary infiltrates on chest X‑ray. All patients received dexamethasone treatment. Mean SpO₂ pretreatment value was 94.28% and the SpO₂/FiO₂ ratio varied from 255 mm Hg to 283 mm Hg at 24 h and to 381 mm Hg at 1 week, respectively. In those who survived (23/36, 64%), a significant improvement was observed in the percentage of lung involvement in the CT scan at 1 week after LD-RT. No adverse effects related to radiation treatment have been reported.

Conclusions

LD-RT appears to be a feasible and safe option in a population with COVID-19 bilateral interstitial pneumonia in the presence of significant comorbidities.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-021-01803-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Convalescent Plasma for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel coronavirus termed SARS-CoV-2, has spread quickly worldwide. Convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients following recovery from COVID-19 infection and development of antibodies against the virus is an attractive option for either prophylactic or therapeutic treatment, since antibodies may have direct or indirect antiviral activities and immunotherapy has proven effective in principle and in many clinical reports.

OBJECTIVE

We seek to characterize the latest advances and evidence in the use of CP for COVID-19 through a systematic review and quantitative analysis, identify knowledge gaps in this setting, and offer recommendations and directives for future research.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were continuously searched for studies assessing the use of CP for COVID-19, including clinical studies, commentaries, reviews, guidelines or protocols, and in vitro testing of CP antibodies. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal of all clinical studies was conducted using a universal tool independent of study designs. A meta-analysis of case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Substantial literature has been published covering various aspects of CP therapy for COVID-19. Of the references included in this review, a total of 243 eligible studies including 64 clinical studies, 79 commentary articles, 46 reviews, 19 guidance and protocols, and 35 in vitro testing of CP antibodies matched the criteria. Positive results have been mostly observed so far when using CP for the treatment of COVID-19. There were remarkable heterogeneities in the CP therapy with respect to patient demographics, donor antibody titers, and time and dose of CP administration. The studies assessing the safety of CP treatment reported low incidence of adverse events. Most clinical studies, in particular case reports and case series, had poor quality. Only 1 RCT was of high quality. Randomized and nonrandomized data were found in 2 and 11 studies, respectively, and were included for meta-analysis, suggesting that CP could reduce mortality and increase viral clearance. Despite promising pilot studies, the benefits of CP treatment can only be clearly established through carefully designed RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is developing support for CP therapy, particularly for patients who are critically ill or mechanically ventilated and resistant to antivirals and supportive care. These studies provide important lessons that should inform the planning of well-designed RCTs to generate more robust knowledge for the efficacy of CP in patients with COVID-19. Future research is necessary to fill the knowledge gap regarding prevention and treatment for patients with COVID-19 with CP while other therapeutics are being developed.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes.

METHODS

A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I² = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I² = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I² = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I² = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I² = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I² = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Current evidence for COVID-19 therapies: a systematic literature review

Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively. In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation versus standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

Therapeutic approaches to pediatric COVID-19: an online survey of pediatric rheumatologists

Data on therapy of COVID-19 in immunocompetent and immunosuppressed children are scarce. We aimed to explore management strategies of pediatric rheumatologists. All subscribers to international Pediatric Rheumatology Bulletin Board were invited to take part in an online survey on therapeutic approaches to COVID-19 in healthy children and children with autoimmune/inflammatory diseases (AID). Off-label therapies would be considered by 90.3% of the 93 participating respondents. In stable patients with COVID-19 on oxygen supply (stage I), use of remdesivir (48.3%), azithromycin (26.6%), oral corticosteroids (25.4%) and/or hydroxychloroquine (21.9%) would be recommended. In case of early signs of “cytokine storm” (stage II) or in critically ill patients (stage III) (a) anakinra (79.5% stage II; 83.6% stage III) or tocilizumab (58.0% and 87.0%, respectively); (b) corticosteroids (oral 67.2% stage II, intravenously 81.7% stage III); (c) intravenous immunoglobulins (both stages 56.5%); or (d) remdesivir (both stages 46.7%) were considered. In AID, > 94.2% of the respondents would not support a preventive adaptation of the immunomodulating therapy. In case of mild COVID-19, more than 50% of the respondents would continue pre-existing treatment with immunoglobulins (100%), hydroxychloroquine (94.2%), anakinra (79.2%) or canakinumab (72.5%), or tocilizumab (69.8%). Long-term corticosteroids would be reduced by 26.9% (< = 2 mg/kg/d) and 50.0% (> 2 mg/kg/day), respectively, with only 5.8% of respondents voting to discontinue the therapy. Conversely, more than 75% of respondents would refrain from administering cyclophosphamide and anti-CD20-antibodies. As evidence on management of pediatric COVID-19 is incomplete, continuous and critical expert opinion and knowledge exchange is helpful.

Current views on the potentials of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) as Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on recent studies and previous respiratory pandemics

Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) has been investigated as a treatment for COVID-19. This review evaluates CPT in COVID-19 and other viral respiratory diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and influenza. PubMed and Google scholar databases were used to collect eligible publications until 8 December 2020. Meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and pooled analysis for individual patient data with inverse variance weighted average. The study is registered at PROSPERO with the number of CRD4200270579. Forty-four studies with 36,716 participants were included in the pooled analysis and 20 studies in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed reduction of mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.43, 0.76], z = 3.86 [p < 0.001], I²  = 44% [p = 0.03]) and higher number of discharged patients (RR 2.53, 95% CI [1.72, 3.72], z = 4.70 [p < 0.001], I²  = 3% [p = 0.39]) in patients receiving CPT compared to standard care alone. A possible mechanism of action is prompt reduction in viral titre. Serious transfusion-related adverse events were reported to be less than 1% of cases, suggesting the overall safety of CPT; nevertheless, the number of patients participating in the studies was still limited. It is also important to notice that in all the studies, the majority of patients were also given other medications, such as antivirals, antibiotics and corticosteroid; furthermore, randomized controlled studies involving more patients and in combination with other treatment modalities are urgently needed.

Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 is one of the worst catastrophic events in human history. Several non-specific antiviral drugs have been tried to defeat the SARS-CoV-2, with mixed results. Convalescent plasma from patients who have recovered from COVID-19 is one of the specific biologic therapies being considered to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preliminary studies have shown that convalescent plasma, containing antibodies able to neutralize SARS-CoV-2, is promising in blocking viral replication and improving patients’ clinical symptoms. The results of several ongoing randomized controlled trials are, however, keenly awaited to definitively elucidate the safety and efficacy of this blood component in COVID-19. In this narrative review, we summarize the current evidence from the literature on the treatment of severe COVID-19 with convalescent plasma. A concise overview of the hypothesized mechanisms of action is also presented.

De novo design and bioactivity prediction of SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors using recurrent neural network-based transfer learning

The global pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) created a rush to discover drug candidates. Despite the efforts, so far no vaccine or drug has been approved for treatment. Artificial intelligence offers solutions that could accelerate the discovery and optimization of new antivirals, especially in the current scenario dominated by the scarcity of compounds active against SARS-CoV-2. The main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2 is an attractive target for drug discovery due to the absence in humans and the essential role in viral replication. In this work, we developed a deep learning platform for de novo design of putative inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro). Our methodology consists of 3 main steps: (1) training and validation of general chemistry-based generative model; (2) fine-tuning of the generative model for the chemical space of SARS-CoV- Mpro inhibitors and (3) training of a classifier for bioactivity prediction using transfer learning. The fine-tuned chemical model generated > 90% valid, diverse and novel (not present on the training set) structures. The generated molecules showed a good overlap with Mpro chemical space, displaying similar physicochemical properties and chemical structures. In addition, novel scaffolds were also generated, showing the potential to explore new chemical series. The classification model outperformed the baseline area under the precision-recall curve, showing it can be used for prediction. In addition, the model also outperformed the freely available model Chemprop on an external test set of fragments screened against SARS-CoV-2 Mpro, showing its potential to identify putative antivirals to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, among the top-20 predicted hits, we identified nine hits via molecular docking displaying binding poses and interactions similar to experimentally validated inhibitors.

COVID-19 and Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical Presentation, Clinical Course, and Clinical Outcomes: A Rapid Systematic Review

Persons living with spinal cord injury (SCI) are potentially at risk for severe COVID-19 disease given that they often have decreased lung capacity and may lack the ability to effectively evacuate their lungs. Known risk factors for negative outcomes after COVID-19, such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, disproportionally affect people with SCI and raise concerns for the mortality risk among persons with SCI. A rapid systematic review of English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese literature on COVID-19 and SCI was performed using the keywords "spinal cord injury" and "COVID-19." We included studies that provided information on clinical presentation, characteristics, course, and outcomes of COVID-19 disease in SCI. We excluded studies on patients who did not have an SCI before severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection or did not report clinical information. We included 10 studies in total: nine studies with a total of 171 patients and a survey study of 783 healthcare professionals. Fever (74%), cough (52%), and dyspnea (33%) were the most frequently reported symptoms, and 63% showed abnormalities on X-ray imaging. In the included case series and reports (N = 31), only 1 patient required mechanical ventilation, but 3 patients died (10%). The mortality rate in a large registry study (N = 140) was 19%. Clinical presentation of COVID-19 in SCI patients was similar to the general population, and though adverse events and intensive care unit admission were low, the mortality rate was high (10-19%). No prognostic factors for severe disease or mortality could be identified. Registration (PROSPERO): CRD42020196565.

Drugs in Context Editorial: Review of 2020 and what lies ahead in therapeutic interventions

The year 2020 was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing with it unprecedented advancements in the fields of healthcare and therapeutic interventions as well as in vaccine and drug development. Nevertheless, several other advancements in various fields of medicine also deserve attention. Herein, the Senior Editors of Drugs in Context provide us with their expert opinion on the events of 2020 and what lies ahead in 2021.

Making science computable: Developing code systems for statistics, study design, and risk of bias

The COVID-19 crisis led a group of scientific and informatics experts to accelerate development of an infrastructure for electronic data exchange for the identification, processing, and reporting of scientific findings. The Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) standard which is overcoming the interoperability problems in health information exchange was extended to evidence-based medicine (EBM) knowledge with the EBMonFHIR project. A 13-step Code System Development Protocol was created in September 2020 to support global development of terminologies for exchange of scientific evidence. For Step 1, we assembled expert working groups with 55 people from 26 countries by October 2020. For Step 2, we identified 23 commonly used tools and systems for which the first version of code systems will be developed. For Step 3, a total of 368 non-redundant concepts were drafted to become display terms for four code systems (Statistic Type, Statistic Model, Study Design, Risk of Bias). Steps 4 through 13 will guide ongoing development and maintenance of these terminologies for scientific exchange. When completed, the code systems will facilitate identifying, processing, and reporting research results and the reliability of those results. More efficient and detailed scientific communication will reduce cost and burden and improve health outcomes, quality of life, and patient, caregiver, and healthcare professional satisfaction. We hope the achievements reached thus far will outlive COVID-19 and provide an infrastructure to make science computable for future generations. Anyone may join the effort at https://www.gps.health/covid19_knowledge_accelerator.html.

Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials

Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. Methods: We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. Results: We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight in vitro studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-β1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). Conclusions: This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.

Correction: Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003293.].

SOCS, Intrinsic Virulence Factors, and Treatment of COVID-19

The suppressor of cytokine signaling (SOCS) family of intracellular checkpoint inhibitors has received little recognition compared to other checkpoint inhibitors. Two members of this family, SOCS1 and SOCS3, are indispensable, since SOCS1 knockout in mice results in neonatal death due to interferon gamma (IFNγ) induced inflammatory disease, and SOCS3 knockout leads to embryonic lethality. We have shown that SOCS1 and SOCS3 (SOCS1/3) function as virus induced intrinsic virulence factors for influenza A virus, EMC virus, herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), and vaccinia virus infections. Other viruses such as pathogenic pig enteric coronavirus and coronavirus induced severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) spike protein also induce SOCS virus intrinsic virulence factors. SOCS1/3 exert their viral virulence effect via inhibition of type I and type II interferon (IFN) function. Specifically, the SOCS bind to the activation loop of receptor-associated tyrosine kinases JAK2 and TYK2 through the SOCS kinase inhibitory region (KIR), which inhibits STAT transcription factor activation by the kinases. Activated STATs are required for IFN function. We have developed a small peptide antagonist of SOCS1/3 that blocks SOCS1/3 inhibitory activity and prevents virus pathogenesis. The antagonist, pJAK2(1001-1013), is comprised of the JAK2 activation loop, phosphorylated at tyrosine 1007 with a palmitate for cell penetration. The remarkable thing about SOCS1/3 is that it serves as a broad, simple tool of perhaps most pathogenic viruses to avoid innate host IFN defense. We suggest in this Perspective that SOCS1/3 antagonist is a simple counter measure to SOCS1/3 and should be an effective mechanism as a prophylactic and/or therapeutic against the COVID-19 pandemic that is caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV2.