Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19 : A Randomized Trial

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

COVID-19 drug discovery and treatment options

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused substantial morbidity and mortality, and serious social and economic disruptions worldwide. Unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated older individuals with underlying diseases are especially prone to severe disease. In patients with non-fatal disease, long COVID affecting multiple body systems may persist for months. Unlike SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, which have either been mitigated or remained geographically restricted, SARS-CoV-2 has disseminated globally and is likely to continue circulating in humans with possible emergence of new variants that may render vaccines less effective. Thus, safe, effective and readily available COVID-19 therapeutics are urgently needed. In this Review, we summarize the major drug discovery approaches, preclinical antiviral evaluation models, representative virus-targeting and host-targeting therapeutic options, and key therapeutics currently in clinical use for COVID-19. Preparedness against future coronavirus pandemics relies not only on effective vaccines but also on broad-spectrum antivirals targeting conserved viral components or universal host targets, and new therapeutics that can precisely modulate the immune response during infection.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.

FUNDING

UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Comparative antimicrobial use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 inpatients from 2019 to 2020: A multicenter ecological study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether increased antimicrobial use (AU) at the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was driven by greater AU in COVID-19 patients only, or whether AU also increased in non-COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN

In this retrospective observational ecological study from 2019 to 2020, we stratified inpatients by COVID-19 status and determined relative percentage differences in median monthly AU in COVID-19 patients versus non-COVID-19 patients during the COVID-19 period (March-December 2020) and the pre-COVID-19 period (March-December 2019). We also determined relative percentage differences in median monthly AU in non-COVID-19 patients during the COVID-19 period versus the pre-COVID-19 period. Statistical significance was assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

SETTING

The study was conducted in 3 acute-care hospitals in Chicago, Illinois.

PATIENTS

Hospitalized patients.

RESULTS

Facility-wide AU for broad-spectrum antibacterial agents predominantly used for hospital-onset infections was significantly greater in COVID-19 patients versus non-COVID-19 patients during the COVID-19 period (with relative increases of 73%, 66%, and 91% for hospitals A, B, and C, respectively), and during the pre-COVID-19 period (with relative increases of 52%, 64%, and 66% for hospitals A, B, and C, respectively). In contrast, facility-wide AU for all antibacterial agents was significantly lower in non-COVID-19 patients during the COVID-19 period versus the pre-COVID-19 period (with relative decreases of 8%, 7%, and 8% in hospitals A, B, and C, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

AU for broad-spectrum antimicrobials was greater in COVID-19 patients compared to non-COVID-19 patients at the onset of the pandemic. AU for all antibacterial agents in non-COVID-19 patients decreased in the COVID-19 period compared to the pre-COVID-19 period.

Effectiveness of Drug Repurposing and Natural Products Against SARS-CoV-2: A Comprehensive Review

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a betacoronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, causing respiratory disorders, and even death in some individuals, if not appropriately treated in time. To face the pandemic, preventive measures have been taken against contagions and the application of vaccines to prevent severe disease and death cases. For the COVID-19 treatment, antiviral, antiparasitic, anticoagulant and other drugs have been reused due to limited specific medicaments for the disease. Drug repurposing is an emerging strategy with therapies that have already tested safe in humans. One promising alternative for systematic experimental screening of a vast pool of compounds is computational drug repurposing (in silico assay). Using these tools, new uses for approved drugs such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, zidovudine, ribavirin, lamivudine, remdesivir, lopinavir and tenofovir/emtricitabine have been conducted, showing effectiveness in vitro and in silico against SARS-CoV-2 and some of these, also in clinical trials. Additionally, therapeutic options have been sought in natural products (terpenoids, alkaloids, saponins and phenolics) with promising in vitro and in silico results for use in COVID-19 disease. Among these, the most studied are resveratrol, quercetin, hesperidin, curcumin, myricetin and betulinic acid, which were proposed as SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors. Among the drugs reused to control the SARS-CoV2, better results have been observed for remdesivir in hospitalized patients and outpatients. Regarding natural products, resveratrol, curcumin, and quercetin have demonstrated in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and in vivo, a nebulized formulation has demonstrated to alleviate the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19. This review shows the evidence of drug repurposing efficacy and the potential use of natural products as a treatment for COVID-19. For this, a search was carried out in PubMed, SciELO and ScienceDirect databases for articles about drugs approved or under study and natural compounds recognized for their antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2.

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Strategies used for the COVID-OUT decentralized trial of outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the development of decentralized clinical trials (DCT). DCT's are an important and pragmatic method for assessing health outcomes yet comprise only a minority of clinical trials, and few published methodologies exist. In this report, we detail the operational components of COVID-OUT, a decentralized, multicenter, quadruple-blinded, randomized trial that rapidly delivered study drugs nation-wide. The trial examined three medications (metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine) as outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 for their effectiveness in preventing severe or long COVID-19. Decentralized strategies included HIPAA-compliant electronic screening and consenting, prepacking investigational product to accelerate delivery after randomization, and remotely confirming participant-reported outcomes. Of the 1417 individuals with the intention-to-treat sample, the remote nature of the study caused an additional 94 participants to not take any doses of study drug. Therefore, 1323 participants were in the modified intention-to-treat sample, which was the a priori primary study sample. Only 1.4% of participants were lost to follow-up. Decentralized strategies facilitated the successful completion of the COVID-OUT trial without any in-person contact by expediting intervention delivery, expanding trial access geographically, limiting contagion exposure, and making it easy for participants to complete follow-up visits. Remotely completed consent and follow-up facilitated enrollment.

Vaccine effectiveness against the B.1.617.2 in the intensive care unit

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 and its variants are still a concern for the World. The effectiveness of the BioNTech and Sinovac vaccines against the B.1.617.2 variant, particularly in the intensive care unit, has been unclear. This study aimed to investigate the vaccine effectiveness of BioNTech and Sinovac vaccines in reducing severe disease, intubation, and mortality rates in B.1.617.2 infected patients followed in the intensive care unit. The data of 208 unvaccinated and 234 vaccinated B.1.617.2 variants were retrospectively reviewed. Severe disease status, complaints, the percent oxygen saturation in the blood at the first admission, and other clinical information during follow-up were recorded. With the BioNTech and Sinovac vaccines being the most common in the region, mortality rate, severe disease, and intubation were more frequent in the unvaccinated group. As for survival rates, 58.5 (137) of the vaccinated and 35.1 % (73) of the unvaccinated survived. In the vaccinated group, 64.3 % (27) of vaccinated with 3 Sinovac, 80 % (16) of 2 Sinovac and 1 BioNTech, and 71.7 % of 2 BioNTech survived. Vaccination with 2 doses of BioNTech and 3 doses of Sinovac reduces mortality. Furthermore, 2 doses of Sinovac and 1 dose of BioNTech are more protective.

Applying EBM epistemology and the GRADE system to address practitioners' disagreements in medical malpractice allegations during COVID-19 pandemic

RATIONALE

The GRADE system of clinical recommendations has deontic implications and can discriminate between mandatory, prohibited, and merely permitted medical decisions.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The recommendation categories of the GRADE framework map onto deontological imperatives that can lead to a better understanding and management of allegations of imprudence and appropriateness of treatments. Allegations made during the worst phase of COVID-19 pandemic are used as a case study for exploring the deontic implications of GRADE.

METHOD

Conceptual theoretical analysis, case study analysis, and argumentation in defence of hypotheses.

RESULTS

Strong GRADE recommendations for or against treatment are justified by high-quality evidence and can be construed as ethical obligations and prohibitions. In contrast, when evidence for benefit or harm is of lower quality, GRADE yields weak, discretionary recommendations. In such grey area cases, the absence of a duty to prescribe or refuse to prescribe a requested treatment is compatible with the privilege of considering unproven but possibly beneficial options in a private setting. This privilege, however, does not extend to healthcare policymakers, who have a duty to promote actions that serve the public and whose recommendations should not be guided by personal or idiosyncratic preferences or values.

CONCLUSION

If there is no prima facie evidence that a proposed treatment is harmful, doctors are not negligent in considering it in shared doctor-patient decision-making. But these clinical decisions under uncertainty do not transfer obligations to health authorities, who are not part of the decision-making process in clinical settings. The clinical decision-making process concerns particulars and is guided by contextual and specific reasons that do not fall within the scope of a general policy. Thus, in the context of a serious epidemic in which patients need and demand treatments, if the body of evidence is still changing and fragile, an attitude of tolerance and connivance may ensure a smoother transition to a more stable phase of progress, both in scientific and clinical medicine.

Efficacy and safety of in-hospital treatment of Covid-19 infection with low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in hospitalized patients: A retrospective controlled cohort study

Objectives

In this study we evaluate the efficacy and safety of a treatment protocol with standard dose of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis to compare the 28-day mortality rate in 352 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin (HCQ-group) in our hospital with a contemporary control group of 3533 patients receiving standard of care from the Belgian Collaborative Group on COVID-19 Hospital Surveillance.

Results

All patients who received at least one dose of treatment were included in the analysis. A statistically significant reduction in crude mortality rate at 28 days was observed in the HCQ-group compared to standard of care (16.8% vs 25.9%,p ​= ​0.001).Patients in the treatment group were on average younger (69,7 vs73,1 years, p ​= ​0,0002), were less likely to smoke or to have malignancy and more likely to be male. Patients in the treatment group were more likely to be obese, immunocompromised or to have arterial hypertension, liver disease and lung disease.After adjustment for these variables the OR for mortality was 0.635 (95%CI 0.464-0.875). Patients who did not receive HCQ had a 57% higher risk of mortality. A survival benefit in the treatment group was consistent across all age groups. 13 patients discontinued treatment due to side effects (4 with QTc-prolongation>60msec (1.1%) and 9 because of gastro-intestinal symptoms (2.55%)). No episodes of ventricular arrhythmia or torsade de pointes were recorded during treatment.

Conclusion

Treatment of COVID-19 using a combination of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin was safe and was associated with a statistically significant mortality benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 infection in hospitalized patients. Our findings do not support the current negative recommendations regarding this treatment.

The COVID-19 and chloroquine infodemic: Cross-sectional observational study of content analysis on YouTube

The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between quality and features related to internet users of the most viewed YouTube videos about COVID-19 and chloroquine, during the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a cross-sectional observational study focusing on the most viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 and chloroquine treatment, in French and English. The primary outcome was the association between video quality as assessed by DISCERN and modified JAMA scores, and video features related to internet users as assessed by number of viewership and likes. By June 2020, 168 videos accumulating more than 57 million views and nearly 2 million reactions from Internet users, were included. Most of the videos did not support or oppose the treatment and came from news channels (N = 100; 60%). Videos taking sides were mostly pro-chloroquine (N = 69; 89%). The number of non-factual videos analyzed was very low (N = 3; 2%). The quality of the videos was average (mean DISCERN score = 2.4 (DS 1.0) and mean modified JAMA score = 2.6 (DS 0.6)) and declined over time. The best quality videos were those published by health care professionals or those from educational channels. Most experts interviewed were men (N = 136; 81%). More than 1 in 5 videos featured a political figure (N = 35; 21%), and these were mostly pro-chloroquine with lower DISCERN or modified JAMA scores (p<0.001). We found an association between the number of likes and the quality of the videos evaluated by the DISCERN score (rho = 0.29; p<0.001) and the modified JAMA score (rho = 0.30; p<0.001). The association observed between the quality of the videos and the number of likes suggests a better health literacy and critical thinking of lay internet users. Although YouTube has become a major player in the dissemination of medical information, more involvement of health professionals and governmental organizations is needed.

Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate for Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of inhaled glucocorticoids in shortening the time to symptom resolution or preventing hospitalization or death among outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial in the United States to assess the use of repurposed medications in outpatients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Nonhospitalized adults 30 years of age or older who had at least two symptoms of acute infection that had been present for no more than 7 days before enrollment were randomly assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate at a dose of 200 μg once daily for 14 days or placebo. The primary outcome was the time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Key secondary outcomes included hospitalization or death by day 28 and a composite outcome of the need for an urgent-care or emergency department visit or hospitalization or death through day 28.

RESULTS

Of the 1407 enrolled participants who underwent randomization, 715 were assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate and 692 to receive placebo, and 656 and 621, respectively, were included in the analysis. There was no evidence that the use of fluticasone furoate resulted in a shorter time to recovery than placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% credible interval, 0.91 to 1.12; posterior probability of benefit [defined as a hazard ratio >1], 0.56). A total of 24 participants (3.7%) in the fluticasone furoate group had urgent-care or emergency department visits or were hospitalized, as compared with 13 participants (2.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% credible interval, 0.8 to 3.5). Three participants in each group were hospitalized, and no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with inhaled fluticasone furoate for 14 days did not result in a shorter time to recovery than placebo among outpatients with Covid-19 in the United States. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; ACTIV-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04885530.).

Doxycycline vs Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin in the Management of COVID-19 Patients: An Open-Label Randomized Clinical Trial in Sub-Saharan Africa (DOXYCOV)

Objective We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a doxycycline-based regimen against Cameroon National Standard Guidelines (hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin) for the treatment of mild symptomatic COVID-19. Methods We conducted an open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial in Cameroon comparing doxycycline 100 mg, twice daily for seven days versus hydroxychloroquine 400 mg daily for five days and azithromycin 500 mg at day 1 and 250 mg from day 2 through 5 in mild COVID-19 patients. Clinical recovery, biological parameters, and adverse events were assessed. The primary outcome was the proportion of clinical recovery on days 3, 10, and 30. Non-inferiority was determined by the clinical recovery rate between protocols with a 20-percentage points margin. Results One hundred and ninety-four participants underwent randomization and were treated either with doxycycline (n = 97) or hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin (n = 97). On day 3, 74/92 (80.4%) participants on doxycycline versus 77/95 (81.1%) on hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-based protocols were asymptomatic (p = 0.91). On day 10, 88/92 (95.7%) participants on doxycycline versus 93/95 (97.9%) on hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin were asymptomatic (p = 0.44). On day 30, all participants were asymptomatic. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test was negative on day 10 in 60/92 (65.2%) participants who were assigned to doxycycline and in 63/95 (66.3%) participants who were assigned to hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin. None of the participants were admitted for worsening of the disease after treatment initiation. Conclusion Doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for seven days proved to be safe and non-inferior in terms of efficacy when compared to hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin for preventing clinical worsening of mild symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 and achieving virological suppression.

Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API)

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population.

METHODS

Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice towards COVID-19 among chronic disease patients visiting public hospitals

Background

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID 19) is a potentially severe acute respiratory infection first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. It is currently a global health issue and a public health emergency for the entire world, including Ethiopia. People with comorbidities of chronic disease are at higher risk for severe disease and death from this virus. Hence, in order to better control the COVID-19 pandemic, their understanding, attitude, and practice of COVID-19 prevention measures should be improved. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of chronically ill patients toward COVID-19 among chronic disease patients.

Methods

An institutional-based cross-sectional study was employed among patients with chronic diseases visiting public hospitals in Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia, from April to June 2021. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to retrieve data from systematically selected 319 chronic disease patients. The data were entered using EpiData version 4.4.2.1 and analyzed by SPSS version 23. Both bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were done to identify factors associated with the outcome variables. Significance was determined at a p value of <0.05, and association was described by using an odds ratio at a 95% confidence interval.

Results

A total of 319 patients with chronic diseases participated in this study, with a 100% response rate. Out of 319 study participants, 51.1% had good knowledge, 59.9% had a positive attitude, and about half (49.2%) had good practices toward the COVID-19 pandemic. Multivariate analysis revealed that study participants completed secondary school (AOR = 4.691, 95%CI = 1.846-11.918), had college or higher educational levels (AOR = 4.626, 95%CI = 1.790-11.955) were positively associated with good knowledge towards COVID 19 where as those who aged 50 and up (AOR = 0.415, 95%CI = 0.227-0.759), divorced (AOR = 0.298, 95%CI = 0.116-0.764), and widowed (AOR = 0.115, 95%CI = 0.025-0.528) were negatively associated with it. Positive attitude had a statistically significant association with sex, being male (AOR = 0.471, 95%CI = 0.265-0.837), and occupation, being merchants (AOR = 4.697, 95%CI = 1.174-18.795), private employees (AOR = 4.484, 95%CI = 1.182-17.008) and housewives (AOR = 5.292, 95%CI = 1.372-20.414). Moreover, good knowledge (AOR = 4.047,95%CI = 2.205-7.427) and a positive attitude (AOR = 5.756,95%CI = 3.244-10.211) were factors significantly associated with the good practices of study participants towards COVID-19.

Conclusion

Less than two thirds of the study participants had good knowledge, attitudes, and practices overall about the COVID-19 pandemic. Health professionals and other responsible bodies should provide public education about COVID-19 and its prevention measures to chronic disease patients.

Outpatient regimens to reduce COVID-19 hospitalisations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

During pandemics, early outpatient treatments reduce the health system burden. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19 outpatients have tested therapeutic agents, but no RCT or systematic review has been conducted comparing the efficacy of the main outpatient treatment classes to each other. We aimed in this systematic review of outpatient RCTs in COVID-19 to compare hospitalisation rate reductions with four classes of treatment: convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals and repurposed drugs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all COVID-19 outpatient RCTs that included the endpoint of progression to hospitalisation. We assembled, from multiple published and preprint databases, participant characteristics, hospitalisations, resolution of symptoms and mortality from January 2020 to May 21, 2023. The risk of bias from COVID-NMA was incorporated into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We measured heterogeneity with I 2 . Meta-analysis by a random or fixed effect model dependent on significant heterogeneity (I 2 >50%) was performed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022369181.

Findings

The search identified 281 studies of which 54 RCTs for 30 diverse interventions were included in the final analysis. These trials, performed largely in unvaccinated cohorts during pre-Omicron waves, focused on populations with at least one COVID-19 hospitalisation risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (OR=0.31 [95% CI=0.24-0.40]) had highest efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR=0.69 [95% CI=0.53 to 0.90]) and small molecule antivirals (OR=0.78 [95% CI=0.48-1.33]) for hospital reduction. Repurposed drugs (OR=0.82 [95% CI-0.72-0.93]) had lower efficacy.

Interpretation

Inasmuch as omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are now resistant to monoclonal antibodies, oral antivirals are the preferred treatment in outpatients where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Funding

US Department of Defense and National Institute of Health.

Research in context

Evidence before this study: We systematically searched the published and preprint data bases for outpatient randomized clinical trials of treatment of COVID-19 disease with hospitalisation as an endpoint. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confined the reviews to specific classes such as convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals or repurposed drugs. Few comparisons have been made between these therapeutic classes. The trials took place both in the pre-vaccination and the vaccination era, spanning periods with dominance of different COVID variants. We sought to compare efficacy between the four classes of treatments listed above when used in outpatient COVID-19 patients as shown in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Added value of this study

This systematic review and meta-analysis brings together trials that assessed hospitalisation rates in diverse COVID-19 outpatient populations varying in age and comorbidities, permitting us to assess the efficacy of interventions both within and across therapeutic classes. While heterogeneity exists within and between these intervention classes, the meta-analysis can be placed in context of trial diverse populations over variant time periods of the pandemic. At present most of the world population has either had COVID-19 or been vaccinated with a high seropositivity rate, indicating that future placebo-controlled trials will be limited because of the sample sizes required to document hospitalisation outcomes.

Implications of all the available evidence

Numerous diverse therapeutic tools need to be ready for a resilient response to changing SARS-CoV-2 variants in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatient populations. To date few head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. This systematic review compares outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy between classes and amongst interventions within the four classes. Monoclonals have lost efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events, while intravenous interventions like convalescent plasma or remdesivir remain resilient options for the immunocompromised, and, in the case of CCP, in resource constrained settings with limited availability of oral drugs.

Role and clinical implication of autophagy in COVID-19

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic constitutes a serious public health concern worldwide. Currently, more than 6 million deaths have occurred despite drastic containment measures, and this number is still increasing. Currently, no standard therapies for COVID-19 are available, which necessitates identifying effective preventive and therapeutic agents against COVID-19. However, developing new drugs and vaccines is a time-consuming process, and therefore, repurposing the existing drugs or redeveloping related targets seems to be the best strategy to develop effective therapeutics against COVID-19. Autophagy, a multistep lysosomal degradation pathway contributing to nutrient recycling and metabolic adaptation, is involved in the initiation and progression of numerous diseases as a part of an immune response. The key role of autophagy in antiviral immunity has been extensively studied. Moreover, autophagy can directly eliminate intracellular microorganisms by selective autophagy, that is, "xenophagy." However, viruses have acquired diverse strategies to exploit autophagy for their infection and replication. This review aims to trigger the interest in the field of autophagy as an antiviral target for viral pathogens (with an emphasis on COVID-19). We base this hypothesis on summarizing the classification and structure of coronaviruses as well as the process of SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication; providing the common understanding of autophagy; reviewing interactions between the mechanisms of viral entry/replication and the autophagy pathways; and discussing the current state of clinical trials of autophagy-modifying drugs in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We anticipate that this review will contribute to the rapid development of therapeutics and vaccines against COVID-19.

Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic against COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised trials studying HCQ.

STUDY SELECTION

Ten RCTs were identified (n=5079 participants).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis between HCQ and placebo using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre-hoc statistical analysis plan was written.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary efficacy outcome was PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the primary safety outcome was incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome included clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, HCWs randomised to HCQ had no significant difference in PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.92, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.58, 1.37) or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.10), but significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021285093.

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

Cardiopulmonary Phenotypes of Post Acute Sequelae of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Narrative Review

The acute effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are well known; however, the long-term cardiopulmonary effects are less well characterized. The phenotypic expression of acute infection is heterogeneous, ranging from a complete absence of symptoms to shock, multisystem organ failure, and death. Patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who survive their initial illness can require a prolonged period of recovery lasting weeks to months. This specific patient group is part of a larger and even more heterogeneous group of patients who initially experience mild-to-moderate symptoms that fail to resolve over time. Collectively, patients recovering from severe or critical COVID-19 and those who continue to experience symptoms following a lower acuity infection are considered to have Post Acute Sequalae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Using prognostic factors like myocardial infarction, myocarditis, pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, need for mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and advanced pharmaceutical therapies that primarily occur or are instituted in the acute phase of illness one can begin to develop a taxonomy or corpus of PASC in its varied forms.

Decentralized clinical trials and rare diseases: a Drug Information Association Innovative Design Scientific Working Group (DIA-IDSWG) perspective

BACKGROUND

Traditional clinical trials require tests and procedures that are administered in centralized clinical research sites, which are beyond the standard of care that patients receive for their rare and chronic diseases. The limited number of rare disease patients scattered around the world makes it particularly challenging to recruit participants and conduct these traditional clinical trials.

MAIN BODY

Participating in clinical research can be burdensome, especially for children, the elderly, physically and cognitively impaired individuals who require transportation and caregiver assistance, or patients who live in remote locations or cannot afford transportation. In recent years, there is an increasing need to consider Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCT) as a participant-centric approach that uses new technologies and innovative procedures for interaction with participants in the comfort of their home.

CONCLUSION

This paper discusses the planning and conduct of DCTs, which can increase the quality of trials with a specific focus on rare diseases.

Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate.

CONCLUSION

Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

COVID-19 therapeutics: Clinical application of repurposed drugs and futuristic strategies for target-based drug discovery

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes the complicated disease COVID-19. Clinicians are continuously facing huge problems in the treatment of patients, as COVID-19-specific drugs are not available hence the principle of drug repurposing serves as a one-and-only hope. Globally, the repurposing of many drugs is underway; few of them are already approved by the regulatory bodies for their clinical use and most of them are in different phases of clinical trials. Here in this review, our main aim is to discuss in detail the up-to-date information on the target-based pharmacological classification of repurposed drugs, the potential mechanism of actions, and the current clinical trial status of various drugs which are under repurposing since early 2020. At last, we briefly proposed the probable pharmacological and therapeutic drug targets that may be preferred as a futuristic drug discovery approach in the development of effective medicines.

Diagnosis, treatment protocols, and outcomes of liver transplant recipients infected with COVID-19

Several cases of fatal pneumonia during November 2019 were linked initially to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which the World Health Organization later designated as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. In the general population, COVID-19 severity can range from asymptomatic/mild symptoms to seriously ill. Its mortality rate could be as high as 49%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have acknowledged that people with specific underlying medical conditions, among those who need immunosuppression after solid organ transplantation (SOT), are at an increased risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19. Liver transplantation is the second most prevalent SOT globally. Due to their immunosuppressed state, liver transplant (LT) recipients are more susceptible to serious infections. Therefore, comorbidities and prolonged immunosuppression among SOT recipients enhance the likelihood of severe COVID-19. It is crucial to comprehend the clinical picture, immunosuppressive management, prognosis, and prophylaxis of COVID-19 infection because it may pose a danger to transplant recipients. This review described the clinical and laboratory findings of COVID-19 in LT recipients and the risk factors for severe disease in this population group. In the following sections, we discussed current COVID-19 therapy choices, reviewed standard practice in modifying immunosuppressant regimens, and outlined the safety and efficacy of currently licensed drugs for inpatient and outpatient management. Additionally, we explored the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in LT recipients and mentioned the efficacy and safety of vaccination use.

Potential use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors to reduce COVID-19 severity

SARS-CoV-2 infection and its clinical manifestations (COVID-19) quickly evolved to a pandemic and a global public health emergency. The limited effectivity of available treatments aimed at reducing virus replication and the lessons learned from other coronavirus infections (SARS-CoV-1 or NL63) that share the internalization process of SARS-CoV-2, led us to revisit the COVID-19 pathogenesis and potential treatments. Virus protein S binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) initiating the internalization process. Endosome formation removes ACE2 from the cellular membrane preventing its counter-regulative effect mediated by the metabolism of angiotensin II to angiotensin (1-7). Internalized virus-ACE2 complexes have been identified for these coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 presents the highest affinity for ACE2 and produces the most severe symptoms. Assuming ACE2 internalization is the trigger for COVID-19 pathogenesis, accumulation of angiotensin II can be viewed as the potential cause of symptoms. Angiotensin II is a strong vasoconstrictor, but has also important roles in hypertrophy, inflammation, remodeling, and apoptosis. Higher levels of ACE2 in the lungs explain the acute respiratory distress syndrome as primary symptoms. Most of the described findings and clinical manifestations of COVID-19, including increased interleukin levels, endothelial inflammation, hypercoagulability, myocarditis, dysgeusia, inflammatory neuropathies, epileptic seizures and memory disorders can be explained by excessive angiotensin II levels. Several meta-analyses have demonstrated that previous use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with better prognosis for COVID-19. Therefore, pragmatic trials to assess the potential therapeutic benefits of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors should be urgently promoted by health authorities to widen the therapeutic options for COVID-19.

Systematic Review of Psychiatric Adverse Effects Induced by Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine: Case Reports and Population Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review on the psychiatric adverse effects of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ); to summarize what is known about psychiatric adverse effects of these drugs; to compare clinical trials, populational studies, and case report studies; and to increase awareness of the potential psychiatric adverse effects of these drugs.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to identify manuscripts published between December 1962 and June 2022. Search terms included CQ, HCQ, psychiatry, psychosis, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, delirium, and psychotic disorders.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies included reports of adverse effects after CQ or HCQ ingestion.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The current literature presents evidence for a risk of short-term psychiatric adverse effects induced by either CQ or HCQ. However, the populational-level studies presented some limitations regarding the voluntary response in survey data, self-report adverse effects, and placebo group reporting similar symptoms to the case group. Thus, populational-level studies addressing the discussed limitations and the nature and extent of possible psychiatric adverse effects are needed.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Most of the patients who developed such adverse effects did not report a family history of psychiatric disease. The frequency of psychiatric adverse effects depends on the patient's biological sex, age, and body mass index, but not on the drug dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on clinical trials and case reports, the current literature presents evidence for a risk of short-term psychiatric adverse effects induced by either drug.

Efficacy and safety of add-on Viola odorata L. in the treatment of COVID-19: A randomized double-blind controlled trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) due to the novel coronavirus has become the highest priority that threatens human health. This situation demands widespread vaccination and the innovation of new therapeutic methods. Despite drug discoveries, the need for approving new medicaments is felt because of adverse effects and lack of efficacy. Several medicinal plants including Viola odorata L. are recommended in traditional Persian medicine for alleviating respiratory infection symptoms. Recent studies showed anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anti-asthmatic, antitussive, analgesic, and antibacterial activities of sweet violet. These enhance respiratory functions, reduce pulmonary inflammation, and decline mucous membrane edema. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of sweet violet syrup in alleviating the manifestations of COVID-19 infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized parallel-group double-blind controlled trial was conducted at Al-Zahra general hospital, Isfahan, Iran. A total of 108 outpatients were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly allocated to intervention and placebo groups, with 54 patients in each group. The allocation was concealed using sealed opaque envelopes. The intervention group received violet syrup and the control group received placebo syrup, an add-on to the conventional treatment. The outcomes were COVID-19 manifestations, such as dyspnea, cough, myalgia, headache, and diarrhea, considered as outcomes of the study and were evaluated twice using a visual analog scale before the intervention and after 7 days, at the end of the study. Patients were followed daily by phone calls to monitor proper drug consumption and possible side effects.

RESULTS

No significant difference was between groups regarding demographic characteristics and vital signs before and after the treatment. Although all symptoms have improved significantly in both groups, patients who received violet syrup recovered faster and the mean severity scores of cough (P = 0.025), myalgia (P = 0.036), headache (P = 0.037), and diarrhea (P = 0.044) decreased greater in comparison to control group.

CONCLUSION

This study, the first clinical trial on the effectiveness of Viola odorata on SARS-CoV-2 patients, showed that Viola odorata L. effectively controls prevalent manifestations of COVID-19 including cough, myalgia, headache, and diarrhea. Regarding this survey, the violet syrup can be mentioned as a complementary treatment for viral influenza-like infections in which cough, myalgia, headache, and diarrhea are prominent.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Testing Hydroxychloroquine for Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Shedding and Hospitalization in Early Outpatient COVID-19 Infection

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. At the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, we conducted a phase 2 prospective parallel group randomized placebo-controlled trial (NCT04342169) to determine whether hydroxychloroquine given early in disease reduces the duration of SARS-CoV-2 shedding. We enrolled nonhospitalized adults (≥18 years of age) with a recent positive diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 (within 72 h of enrollment) and adult household contacts. Participants received either 400 mg hydroxychloroquine by mouth twice daily on day 1 followed by 200 mg by mouth twice daily on days 2 to 5 or oral placebo with the same schedule. We performed SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) on oropharyngeal swabs on days 1 to 14 and 28 and monitored clinical symptomatology, rates of hospitalization, and viral acquisition by adult household contacts. We identified no overall differences in the duration of oropharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio of viral shedding time comparing hydroxychloroquine to placebo, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91, 1.62). Overall, 28-day hospitalization incidence was similar between treatments (4.6% hydroxychloroquine versus 2.7% placebo). No differences were seen in symptom duration, severity, or viral acquisition in household contacts between treatment groups. The study did not reach the prespecified enrollment target, which was likely influenced by a steep decline in COVID-19 incidence corresponding to the initial vaccine rollout in the spring of 2021. Oropharyngeal swabs were self-collected, which may introduce variability in these results. Placebo treatments were not identical to hydroxychloroquine treatments (capsules versus tablets) which may have led to inadvertent participant unblinding. In this group of community adults early in the COVID-19 pandemic, hydroxychloroquine did not significantly alter the natural history of early COVID-19 disease. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04342169). IMPORTANCE Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. Hydroxychloroquine received attention as a possible early treatment; however, quality prospective studies were lacking. We conducted a clinical trial to test the ability of hydroxychloroquine to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Hydroxychloroquine is Metabolized by Cytochrome P450 2D6, 3A4, and 2C8, and Inhibits Cytochrome P450 2D6, while its Metabolites also Inhibit Cytochrome P450 3A in vitro

This study aimed to explore the cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolic and inhibitory profile of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Hydroxychloroquine metabolism was studied using human liver microsomes (HLMs) and recombinant CYP enzymes. The inhibitory effects of HCQ and its metabolites on nine CYPs were also determined in HLMs, using an automated substrate cocktail method. Our metabolism data indicated that CYP3A4, CYP2D6, and CYP2C8 are the key enzymes involved in HCQ metabolism. All three CYPs formed the primary metabolites desethylchloroquine (DCQ) and desethylhydroxychloroquine (DHCQ) to various degrees. Although the intrinsic clearance (CL_int) value of HCQ depletion by recombinant CYP2D6 was > 10-fold higher than that by CYP3A4 (0.87 versus 0.075 µl/min/pmol), scaling of recombinant CYP CL_int to HLM level resulted in almost equal HLM CL_int values for CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 (11 and 14 µl/min/mg, respectively). The scaled HLM CL_int of CYP2C8 was 5.7 µl/min/mg. Data from HLM experiments with CYP-selective inhibitors also suggested relatively equal roles for CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 in HCQ metabolism, with a smaller contribution by CYP2C8. In CYP inhibition experiments, HCQ, DCQ, DHCQ, and the secondary metabolite didesethylchloroquine were direct CYP2D6 inhibitors, with 50% inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) values between 18 and 135 µM. HCQ did not inhibit other CYPs. Furthermore, all metabolites were time-dependent CYP3A inhibitors (IC₅₀ shift 2.2-3.4). To conclude, HCQ is metabolized by CYP3A4, CYP2D6, and CYP2C8 in vitro. HCQ and its metabolites are reversible CYP2D6 inhibitors, and HCQ metabolites are time-dependent CYP3A inhibitors. These data can be used to improve physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models and update drug-drug interaction risk estimations for HCQ. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: While CYP2D6, CYP3A4, and CYP2C8 have been shown to mediate chloroquine biotransformation, it appears that the role of CYP enzymes in hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) metabolism has not been studied. In addition, little is known about the CYP inhibitory effects of HCQ. Here, we demonstrate that CYP2D6, CYP3A4, and CYP2C8 are the key enzymes involved in HCQ metabolism. Furthermore, our findings show that HCQ and its metabolites are inhibitors of CYP2D6, which likely explains the previously observed interaction between HCQ and metoprolol.

Effect of Fluvoxamine vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) for 10 days compared with placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to test repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 participants aged 30 years or older with test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less were enrolled between August 6, 2021, and May 27, 2022, at 91 sites in the US.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as the third day of 3 consecutive days without symptoms). There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite outcome of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death through day 28.

Results

Among 1331 participants who were randomized (median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-57 years]; 57% were women; and 67% reported receiving ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (674 in the fluvoxamine group and 614 in the placebo group). The median time to sustained recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-14 days) in the fluvoxamine group and 13 days (IQR, 12-13 days) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% credible interval, 0.86-1.06], posterior P = .21 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR >1]). For the composite outcome, 26 participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized, had an urgent care visit, had an emergency department visit, or died compared with 23 participants (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.1 [95% credible interval, 0.5-1.8], posterior P = .35 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR <1]). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 participants in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred in either group. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days, compared with placebo, did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Clinical Characteristics in the Acute Phase of COVID-19 That Predict Long COVID: Tachycardia, Myalgias, Severity, and Use of Antibiotics as Main Risk Factors, While Education and Blood Group B Are Protective

BACKGROUND

Risk factors for developing long COVID are not clearly established. The present study was designed to determine if any sign, symptom, or treatment of the acute phase, or personal characteristics of the patient, is associated with the development of long COVID.

METHODS

A cohort study was carried out, randomly selecting symptomatic COVID-19 patients and not vaccinated. The severity of the acute illness was assessed through the number of compatible COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalizations, and the symptom severity score using a 10-point visual analog scale.

RESULTS

After multivariate analysis, a severity score ≥8 (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.5, p = 0.022), hospitalization (RR 2.1, 95%CI 1.0-4.4, p = 0.039), myalgia (RR 1.9, 95%CI 1.08-3.6, p = 0.027), tachycardia (RR 10.4, 95%CI 2.2-47.7, p = 0.003), and use of antibiotics (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.5, p = 0.022), was positively associated with the risk of having long COVID. Higher levels of education (RR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.9, p = 0.029) and type positive B blood group (B + AB, RR 0.44, 95%CI 0.2-0.9, p = 0.044) were protective factors. The most important population attributable fractions (PAFs) for long COVID were myalgia (37%), severity score ≥8 (31%), and use of antibiotics (27%).

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies in diverse populations over time are needed to expand the knowledge that could lead us to prevent and/or treat long COVID.

Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial in healthcare workers

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as pre-exposure prophylaxis on COVID-19 risk.

METHODS

EPICOS is a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted in Spain, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Healthcare workers with negative SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG test were randomly assigned to the following: daily TDF/FTC plus HCQ for 12 weeks, TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo, HCQ plus TDF/FTC placebo, and TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ placebo. Randomization was performed in groups of four. Primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19. We also studied any (symptomatic or asymptomatic) COVID-19. We compared group-specific 14-week risks via differences and ratios with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of 1002 individuals screened, 926 (92.4%) were eligible and there were 14 cases of symptomatic COVID-19: 220 were assigned to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ group (3 cases), 231 to the TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ group (3 cases), 233 to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo group (3 cases), and 223 to the double placebo group (5 cases). Compared with the double placebo group, 14-week risk ratios (95% CI) of symptomatic COVID-19 were 0.39 (0.00-1.98) for TDF + HCQ, 0.34 (0.00-2.06) for TDF, and 0.49 (0.00-2.29) for HCQ. Corresponding risk ratios of any COVID-19 were 0.51 (0.21-1.00) for TDF + HCQ, 0.81 (0.44-1.49) for TDF, and 0.73 (0.41-1.38) for HCQ. Adverse events were generally mild.

DISCUSSION

The target sample size was not met. Our findings are compatible with both benefit and harm of pre-exposure prophylaxis with TDF/FTC and HCQ, alone or in combination, compared with placebo.

Outpatient treatment of Covid-19 with metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine and the development of Long Covid over 10-month follow-up

Background

Long Covid is an emerging chronic illness potentially affecting millions, sometimes preventing the ability to work or participate in normal daily activities. COVID-OUT was an investigator-initiated, multi-site, phase 3, randomized, quadruple-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT04510194). The design simultaneously assessed three oral medications (metformin, ivermectin, fluvoxamine) using two by three parallel treatment factorial assignment to efficiently share placebo controls and assessed Long Covid outcomes for 10 months to understand whether early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 with metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine prevents Long Covid.

Methods

This was a decentralized, remotely delivered trial in the US of 1,125 adults age 30 to 85 with overweight or obesity, fewer than 7 days of symptoms, and enrolled within three days of a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. Immediate release metformin titrated over 6 days to 1,500mg per day 14 days total; ivermectin 430mcg/kg/day for 3 days; fluvoxamine, 50mg on day one then 50mg twice daily through 14 days. Medical-provider diagnosis of Long Covid, reported by participant by day 300 after randomization was a pre-specified secondary outcome; the primary outcome of the trial was severe Covid by day 14.

Result

The median age was 45 years (IQR 37 to 54), 56% female of whom 7% were pregnant. Two percent identified as Native American; 3.7% as Asian; 7.4% as Black/African American; 82.8% as white; and 12.7% as Hispanic/Latino. The median BMI was 29.8 kg/m2 (IQR 27 to 34); 51% had a BMI >30kg/m2. Overall, 8.4% reported having received a diagnosis of Long Covid from a medical provider: 6.3% in the metformin group and 10.6% in the metformin control; 8.0% in the ivermectin group and 8.1% in the ivermectin control; and 10.1% in the fluvoxamine group and 7.5% in the fluvoxamine control. The Hazard Ratio (HR) for Long Covid in the metformin group versus control was 0.58 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.88); 0.99 (95% CI 0.592 to 1.643) in the ivermectin group; and 1.36 in the fluvoxamine group (95% CI 0.785 to 2.385).

Conclusions

There was a 42% relative decrease in the incidence of Long Covid in the metformin group compared to its blinded control in a secondary outcome of this randomized phase 3 trial.

Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study

The term "statistical significance," ubiquitous in the medical literature, is often misinterpreted, as is the "p-value" from which it stems. This article explores the implications of results that are numerically positive (e.g., those in the treatment arm do better on average) but not statistically significant. This lack of statistical significance is sometimes interpreted as strong, even decisive, evidence against an effect without due consideration of other factors. Three influential articles on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID-19 are illustrative. They all involve numerically positive results that were not statistically significant that were misinterpreted as strong evidence against HCQ's efficacy. These and related considerations raise concerns regarding the reliability of academic/medical reasoning around COVID-19 treatments, as well as more generally, and regarding the potential for bias stemming from conflicts of interest.

Analysis of the Prophylactic use of Hydroxychloroquine at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Physicians

Objective

Throughout the pandemic, physicians working at the frontlines have embarked on various quests to protect themselves, and many physicians preferred using hydroxychloroquine (HQN) as a prophylactic agent. This study aimed to investigate the reasons leading physicians to use HQN and its effects on them.

Materials and Methods

This study is cross-sectional with a target population of physicians working in pandemic hospitals in İstanbul, Turkey. We invited participants from seven hospitals via email between May 14 and June 13, 2020. An online questionnaire, including 57 questions, was sent to physicians.

Results

A total of 148 (26%) physicians out of 564 participants had used hydroxychloroquine for prevention. Older physicians and those with a history of exposure to COVID-19 patients without protection used prophylactic HQN more frequently. The use of HQN did not differ statistically in terms of being infected among the exposed physicians (p=0.52). Nineteen (13%) physicians using HQN developed side effects related to the drug. Diarrhea and nausea were the most common.

Conclusion

Prophylactic HQN use was more common among physicians older than 40 years and with higher exposure rates to a COVID-19 patient without protection. The physicians working on the front line had the highest rate of infection. HQN was not effective in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 among the exposed physicians.

Distribution of age, sex, race, and ethnicity in COVID-19 clinical drug trials in the United States: A review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 quickly overwhelmed the world, but disproportionately affects certain communities, particularly minority groups. Despite overrepresentation among COVID-19 cases and death, minority groups were underrepresented in some of the early COVID-19 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the demographic characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trial participants to national COVID-19 data.

METHODS

PubMed was searched from December 1, 2019 to November 24, 2020, for randomized controlled trials evaluating a pharmacologic treatment for COVID-19 patients from one or more U.S. sites written in the English language following the PRISMA checklist. Descriptive statistics were calculated to characterize patient demographics enrolled in the included clinical trials, as well as for comparison with national COVID-19 data.

RESULTS

A total of 4472 records were identified, of which 16 studies were included. The median number of participants was higher in studies of nonhospitalized patients compared to those of hospitalized patients (n = 452 [range 20-1062] vs n = 243 [152-2795]). Ten (63%) studies reported mean or median ages of 50 years or older among all study arms. Males comprised more than half of the study cohort in ten (63%) studies. Race and ethnicity were reported separately in four (25%) studies but were combined when reported in five (31%) studies, while six (38%) reported only race or ethnicity. Proportional representation based on age, sex, race, and ethnicity was evident in some trials, but not in others, when compared to national data.

CONCLUSION

Overall, participants often did not reflect the actual population with COVID-19 and demographic characteristics were inconsistently reported.

Using time-weighted average change from baseline of SARS-CoV-2 viral load to assess impact of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment for COVID-19

Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated no clinical benefit of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for either postexposure prophylaxis or early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Using data from these studies, we calculated the time-weighted average change from baseline SARS-CoV-2 viral load and demonstrated that HCQ did not affect viral clearance.

Tissue- and cell-expression of druggable host proteins provide insights into repurposing drugs for COVID-19

Several human host proteins play important roles in the lifecycle of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Many drugs targeting these host proteins have been investigated as potential therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The tissue-specific expressions of selected host proteins were summarized using proteomics data retrieved from the Human Protein Atlas, ProteomicsDB, Human Proteome Map databases, and a clinical COVID-19 study. Protein expression features in different cell lines were summarized based on recent proteomics studies. The half-maximal effective concentration or half-maximal inhibitory concentration values were collected from in vitro studies. The pharmacokinetic data were mainly from studies in healthy subjects or non-COVID-19 patients. Considerable tissue-specific expression patterns were observed for several host proteins. ACE2 expression in the lungs was significantly lower than in many other tissues (e.g., the kidneys and intestines); TMPRSS2 expression in the lungs was significantly lower than in other tissues (e.g., the prostate and intestines). The expression levels of endocytosis-associated proteins CTSL, CLTC, NPC1, and PIKfyve in the lungs were comparable to or higher than most other tissues. TMPRSS2 expression was markedly different between cell lines, which could be associated with the cell-dependent antiviral activities of several drugs. Drug delivery receptor ICAM1 and CTSB were expressed at a higher level in the lungs than in other tissues. In conclusion, the cell- and tissue-specific proteomics data could help interpret the in vitro antiviral activities of host-directed drugs in various cells and aid the transition of the in vitro findings to clinical research to develop safe and effective therapeutics for COVID-19.

Hypertension related toxicity of chloroquine explains its failure against COVID-19: Based on rat model

Chloroquine was once thought to be a promising treatment for COVID-19 but it quickly failed due to its inefficiency and association with increased mortality. Further, comorbidities such as hypertension may have contributed this failure. The safety and toxicity of chloroquine at doses required for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in hypertensive patients remain unknown. Herein, to investigate these effects, we performed a safety evaluation of chloroquine at the approved dose (63 mg/kg) and at a high dose (126 mg/kg) in hypertensive rats. We found that chloroquine increased the mortality of hypertensive rats to 18.2% and 100%, respectively, after 7 days. During the chloroquine exposure period, the bodyweight, feed, and water consumption of hypertensive rats were decreased significantly. In addition, we show that chloroquine induces prolongation of QTc interval, elevation of LDH and CK, and histopathological damage of the myocardium in hypertensive rats. Ocular toxicity was observed in hypertensive rats in the form of hemorrhage in the eyes and retinal damage. Furthermore, we also observed intestinal toxicity in hypertensive rats, which presented as thinning intestinal walls with hemorrhagic contents, and histopathological changes of the jejunum. Hepatotoxicity was also evidenced by elevated ALT, and vacuolization of hepatocytes was also observed. Nephrotoxicity was observed only in high dose chloroquine-treated hypertensive rats, presenting as alterations of urinalysis and renal function. Immune alterations were also found in high-dose chloroquine-treated hypertensive rats with elevation of serum IL-10, IL-1β and GRO, and moderate damage to the spleen. In summary, this study partially explains the reason for the failure of chloroquine as a COVID-19 therapy, and underlines the importance of safety evaluation and medical supervision of chloroquine to avoid patient harm, especially to those with hypertension.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (January 2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine and the Control Group (standard of care or placebo); heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% versus 18.5%; pooled risk ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.99-1.19). Also, the rate of serious adverse effects was similar between both Groups, Hydroxychloroquine and Control (3.7% versus 2.9%; pooled risk ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.96).

CONCLUSION

Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients.

PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION

(www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under number CRD42020197070.

Fluvoxamine for Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19: A Decentralized, Placebo-controlled, Randomized, Platform Clinical Trial

Background

The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear.

Design

ACTIV-6 is an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial testing repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 non-hospitalized adults aged ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days prior to randomization were randomized to receive fluvoxamine 50 mg or placebo twice daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Secondary outcomes included composites of hospitalization or death with or without urgent or emergency care visit by day 28.

Results

Of 1331 participants randomized (mean [SD] age, 48.5 [12.8] years; 57% women; 67% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (n=614 placebo, n=674 fluvoxamine). Median time to recovery was 13 days (IQR 12-13) in the placebo group and 12 days (IQR 11-14) in the fluvoxamine group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.86-1.07; posterior probability for benefit [HR>1]=0.22). Twenty-six participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 23 (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.6-1.8; posterior probability for benefit [HR<1]=0.340). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

Conclusions

Treatment with fluvoxamine 50 mg twice daily for 10 days did not improve time to recovery, compared with placebo, among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Progress, pitfalls, and path forward of drug repurposing for COVID-19 treatment

On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic a public health emergency of international concern. The viral outbreak led in turn to an exponential growth of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, that is, a multiorgan disease that has led to more than 6.3 million deaths worldwide, as of June 2022. There are currently few effective drugs approved for treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 patients. Many of the compounds tested so far have been selected through a drug repurposing approach, that is, by identifying novel indications for drugs already approved for other conditions. We here present an up-to-date review of the main Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs repurposed against SARS-CoV-2 infection, discussing their mechanism of action and their most important preclinical and clinical results. Reviewed compounds were chosen to privilege those that have been approved for use in SARS-CoV-2 patients or that have completed phase III clinical trials. Moreover, we also summarize the evidence on some novel and promising repurposed drugs in the pipeline. Finally, we discuss the current stage and possible steps toward the development of broadly effective drug combinations to suppress the onset or progression of COVID-19.

The effect of selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors on clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aim

Due to the high social and economic burden and also mortality and morbidity caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in the past few years, researchers have aimed at finding solutions to suppressing the severity of infection. Recently, selective serotonin and serotonin‐norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRI/SNRI) have been investigated as an adjuvant treatment for COVID‐19. The aim of the current study was to investigate the impact of SSRI/SNRIs on outcomes of COVID‐19 patients.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, a comprehensive search strategy consisting of relevant words was performed by two researchers in PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE libraries. Studies reporting the effect of SSRI and/or SNRI use in COVID‐19 patients' outcome were included. Hospitalization, mortality, hospitalization event, and length of hospital stay were considered as main outcomes of this study. Analysis was carried out using Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis (CMA‐version 2) and final data were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Our search led to the final selection of 9 articles including 15,287 patients. The effect of fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, and the overall effect of SSRI/SNRI use on mortality of COVID‐19 patients were investigated in 3, 2, and 7 articles, respectively. The results of our analyses showed that these medications could significantly decrease mortality of COVID‐19 patients (OR and 95% [CI]: 0.595 [0.467–0.758], 0.620 [0.469–0.821], and 0.596 [0.437–0.813]). The effect of SSRI/SNRIs on hospitalization events of COVID‐19 patients was not significant (OR: 0.240% and 95% CI: 0.041–1.4). Also, length of hospital stay was longer in patients who administrated SSRIs.

Conclusion

According to this study's results, SSRI/SNRIs may be effective in reducing mortality of COVID‐19 patients, suggesting the superiority of fluvoxamine to fluoxetine. The safety profile and affordable cost of SSRI/SNRIs for a short‐term use may be other reasons to propose them as beneficial medications in preventing mortality in COVID‐19.

Care for adults with COVID ‐19: living guidelines from the National COVID ‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

Introduction

The Australian National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up‐to‐date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels.

Main recommendations

In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non‐pregnant adults with COVID‐19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID‐19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care.

Changes in management as a result of the guideline

The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID‐19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

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.

Identification of Suitable Drug Combinations for Treating COVID-19 Using a Novel Machine Learning Approach: The RAIN Method

Simple Summary

This study follows an improved approach to systematic reviews, called the Systematic Review and Artificial Intelligence Network Meta-Analysis (RAIN), registered within PROSPERO (CRD42021256797), in which, the PRISMA criterion is still considered. Drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 were searched in the databases of ScienceDirect, Web of Science (WoS), ProQuest, Embase, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. In addition, using artificial intelligence and the measurement of the p-value between human genes affected by COVID-19 and drugs that have been suggested by clinical experts, and reported within the identified research papers, suitable drug combinations are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. During the systematic review process, 39 studies were selected. Our analysis shows that most of the reported drugs, such as azithromycin and hydroxyl-chloroquine on their own, do not have much of an effect on the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Based on the result of the new artificial intelligence, on the other hand, at a significance level of less than 0.05, the combination of the two drugs therapeutic corticosteroid + camostat with a significance level of 0.02, remdesivir + azithromycin with a significance level of 0.03, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat with a significance level 0.02 are considered far more effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and are therefore recommended.

Abstract

COVID-19 affects several human genes, each with its own p-value. The combination of drugs associated with these genes with small p-values may lead to an estimation of the combined p-value between COVID-19 and some drug combinations, thereby increasing the effectiveness of these combinations in defeating the disease. Based on human genes, we introduced a new machine learning method that offers an effective drug combination with low combined p-values between them and COVID-19. This study follows an improved approach to systematic reviews, called the Systematic Review and Artificial Intelligence Network Meta-Analysis (RAIN), registered within PROSPERO (CRD42021256797), in which, the PRISMA criterion is still considered. Drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 were searched in the databases of ScienceDirect, Web of Science (WoS), ProQuest, Embase, Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. In addition, using artificial intelligence and the measurement of the p-value between human genes affected by COVID-19 and drugs that have been suggested by clinical experts, and reported within the identified research papers, suitable drug combinations are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. During the systematic review process, 39 studies were selected. Our analysis shows that most of the reported drugs, such as azithromycin and hydroxyl-chloroquine on their own, do not have much of an effect on the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Based on the result of the new artificial intelligence, on the other hand, at a significance level of less than 0.05, the combination of the two drugs therapeutic corticosteroid + camostat with a significance level of 0.02, remdesivir + azithromycin with a significance level of 0.03, and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat with a significance level 0.02 are considered far more effective for the treatment of COVID-19 and are therefore recommended. Additionally, at a significance level of less than 0.01, the combination of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat + azithromycin + tocilizumab + oseltamivir with a significance level of 0.006, and the combination of interleukin 1 receptor antagonist protein + camostat + chloroquine + favipiravir + tocilizumab7 with corticosteroid + camostat + oseltamivir + remdesivir + tocilizumab at a significant level of 0.009 are effective in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and are also recommended. The results of this study provide sets of effective drug combinations for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. In addition, the new artificial intelligence used in the RAIN method could provide a forward-looking approach to clinical trial studies, which could also be used effectively in the treatment of diseases such as cancer.

Effects of COVID-19 on Arrhythmia

The World Health Organization announced that COVID-19, with SARS-CoV-2 as its pathogen, had become a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Today, the global epidemic situation is still serious. With the development of research, cardiovascular injury in patients with COVID-19, such as arrhythmia, myocardial injury, and heart failure, is the second major symptom in addition to respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular injury is related to the prognosis and mortality of patients. The incidence of arrhythmia in COVID-19 patients ranges from 10% to 20%. The potential mechanisms include viral infection-induced angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 expression change, myocarditis, cytokine storm, cardiac injury, electrophysiological effects, hypoxemia, myocardial strain, electrolyte abnormalities, intravascular volume imbalance, drug toxicities and interactions, and stress response caused by virus infection. COVID-19 complicated with arrhythmia needs to be accounted for and integrated in management. This article reviews the incidence, potential mechanisms, and related management measures of arrhythmia in COVID-19 patients.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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