Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

Repurposing of antimycobacterium drugs for COVID-19 treatment by targeting SARS CoV-2 main protease: An in-silico perspective

The global mortality rate has been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS CoV-2 virus. Although the pursuit for a potent antiviral is still in progress, experimental therapies based on repurposing of existing drugs is being attempted. One important therapeutic target for COVID-19 is the main protease (Mpro) that cleaves the viral polyprotein in its replication process. Recently minocycline, an antimycobacterium drug, has been successfully implemented for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. But it's mode of action is still far from clear. Furthermore, it remains unresolved whether alternative antimycobacterium drugs can effectively regulate SARS CoV-2 by inhibiting the enzymatic activity of Mpro. To comprehend these facets, eight well-established antimycobacterium drugs were put through molecular docking experiments. Four of the antimycobacterium drugs (minocycline, rifampicin, clofazimine and ofloxacin) were selected by comparing their binding affinities towards Mpro. All of the four drugs interacted with both the catalytic residues of Mpro (His41 and Cys145). Additionally, molecular dynamics experiments demonstrated that the Mpro-minocyline complex has enhanced stability, experiences reduced conformational fluctuations and greater compactness than other three Mpro-antimycobacterium and Mpro-N3/lopinavir complexes. This research furnishes evidences for implementation of minocycline against SARS CoV-2. In addition, our findings also indicate other three antimycobacterium/antituberculosis drugs (rifampicin, clofazimine and ofloxacin) could potentially be evaluated for COVID-19 therapy.

A guide to COVID-19 antiviral therapeutics: a summary and perspective of the antiviral weapons against SARS-CoV-2 infection

Antiviral therapies are integral in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 (i.e. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the causative agent of COVID-19. Antiviral therapeutics can be divided into categories based on how they combat the virus, including viral entry into the host cell, viral replication, protein trafficking, post-translational processing, and immune response regulation. Drugs that target how the virus enters the cell include: Evusheld, REGEN-COV, bamlanivimab and etesevimab, bebtelovimab, sotrovimab, Arbidol, nitazoxanide, and chloroquine. Drugs that prevent the virus from replicating include: Paxlovid, remdesivir, molnupiravir, favipiravir, ribavirin, and Kaletra. Drugs that interfere with protein trafficking and post-translational processing include nitazoxanide and ivermectin. Lastly, drugs that target immune response regulation include interferons and the use of anti-inflammatory drugs such as dexamethasone. Antiviral therapies offer an alternative solution for those unable or unwilling to be vaccinated and are a vital weapon in the battle against the global pandemic. Learning more about these therapies helps raise awareness in the general population about the options available to them with respect to aiding in the reduction of the severity of COVID-19 infection. In this 'A Guide To' article, we provide an in-depth insight into the development of antiviral therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 and their ability to help fight COVID-19.

Effect of glucocorticoids on the development of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis: A meta-analysis of 21 studies and 5174 patients

COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) remains a high mortality mycotic infection throughout the pandemic, and glucocorticoids (GC) may be its root cause. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of systemic GC treatment on the development of CAPA. We systematically searched the PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Embase databases to collect eligible studies published until 31 December 2022. The pooled outcome of CAPA development was calculated as the log odds ratio (LOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random effect model. A total of 21 studies with 5174 patients were included. Of these, 20 studies with 4675 patients consisting of 2565 treated with GC but without other immunomodulators (GC group) and 2110 treated without GC or other immunomodulators (controls) were analysed. The pooled LOR of CAPA development was higher for the GC group than for the controls (0.54; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.86; p < .01). In the subgroups, the pooled LOR was higher for high-dose GC (0.90; 95% CI: 0.17, 1.62: p = .01) and dexamethasone (0.71; 95% CI: 0.35, 1.07; p < .01) but had no significant difference for low-dose GC (0.41; 95% CI: -0.07, 0.89; p = .09), and non-dexamethasone GC (0.21; 95% CI: -0.36, 0.79; p = .47), treated patients versus controls. GC treatment increases the risk of CAPA development, and this risk is particularly associated with the use of high-dose GC or dexamethasone treatment.

Mortality, incidence, and microbiological documentation of ventilated acquired pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill patients with COVID-19 or influenza

BACKGROUND

Data on ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) in COVID-19 and influenza patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) are scarce. This study aimed to estimate day-60 mortality related to VAP in ICU patients ventilated for at least 48 h, either for COVID-19 or for influenza, and to describe the epidemiological characteristics in each group of VAP.

DESIGN

Multicentre retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Eleven ICUs of the French OutcomeRea™ network.

PATIENTS

Patients treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for at least 48 h for either COVID-19 or for flu.

RESULTS

Of the 585 patients included, 503 had COVID-19 and 82 had influenza between January 2008 and June 2021. A total of 232 patients, 209 (41.6%) with COVID-19 and 23 (28%) with influenza, developed 375 VAP episodes. Among the COVID-19 and flu patients, VAP incidences for the first VAP episode were, respectively, 99.2 and 56.4 per 1000 IMV days (p < 0.01), and incidences for all VAP episodes were 32.8 and 17.8 per 1000 IMV days (p < 0.01). Microorganisms of VAP were Gram-positive cocci in 29.6% and 23.5% of episodes of VAP (p < 0.01), respectively, including Staphylococcus aureus in 19.9% and 11.8% (p = 0.25), and Gram-negative bacilli in 84.2% and 79.4% (p = 0.47). In the overall cohort, VAP was associated with an increased risk of day-60 mortality (aHR = 1.77 [1.36; 2.30], p < 0.01), and COVID-19 had a higher mortality risk than influenza (aHR = 2.22 [CI 95%, 1.34; 3.66], p < 0.01). VAP was associated with increased day-60 mortality among COVID-19 patients (aHR = 1.75 [CI 95%, 1.32; 2.33], p < 0.01), but not among influenza patients (aHR = 1.75 [CI 95%, 0.48; 6.33], p = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of VAP was higher in patients ventilated for at least 48 h for COVID-19 than for influenza. In both groups, Gram-negative bacilli were the most frequently detected microorganisms. In patients ventilated for either COVID-19 or influenza VAP and COVID-19 were associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Mortality in ICU Patients with COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis

A review of 38 studies involving 1437 COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) was conducted to investigate whether mortality has improved since the pandemic's onset. The study found that the median ICU mortality was 56.8%, ranging from 30% to 91.8%. These rates were higher for patients admitted during 2020-2021 (61.4%) compared to 2020 (52.3%), and prospective studies found higher ICU mortality (64.7%) than retrospective ones (56.4%). The studies were conducted in various countries and used different criteria to define CAPA. The percentage of patients who received antifungal therapy varied across studies. These results indicate that the mortality rate among CAPA patients is a growing concern, mainly since there has been an overall reduction in mortality among COVID-19 patients. Urgent action is needed to improve prevention and management strategies for CAPA, and additional research is needed to identify optimal treatment strategies to reduce mortality rates among these patients. This study serves as a call to action for healthcare professionals and policymakers to prioritize CAPA, a serious and potentially life-threatening complication of COVID-19.

The Japanese Guide affected the prescription of steroids for COVID-19 inpatients during the COVID-19 epidemic in Japan

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, guidance ("Japanese Guide") has been published by a working group of several academic societies and announced by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. Steroids as a candidate treatment for COVID-19 were noted in the Japanese Guide. However, the prescription details for steroids, and whether the Japanese Guide changed its clinical practice, were unclear. This study aimed to examine the impact of the Japanese Guide on the trends in the prescription of steroids for COVID-19 inpatients in Japan. We selected our study population using Diagnostic Procedure Combination (DPC) data from hospitals participating in the Quality Indicator/Improvement Project (QIP). The inclusion criteria were patients discharged from hospital between January 2020 and December 2020, who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, and were aged 18 years or older. The epidemiological characteristics of cases and the proportion of steroid prescriptions were described on a weekly basis. The same analysis was performed for subgroups classified by disease severity. The study population comprised 8603 cases (410 severe cases, 2231 moderate II cases, and 5962 moderate I/mild cases). The maximum proportion of cases prescribed with dexamethasone increased remarkably from 2.5 to 35.2% in the study population before and after week 29 (July 2020), when dexamethasone was included in the guidance. These increases were 7.7% to 58.7% in severe cases, 5.0% to 57.2% in moderate II cases, and 1.1% to 19.2% in moderate I/mild cases. Although the proportion of cases prescribed prednisolone and methylprednisolone decreased in moderate II and moderate I/mild cases, it remained high in severe cases. We showed the trends of steroid prescriptions in COVID-19 inpatients. The results showed that guidance can influence drug treatment provided during an emerging infectious disease pandemic.

A Prospective Cohort Study of COVID-19: Evaluation of the Early Role of IL-1 and IL-6 Antagonists in Improving the Outcome of the Illness and Reduction in the Risk of Death

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on global health, economies, and social systems. The crucial factor that determines the success of COVID-19 treatments is preventing the need for mechanical ventilation and intensive care admission. In the context of COVID-19, several treatments have been found to play a role in the disease's progression and severity. Interleukins (ILs) have been identified as key mediators of the cytokine storm that can occur in severe cases of COVID-19, leading to respiratory failure and other complications. For instance, IL-1 antagonist (anakinra) and IL-6 antagonist (tocilizumab) are supposed to be promising treatments as well as cortisones for COVID-19. This prospective study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of anakinra or tocilizumab in addition to cortisone in preventing the progression of mild to moderate COVID-19 cases to severe intensive care admission. Biochemical and hematological parameters, such as D-dimer, ferritin, LDH, CRP, and white blood cells (WBCs), were measured after treatment with either anakinra or tocilizumab in addition to cortisone or cortisone alone. The study also recorded the number of deaths and patients admitted to intensive care. The results indicate that anakinra significantly improved outcomes and decreased the number of intensive care admissions compared to tocilizumab or cortisone alone. Therefore, anakinra may play a vital role in controlling the progression of COVID-19, and its use in mild to moderate cases may prevent the worsening of the disease to severe stages.

Antibiotic Usage in the COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit of an Infectious Diseases Hospital from Nord-Eastern Romania

Background and Objectives. The intensive care unit (ICU), especially in an infectious disease hospital, is both an area with a high consumption of antibiotics (atb) and a "reservoir" of multidrug-resistant bacteria. We proposed the analysis of antibiotic therapy practices in such a department that treated, in conditions of a pandemic wave, patients with COVID-19 and its complications. Materials and Methods. This was a retrospective transversal study of 184 COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of a regional infectious disease hospital of Iaşi, Romania, in a 3-month interval of 2020 and 2021. Results. All the included patients (Caucasians, 53% males, with a median age of 68 years, and a Charlton comorbidity index of 3) received at least one antibiotic during their stay in the ICU (43% also had antibiotics prior to hospital admission and 68% in the Infectious Diseases ward). Only 22.3% of the ICU patients had only one antibiotic. A total of 77.7% of them started with an association of two antibiotics, and 19.6% of them received more than three antibiotics. The most-used ones were linezolid (77.2%), imipenem (75.5%), and ceftriaxone (33.7%). The median atb duration was 9 days. No change in the number or type of atb prescription was seen in 2021 (compared to 2020). Only 9.8% of the patients had a microbiological confirmation of bacterial infection. A total of 38.3% of the tested patients had elevated procalcitonin levels at ICU admission. The overall fatality rate was 68.5%, with no significant differences between the two analyzed periods or the number of administered antibiotics. More than half (51.1%) of the patients developed oral candidiasis during their stay in the ICU, but only 5.4% had C. difficile colitis. Conclusion. Antibiotics were widely used in our ICU patients in the presence of a reduced microbiological confirmation of a bacterial co-infection, and were justified by other clinical or biological criteria.

Evaluation of Remdesivir Utilization Pattern in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in Jazan Province

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread around the world, spurring the biomedical community to find and create antiviral therapies. The agent remdesivir, which has undergone a protracted and tortuous developmental path, is one potential therapeutic strategy now being assessed in several clinical trials. A broad-spectrum antiviral drug called remdesivir has already shown antiviral effects against filoviruses. Remdesivir was suggested as an exploratory medicine early in the pandemic because in vitro tests showed it to have antiviral effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study that examined patient data captured through an electronic medical system at the Abu Arish General Hospital between 2021 and 2022. Data analysis was performed with SPSS version 25.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Results A total of 88 patients were included in this study. With the usage of remdesivir, our risk model is able to forecast adverse events and the case fatality rate. In contrast to D-dimer and c-reactive proteins, we showed that alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), serum creatinine, and hemoglobin are relevant variables. Conclusion Our risk model can predict the adverse reactions and case fatality rate with the use of remdesivir. We demonstrated ALT, AST, serum creatinine, and hemoglobin as important variables rather than D-dimer and c-reactive proteins.

Tocilizumab-coated solid lipid nanoparticles loaded with cannabidiol as a novel drug delivery strategy for treating COVID-19: A review

Commonly used clinical strategies against coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), including the potential role of monoclonal antibodies for site-specific targeted drug delivery, are discussed here. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) tailored with tocilizumab (TCZ) and loading cannabidiol (CBD) are proposed for the treatment of COVID-19 by oral route. TCZ, as a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody and an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor agonist, can attenuate cytokine storm in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. CBD (an anti-inflammatory cannabinoid and TCZ agonist) alleviates anxiety, schizophrenia, and depression. CBD, obtained from Cannabis sativa L., is known to modulate gene expression and inflammation and also shows anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties. It has also been recognized to modulate angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2) expression in SARS-CoV-2 target tissues. It has already been proven that immunosuppressive drugs targeting the IL-6 receptor may ameliorate lethal inflammatory responses in COVID-19 patients. TCZ, as an immunosuppressive drug, is mainly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, although several attempts have been made to use it in the active hyperinflammatory phase of COVID-19, with promising outcomes. TCZ is currently administered intravenously. It this review, we discuss the potential advances on the use of SLN for oral administration of TCZ-tailored CBD-loaded SLN, as an innovative platform for managing SARS-CoV-2 and related infections.

Efficacy and safety profile of corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in COVID-19 management: A narrative review

Due to the fact that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still prevalent, and current reports show that some parts of the world have seen increase in incidence, it is relevant that health professionals and scientists know about recent or novel trends, especially drug treatments. Additionally, the safety profiles of these drug treatments need to be documented and shared with the public. Some studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids in COVID-19 treatment. On the contrary, others have also reported that NSAIDs and corticosteroids may worsen symptoms associated with COVID-19. While some researchers have suggested that corticosteroids may be helpful if used in the early stages of COVID-19, there are still some conflicting findings regarding the use of corticosteroids in certain viral infections. Our review suggests that methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and ibuprofen have therapeutic potential in reducing mortality due to COVID-19 among hospitalized patients. This review also highlights the fact that the use of NSAIDs is not associated with adverse outcomes of COVID-19. In reality, evidence suggests that NSAIDs do not increase the risk of COVID-19 infections. Also, the literature reviewed suggests that corticosteroid treatment in COVID-19 was linked with a decrease in all-cause mortality and disease progression, without increase in adverse events when compared to no corticosteroid treatment.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Bacterial Pulmonary Co-Infections on ICU Admission: Comparison in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza Acute Respiratory Failure: A Multicentre Cohort Study

Background: Few data are available on the impact of bacterial pulmonary co-infection (RespCoBact) during COVID-19 (CovRespCoBact). The aim of this study was to compare the prognosis of patients admitted to an ICU for influenza pneumonia and for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with and without RespCoBact. Methods: This was a multicentre (n = 11) observational study using the Outcomerea© database. Since 2008, all patients admitted with influenza pneumonia or SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and discharged before 30 June 2021 were included. Risk factors for day-60 death and for ventilator-associated-pneumonia (VAP) in patients with influenza pneumonia or SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with or without RespCoBact were determined. Results: Of the 1349 patients included, 157 were admitted for influenza and 1192 for SARS-CoV-2. Compared with the influenza patients, those with SARS-CoV-2 had lower severity scores, were more often under high-flow nasal cannula, were less often under invasive mechanical ventilation, and had less RespCoBact (8.2% for SARS-CoV-2 versus 24.8% for influenza). Day-60 death was significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with no increased risk of mortality with RespCoBact. Patients with influenza pneumonia and those with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia had no increased risk of VAP with RespCoBact. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia was associated with an increased risk of mortality compared with Influenza pneumonia. Bacterial pulmonary co-infections on admission were not associated with patient survival rates nor with an increased risk of VAP.

Exploring NFκB pathway as a potent strategy to mitigate COVID-19 severe morbidity and mortality

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), for which there does not appear to be an approved cure, the primary treatment options consist of non-pharmacological preventive measures and supportive treatment that are aimed at halting the progression of the disease. Nuclear factor kappa B (NFkB) presents a promising therapeutic opportunity to mitigate COVID-19-induced cytokine storm and reduce the risk of severe morbidity and mortality resulting from the disease. However, the effective clinical application of NFkB modulators in COVID-19 is hampered by a number of factors that must be taken into consideration. This paper therefore explored the modulation of the NFB pathway as a potential strategy to mitigate the severe morbidity and mortality caused by COVID-19. The paper also discusses the factors that form the barrier, and it offers potential solutions to the various limitations that may impede the clinical use of NFkB modulators against COVID-19. This paper revealed and identified three key potential solutions for the future clinical use of NFkB modulators against COVID-19. These solutions are pulmonary tissue-specific NFkB blockade, agents that target common regulatory proteins of both canonical and non-canonical NFkB pathways, and monitoring clinical indicators of hyperinflammation and cytokine storm in COVID-19 prior to using NFkB modulators.

Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review

Objective

To assess the trustworthiness (ie, complete and consistent reporting of key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports) and impact (ie, effects of preprints on meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence) of preprint trial reports during the covid-19 pandemic.

Design

Retrospective review.

Data sources

World Health Organization covid-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) covid-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to 3 August 2021).

Main outcome measures

Comparison of characteristics of covid-19 trials with and without preprints, estimates of time to publication of covid-19 preprints, and description of differences in reporting of key methods and results between preprints and their later publications. For the effects of eight treatments on mortality and mechanical ventilation, the study comprised meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at one, three, and six months after the first trial addressing the treatment became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total, 60 of which included preprints and 60 of which excluded preprints) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.

Results

Of 356 trials included in the study, 101 were only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. The median time to publication of preprints was about six months. Key methods and results showed few important differences between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. Apart from two (3.3%) of 60 comparisons, point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including preprints versus those excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. For nine (15%) of 60 comparisons, the rating of the certainty of evidence was different when preprints were included versus being excluded-the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher in four comparisons and lower in five comparisons.

Conclusion

No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months-an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.

Putative COVID-19 therapies imatinib, lopinavir, ritonavir, and ivermectin cause hair cell damage: A targeted screen in the zebrafish lateral line

The biomedical community is rapidly developing COVID-19 drugs to bring much-need therapies to market, with over 900 drugs and drug combinations currently in clinical trials. While this pace of drug development is necessary, the risk of producing therapies with significant side-effects is also increased. One likely side-effect of some COVID-19 drugs is hearing loss, yet hearing is not assessed during preclinical development or clinical trials. We used the zebrafish lateral line, an established model for drug-induced sensory hair cell damage, to assess the ototoxic potential of seven drugs in clinical trials for treatment of COVID-19. We found that ivermectin, lopinavir, imatinib, and ritonavir were significantly toxic to lateral line hair cells. By contrast, the approved COVID-19 therapies dexamethasone and remdesivir did not cause damage. We also did not observe damage from the antibiotic azithromycin. Neither lopinavir nor ritonavir altered the number of pre-synaptic ribbons per surviving hair cell, while there was an increase in ribbons following imatinib or ivermectin exposure. Damage from lopinavir, imatinib, and ivermectin was specific to hair cells, with no overall cytotoxicity noted following TUNEL labeling. Ritonavir may be generally cytotoxic, as determined by an increase in the number of TUNEL-positive non-hair cells following ritonavir exposure. Pharmacological inhibition of the mechanotransduction (MET) channel attenuated damage caused by lopinavir and ritonavir but did not alter imatinib or ivermectin toxicity. These results suggest that lopinavir and ritonavir may enter hair cells through the MET channel, similar to known ototoxins such as aminoglycoside antibiotics. Finally, we asked if ivermectin was ototoxic to rats in vivo. While ivermectin is not recommended by the FDA for treating COVID-19, many people have chosen to take ivermectin without a doctor’s guidance, often with serious side-effects. Rats received daily subcutaneous injections for 10 days with a clinically relevant ivermectin dose (0.2 mg/kg). In contrast to our zebrafish assays, ivermectin did not cause ototoxicity in rats. Our research suggests that some drugs in clinical trials for COVID-19 may be ototoxic. This work can help identify drugs with the fewest side-effects and determine which therapies warrant audiometric monitoring.

When might host heterogeneity drive the evolution of asymptomatic, pandemic coronaviruses?

Controlling many infectious diseases, including SARS-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), requires surveillance followed by isolation, contact-tracing and quarantining. These interventions often begin by identifying symptomatic individuals. However, actively removing pathogen strains causing symptomatic infections may inadvertently select for strains less likely to cause symptomatic infections. Moreover, a pathogen's fitness landscape is structured around a heterogeneous host pool; uneven surveillance efforts and distinct transmission risks across host classes can meaningfully alter selection pressures. Here, we explore this interplay between evolution caused by disease control efforts and the evolutionary consequences of host heterogeneity. Using an evolutionary epidemiology model parameterized for coronaviruses, we show that intense symptoms-driven disease control selects for asymptomatic strains, particularly when these efforts are applied unevenly across host groups. Under these conditions, increasing quarantine efforts have diverging effects. If isolation alone cannot eradicate, intensive quarantine efforts combined with uneven detections of asymptomatic infections (e.g., via neglect of some host classes) can favor the evolution of asymptomatic strains. We further show how, when intervention intensity depends on the prevalence of symptomatic infections, higher removal efforts (and isolating symptomatic cases in particular) more readily select for asymptomatic strains than when these efforts do not depend on prevalence. The selection pressures on pathogens caused by isolation and quarantining likely lie between the extremes of no intervention and thoroughly successful eradication. Thus, analyzing how different public health responses can select for asymptomatic pathogen strains is critical for identifying disease suppression efforts that can effectively manage emerging infectious diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11071-022-07548-7.

Estrogen hormone is an essential sex factor inhibiting inflammation and immune response in COVID-19

Although vaccines have been evaluated and approved for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention, there remains a lack of effective treatments to reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients already infected with SARS-CoV-2. The global data on COVID-19 showed that men have a higher mortality rate than women. We further observed that the proportion of mortality of females increases starting from around the age of 55 significantly. Thus, sex is an essential factor associated with COVID-19 mortality, and sex related genetic factors could be interesting mechanisms and targets for COVID-19 treatment. However, the associated sex factors and signaling pathways remain unclear. Here, we propose to uncover the potential sex associated factors using systematic and integrative network analysis. The unique results indicated that estrogens, e.g., estrone and estriol, (1) interacting with ESR1/2 receptors, (2) can inhibit SARS-CoV-2 caused inflammation and immune response signaling in host cells; and (3) estrogens are associated with the distinct fatality rates between male and female COVID-19 patients. Specifically, a high level of estradiol protects young female COVID-19 patients, and estrogens drop to an extremely low level in females after about 55 years of age causing the increased fatality rate of women. In conclusion, estrogen, interacting with ESR1/2 receptors, is an essential sex factor that protects COVID-19 patients from death by inhibiting inflammation and immune response caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, medications boosting the down-stream signaling of ESR1/ESR2, or inhibiting the inflammation and immune-associated targets on the signaling network can be potentially effective or synergistic combined with other existing drugs for COVID-19 treatment.

Comparing the efficacy of tocilizumab with corticosteroid therapy in treating COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Tocilizumab has shown equivocal outcomes in reducing mortality in COVID-19. The corticosteroids appear to be an affordable alternative to tocilizumab. This study aims to estimate the efficacy of tocilizumab and the corticosteroids particularly dexamethasone and methylprednisolone and to identify possible determinants of their efficacy.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched for studies involving tocilizumab, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone in treating COVID-19. We included case-control and randomized or partially randomized trials. Meta-regression for patient baseline characteristics, co-medications, and tocilizumab dose regimens was performed to identify contributing factors to drug efficacy.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and twenty-four case-control studies were included in our meta-analysis involving 18,702 patients. Meta-analysis among the RCTs showed that a summary estimate favoring mortality reduction (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.55 - 0.92) contributed mainly by tocilizumab and dexamethasone. Among case-control studies, meta-analysis showed mortality reduction (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.36 - 0.75) contributed by tocilizumab and tocilizumab-methylprednisolone combination. Methylprednisolone alone did not reduce mortality except for one study involving high dose pulse therapy. Meta-analysis also found that all three drugs did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation (OR 0.72, 95%CI 0.32 - 1.60).

CONCLUSION

Tocilizumab and dexamethasone emerge as viable options in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. A tocilizumab-corticosteroid combination strategy may improve therapeutic outcome in cases where single therapy fails.

Age-Dependent Biomarkers for Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients

Background: Several biomarkers and models have been proposed to predict in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients. However, these studies have not examined the association in sub-populations. The present study aimed to identify the association between the two most common inflammatory biomarkers in the emergency department and in-hospital mortality in subgroups of patients. Methods: A historical cohort study of adult patients who were admitted to acute-care hospital between March and December 2020 and had a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. Data on age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, white blood cell (WBC) count, C-reactive protein (CRP), and in-hospital mortality were collected. Discrimination ability of each biomarker was observed and the CHAID method was used to identify the association in subgroups of patients. Results: Overall, 762 patients (median age 70.9 years, 59.7% males) were included in the study. Of them, 25.1% died during hospitalization. In-hospital mortality was associated with higher CRP (median 138 mg/L vs. 85 mg/L, p < 0.001), higher WBC count (median 8.5 vs. 6.6 K/µL, p < 0.001), and higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (median 9.2 vs. 5.4, p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve was similar among all biomarkers (WBC 0.643, NLR 0.677, CRP 0.646, p > 0.1 for all comparisons). The CHAID method revealed that WBC count was associated with in-hospital mortality in patients aged 43.1−66.0 years (<11 K/µL: 10.1% vs. 11+ K/µL: 27.9%), NLR in patients aged 66.1−80 years (≤8: 15.7%, >8: 43.3%), and CRP in patients aged 80.1+ years (≤47 mg/L: 18.8%, 47.1−149 mg/L: 43.1%, and 149.1+: 71.7% mortality). Conclusions: WBC, NLR, and CRP present similar discrimination abilities. However, each biomarker should be considered as a predictor for in-hospital mortality in different age groups.

Public opinion on sharing data from health services for clinical and research purposes without explicit consent: an anonymous online survey in the UK

OBJECTIVES

UK National Health Service/Health and Social Care (NHS/HSC) data are variably shared between healthcare organisations for direct care, and increasingly de-identified for research. Few large-scale studies have examined public opinion on sharing, including of mental health (MH) versus physical health (PH) data. We measured data sharing preferences.

DESIGN/SETTING/INTERVENTIONS/OUTCOMES

Pre-registered anonymous online survey, measuring expressed preferences, recruiting February to September 2020. Participants were randomised to one of three framing statements regarding MH versus PH data.

PARTICIPANTS

Open to all UK residents. Participants numbered 29 275; 40% had experienced an MH condition.

RESULTS

Most (76%) supported identifiable data sharing for direct clinical care without explicit consent, but 20% opposed this. Preference for clinical/identifiable sharing decreased with geographical distance and was slightly less for MH than PH data, with small framing effects. Preference for research/de-identified data sharing without explicit consent showed the same small PH/MH and framing effects, plus greater preference for sharing structured data than de-identified free text. There was net support for research sharing to the NHS, academic institutions, and national research charities, net ambivalence about sharing to profit-making companies researching treatments, and net opposition to sharing to other companies (similar to sharing publicly). De-identified linkage to non-health data was generally supported, except to data held by private companies. We report demographic influences on preference. A majority (89%) supported a single NHS mechanism to choose uses of their data. Support for data sharing increased during COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Support for healthcare data sharing for direct care without explicit consent is broad but not universal. There is net support for the sharing of de-identified data for research to the NHS, academia, and the charitable sector, but not the commercial sector. A single national NHS-hosted system for patients to control the use of their NHS data for clinical purposes and for research would have broad support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN37444142.

Public opinion on sharing data from health services for clinical and research purposes without explicit consent: an anonymous online survey in the UK

OBJECTIVES

UK National Health Service/Health and Social Care (NHS/HSC) data are variably shared between healthcare organisations for direct care, and increasingly de-identified for research. Few large-scale studies have examined public opinion on sharing, including of mental health (MH) versus physical health (PH) data. We measured data sharing preferences.

DESIGN/SETTING/INTERVENTIONS/OUTCOMES

Pre-registered anonymous online survey, measuring expressed preferences, recruiting February to September 2020. Participants were randomised to one of three framing statements regarding MH versus PH data.

PARTICIPANTS

Open to all UK residents. Participants numbered 29 275; 40% had experienced an MH condition.

RESULTS

Most (76%) supported identifiable data sharing for direct clinical care without explicit consent, but 20% opposed this. Preference for clinical/identifiable sharing decreased with geographical distance and was slightly less for MH than PH data, with small framing effects. Preference for research/de-identified data sharing without explicit consent showed the same small PH/MH and framing effects, plus greater preference for sharing structured data than de-identified free text. There was net support for research sharing to the NHS, academic institutions, and national research charities, net ambivalence about sharing to profit-making companies researching treatments, and net opposition to sharing to other companies (similar to sharing publicly). De-identified linkage to non-health data was generally supported, except to data held by private companies. We report demographic influences on preference. A majority (89%) supported a single NHS mechanism to choose uses of their data. Support for data sharing increased during COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Support for healthcare data sharing for direct care without explicit consent is broad but not universal. There is net support for the sharing of de-identified data for research to the NHS, academia, and the charitable sector, but not the commercial sector. A single national NHS-hosted system for patients to control the use of their NHS data for clinical purposes and for research would have broad support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN37444142.

The Ameliorative Effect of Dexamethasone on the Development of Autoimmune Lung Injury and Mediastinal Fat-Associated Lymphoid Clusters in an Autoimmune Disease Mouse Model

In our previous study, we revealed the ameliorative therapeutic effect of dexamethasone (Dex) for Lupus nephritis lesions in the MRL/MpJ-Fas ^lpr/lpr (Lpr) mouse model. The female Lpr mice developed a greater number of mediastinal fat-associated lymphoid clusters (MFALCs) and inflammatory lung lesions compared to the male mice. However, the effect of Dex, an immunosuppressive drug, on both lung lesions and the development of MFALCs in Lpr mice has not been identified yet. Therefore, in this study, we compared the development of lung lesions and MFALCs in female Lpr mice that received either saline (saline group “SG”) or dexamethasone (dexamethasone group “DG”) in drinking water as a daily dose along with weekly intraperitoneal injections for 10 weeks. Compared to the SG group, the DG group showed a significant reduction in the levels of serum anti-dsDNA antibodies, the size of MFALCs, the degree of lung injury, the area of high endothelial venules (HEVs), and the number of proliferating and immune cells in both MFALCs and the lungs. A significant positive correlation was observed between the size of MFALCs and the cellular aggregation in the lungs of Lpr mice. Therefore, this study confirmed the ameliorative effect of Dex on the development of lung injury and MFALCs via their regressive effect on both immune cells’ proliferative activity and the development of HEVs. Furthermore, the reprogramming of MFALCs by targeting immune cells and HEVs may provide a therapeutic strategy for autoimmune-disease-associated lung injury.

Clinical Evidence Informing Treatment Guidelines on Repurposed Drugs for Hospitalized Patients During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic: Corticosteroids, Anticoagulants, (Hydroxy)chloroquine

INTRODUCTION

In early 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread worldwide, overwhelming hospitals with severely ill patients and posing the urgent need for clinical evidence to guide patient care. First treatment options available were repurposed drugs to fight inflammation, coagulopathy, and viral replication. A vast number of clinical studies were launched globally to test their efficacy and safety. Our analysis describes the development of global evidence on repurposed drugs, in particular corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients based on different study types. We track the incorporation of clinical data in international and national treatment guidelines and identify factors that characterize studies and analyses with the greatest impact on treatment recommendations.

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE was conducted to assess the clinical evidence on treatment with corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the first year of the pandemic. Adoption of the evidence from this clinical data in treatment guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO), Germany, and United States (US) was evaluated over time.

RESULTS

We identified 106 studies on corticosteroids, 141 studies on anticoagulants, and 115 studies on (hydroxy)chloroquine. Most studies were retrospective cohort studies; some were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and a few were platform trials. These studies were compared to studies directly and indirectly referred to in WHO (7 versions), German (5 versions), and US (21 versions) guidelines. We found that initially large, well-adjusted, mainly retrospective cohort studies and ultimately large platform trials or coordinated meta-analyses of RCTs provided best available clinical evidence supporting treatment recommendations.

DISCUSSION

Particularly early in the pandemic, evidence for the efficacy and safety of repurposed drugs was of low quality, since time and scientific rigor seemed to be competing factors. Pandemic preparedness, coordinated efforts, and combined analyses were crucial to generating timely and robust clinical evidence that informed national and international treatment guidelines on corticosteroids, anticoagulants, and (hydroxy)chloroquine. Multi-arm platform trials with master protocols and coordinated meta-analyses proved particularly successful, with researchers joining forces to answer the most pressing questions as quickly as possible.

Osteoarthritis, Corticosteroids and Role of CYP Genes in COVID-19 Patients: A Mini Review

Objectives of this review is to evaluate the role of cytochrome P450 gene polymorphisms in COVID-19 infected patients with pre-existing OA on corticosteroids. The purpose of this review is to analyze whether polymorphisms of Cytochrome p450 isoforms (CYP2C9 and CYP3A4) affect the dosage of steroids in OA patients in COVID-19 infected patients. This review may provide more therapeutic options; suggest a few guidelines which may be useful in managing COVID-19 patients with pre-existing osteoarthritis. The important role of corticosteroids in treating patients infected with COVID-19 with preexisting osteoarthritis, its influence on incidence of mortality or morbidity may be highlighted. The influence of CYP enzymes and their polymorphisms suggest safety of treatments as well as the possible need for the dosage adjustment or their discontinuation.

COVID-19 and Influenza: Differences, Similarities, and Coinfection

Context: COVID-19 and influenza coinfection may increase mortality and morbidity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognizing the differences and similarities between COVID-19 and influenza helps us diagnose and treat these 2 diseases. Accordingly, we aimed to compare virologic, clinical, paraclinical, and radiological features and prophylactic and therapeutic management of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza infections. We also provided an algorithmic approach to the diagnosis and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza coinfection in children. Evidence Acquisition: Electronic databases, including Cochrane Collaboration, PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, were searched for the articles published in English language using the following keywords: “influenza virus,” “SARS-CoV-2 virus,” “COVID-19,” “comparison,” “coinfection,” “management,” “treatment,” “antiviral therapy,” “vaccines,” “children,” and “adults.” Boolean operations (AND and OR) were used to refine the search. No date limitation was applied. Results: SARS-CoV-2 and influenza are both RNA viruses with different receptors. The reproductive rate of SARS-CoV-2 is higher than influenza. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly adults, have higher rates of anosmia/ageusia. Organ involvement occurs more frequently in COVID-19 cases, and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) occurs especially in children. Disease severity, excessive immune response, and mortality are higher in SARS-CoV-2. Radiological peripheral lesions and ground-glass appearance are characteristic of COVID-19 infection. It is important to rule out influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with respiratory problems during the pandemic. Timely prescription of currently available antiviral drugs is essential. Conclusions: Treatment of patients suspected of having a coinfection is determined by the patient’s condition and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) evaluation.

Computational insight of dexamethasone against potential targets of SARS-CoV-2

The health sector has been on the race to find a potent therapy for coronavirus disease (COVID)-19, a diseases caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2. Repurposed anti-viral drugs have played a huge role in combating the virus, and most recently, dexamethasone (Dex) have shown its therapeutic activity in severe cases of COVID-19 patients. The study sought to provide insights on the anti-COVID-19 mechanism of Dex at both atomic and molecular level against SARS-CoV-2 targets. Computational methods were employed to predict the binding affinity of Dex to SARS-CoV-2 using the Schrodinger suite (v2020-2). The target molecules and ligand (Dex) were retrieved from PDB and PubChem, respectively. The selected targets were SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), and host secreted molecules glucocorticoid receptor, and Interleukin-6 (IL-6). Critical analyses such as Protein and ligand preparation, molecular docking, molecular dynamic (MD) simulations, and absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion (ADME), and toxicity analyses were performed using the targets and the ligand as inputs. Dex showed stronger affinity to its theoretical (glucocorticoid) receptor with a superior docking score of -14.7 and a good binding energy value of -147.48 kcal/mol; while short hydrogen bond distances were observed in both Mpro and IL-6 when compared to glucocorticoid receptor. Based on these findings, Dex-target complexes were used to perform MD simulations to analyze Dex stability at 50 ns. This study demonstrates that Dex could bind to both the viral and host receptors as a potential drug candidate for COVID-19. To ascertain the biological fitness of this study, other SARS-CoV-2 targets should be explored. Also, the in vitro studies of dexamethasone against several SARS-CoV-2 targets warrant further investigation.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Presence of Comorbidities Associated with Severe Coronavirus Infection in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Comorbidities increase the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization and mortality. As many comorbidities are common in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), we sought to investigate the effects of comorbidities in these patients on infection severity.

AIM

To evaluate association between individual comorbidities and COVID-19 infection severity among patients with IBD.

METHODS

Data were obtained from SECURE-IBD, an international registry created to evaluate COVID-19 outcomes in patients with IBD. We used multivariable regression to analyze associations between eleven non-IBD comorbidities and a composite primary outcome of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death. Comorbidities were first modeled individually, adjusting for potential confounders. Next, to determine the independent effect of comorbidities, we fit a model including all comorbidities as covariates.

RESULTS

We analyzed 2,035 patients from 58 countries (mean age 42.7 years, 50.6% male). A total of 538 patients (26.4%) experienced severe COVID-19. All comorbidities but a history of stroke and obesity were associated with severe infection in our initial analysis, with adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.9 to 3.7. In a model including all comorbidities significantly associated with the composite outcome in the initial analysis, as well as other confounders, most comorbidities remained significant, with the highest risk in chronic kidney disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSION

Many non-IBD comorbidities are associated with a two to threefold increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death among patients with IBD. These data can be used to risk-stratify and guide treatment and lifestyle decisions during the ongoing pandemic.

Estimating the COVID-19 infection fatality ratio accounting for seroreversion using statistical modelling

Background

The infection fatality ratio (IFR) is a key statistic for estimating the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been continuously debated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The age-specific IFR can be quantified using antibody surveys to estimate total infections, but requires consideration of delay-distributions from time from infection to seroconversion, time to death, and time to seroreversion (i.e. antibody waning) alongside serologic test sensitivity and specificity. Previous IFR estimates have not fully propagated uncertainty or accounted for these potential biases, particularly seroreversion.

Methods

We built a Bayesian statistical model that incorporates these factors and applied this model to simulated data and 10 serologic studies from different countries.

Results

We demonstrate that seroreversion becomes a crucial factor as time accrues but is less important during first-wave, short-term dynamics. We additionally show that disaggregating surveys by regions with higher versus lower disease burden can inform serologic test specificity estimates. The overall IFR in each setting was estimated at 0.49-2.53%.

Conclusion

We developed a robust statistical framework to account for full uncertainties in the parameters determining IFR. We provide code for others to apply these methods to further datasets and future epidemics.

Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with secondary antibody deficiency: successful clearance following combination casirivimab and imdevimab (REGN-COV2) monoclonal antibody therapy

Background

There is growing evidence that antibody responses play a role in the resolution of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with primary or secondary antibody deficiency are at increased risk of persistent infection. This challenging clinical scenario is associated with adverse patient outcome and potentially creates an ecological niche for the evolution of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants with immune evasion capacity. Case reports and/or series have implied a therapeutic role for convalescent plasma (CP) to secure virological clearance, although concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of CP and its potential to drive viral evolution, and it has largely been withdrawn from clinical use in the UK.

Case presentation

We report two cases in which persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection was cleared following administration of the monoclonal antibody combination casirivimab and imdevimab (REGN-COV2, Ronapreve). A 55-year-old male with follicular lymphoma, treated with B cell depleting therapy, developed SARS-CoV-2 infection in September 2020 which then persisted for over 200 days. He was hospitalised on four occasions with COVID-19 and suffered debilitating fatigue and malaise throughout. There was no clinical response to antiviral therapy with remdesivir or CP, and SARS-CoV-2 was consistently detected in nasopharyngeal swabs. Intrahost evolution of several spike variants of uncertain significance was identified by viral sequence analysis. Delivery of REGN-COV2, in combination with remdesivir, was associated with clinical improvement and viral clearance within 6 days, which was sustained for over 150 days despite immunotherapy for relapsed follicular lymphoma. The second case, a 68-year-old female with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia on ibrutinib, also developed persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite a lack of response to remdesivir, infection promptly cleared following REGN-COV2 in combination with remdesivir, accompanied by resolution of inflammation and full clinical recovery that has been maintained for over 290 days.

Conclusions

These cases highlight the potential benefit of REGN-COV2 as therapy for persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in antibody deficient individuals, including after failure of CP treatment. Formal clinical studies are warranted to assess the effectiveness of REGN-COV2 in antibody-deficient patients, especially in light of the emergence of variants of concern, such as Omicron, that appear to evade REGN-COV2 neutralisation.

Identification and Development of Therapeutics for COVID-19

After emerging in China in late 2019, the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread worldwide, and as of mid-2021, it remains a significant threat globally. Only a few coronaviruses are known to infect humans, and only two cause infections similar in severity to SARS-CoV-2: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, a species closely related to SARS-CoV-2 that emerged in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, which emerged in 2012. Unlike the current pandemic, previous epidemics were controlled rapidly through public health measures, but the body of research investigating severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome has proven valuable for identifying approaches to treating and preventing novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Building on this research, the medical and scientific communities have responded rapidly to the COVID-19 crisis and identified many candidate therapeutics. The approaches used to identify candidates fall into four main categories: adaptation of clinical approaches to diseases with related pathologies, adaptation based on virological properties, adaptation based on host response, and data-driven identification (ID) of candidates based on physical properties or on pharmacological compendia. To date, a small number of therapeutics have already been authorized by regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while most remain under investigation. The scale of the COVID-19 crisis offers a rare opportunity to collect data on the effects of candidate therapeutics. This information provides insight not only into the management of coronavirus diseases but also into the relative success of different approaches to identifying candidate therapeutics against an emerging disease. IMPORTANCE The COVID-19 pandemic is a rapidly evolving crisis. With the worldwide scientific community shifting focus onto the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19, a large number of possible pharmaceutical approaches for treatment and prevention have been proposed. What was known about each of these potential interventions evolved rapidly throughout 2020 and 2021. This fast-paced area of research provides important insight into how the ongoing pandemic can be managed and also demonstrates the power of interdisciplinary collaboration to rapidly understand a virus and match its characteristics with existing or novel pharmaceuticals. As illustrated by the continued threat of viral epidemics during the current millennium, a rapid and strategic response to emerging viral threats can save lives. In this review, we explore how different modes of identifying candidate therapeutics have borne out during COVID-19.

Targeting genomic SARS-CoV-2 RNA with siRNAs allows efficient inhibition of viral replication and spread

A promising approach to tackle the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) could be small interfering (si)RNAs. So far it is unclear, which viral replication steps can be efficiently inhibited with siRNAs. Here, we report that siRNAs can target genomic RNA (gRNA) of SARS-CoV-2 after cell entry, and thereby terminate replication before start of transcription and prevent virus-induced cell death. Coronaviruses replicate via negative sense RNA intermediates using a unique discontinuous transcription process. As a result, each viral RNA contains identical sequences at the 5′ and 3′ end. Surprisingly, siRNAs were not active against intermediate negative sense transcripts. Targeting common sequences shared by all viral transcripts allowed simultaneous suppression of gRNA and subgenomic (sg)RNAs by a single siRNA. The most effective suppression of viral replication and spread, however, was achieved by siRNAs that targeted open reading frame 1 (ORF1) which only exists in gRNA. In contrast, siRNAs that targeted the common regions of transcripts were outcompeted by the highly abundant sgRNAs leading to an impaired antiviral efficacy. Verifying the translational relevance of these findings, we show that a chemically modified siRNA that targets a highly conserved region of ORF1, inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication ex vivo in explants of the human lung. Our work encourages the development of siRNA-based therapies for COVID-19 and suggests that early therapy start, or prophylactic application, together with specifically targeting gRNA, might be key for high antiviral efficacy.

Remote Hospital Care for Recovering COVID-19 Patients Using Telemedicine: A Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

To ensure availability of hospital beds and improve COVID-19 patients' well-being during the ongoing pandemic, hospital care could be offered at home. Retrospective studies show promising results of deploying remote hospital care to reduce the number of days spent in the hospital, but the beneficial effect has yet to be established.

METHODS

We conducted a single centre, randomised trial from January to June 2021, including hospitalised COVID-19 patients who were in the recovery stage of the disease. Hospital care for the intervention group was transitioned to the patient's home, including oxygen therapy, medication and remote monitoring. The control group received in-hospital care as usual. The primary endpoint was the number of hospital-free days during the 30 days following randomisation. Secondary endpoints included health care consumption during the follow-up period and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were randomised (31 control, 31 intervention). The mean difference in hospital-free days was 1.7 (26.7 control vs. 28.4 intervention, 95% CI of difference -0.5 to 4.2, p = 0.112). In the intervention group, the index hospital length of stay was 1.6 days shorter (95% CI -2.4 to -0.8, p < 0.001), but the total duration of care under hospital responsibility was 4.1 days longer (95% CI 0.5 to 7.7, p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

Remote hospital care for recovering COVID-19 patients is feasible. However, we could not demonstrate an increase in hospital-free days in the 30 days following randomisation. Optimising the intervention, timing, and identification of patients who will benefit most from remote hospital care could improve the impact of this intervention.

ISARIC-4C Mortality Score overestimates risk of death due to COVID-19 in Australian ICU patients: a validation cohort study

Objective: To assess the performance of the UK International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (4C) Mortality Score for predicting mortality in Australian patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Design: Multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study. Setting: 78 Australian ICUs participating in the SPRINT-SARI (Short Period Incidence Study of Severe Acute Respiratory Infection) Australia study of COVID-19. Participants: Patients aged 16 years or older admitted to participating Australian ICUs with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 between 27 February and 10 October 2020. Main outcome measures: ISARIC-4C Mortality Score, calculated at the time of ICU admission. The primary outcome was observed versus predicted in-hospital mortality (by 4C Mortality and APACHE II). Results: 461 patients admitted to a participating ICU were included. 149 (32%) had complete data to calculate a 4C Mortality Score without imputation. Overall, 61/461 patients (13.2%) died, 16.9% lower than the comparable ISARIC-4C cohort in the United Kingdom. In patients with complete data, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) 4C Mortality Score was 10.0 (IQR, 8.0-13.0) and the observed mortality was 16.1% (24/149) versus 22.9% median predicted risk of death. The 4C Mortality Score discriminatory performance measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90), similar to its performance in the original ISARIC-4C UK cohort (0.77) and not superior to APACHE II (AUROC, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87). Conclusions: When calculated at the time of ICU admission, the 4C Mortality Score consistently overestimated the risk of death for Australian ICU patients with COVID-19. The 4C Mortality Score may need to be individually recalibrated for use outside the UK and in different hospital settings.

DrugWAS: Drug-wide Association Studies for COVID-19 Drug Repurposing

This study aimed to systematically investigate if any of the available drugs in the electronic health record (EHR) can be repurposed as potential treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Based on a retrospective cohort analysis of EHR data, drug-wide association studies (DrugWAS) were performed on 9,748 patients with COVID-19 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). For each drug study, multivariable logistic regression with overlap weighting using propensity score was applied to estimate the effect of drug exposure on COVID-19 disease outcomes. Patient exposure to a drug between 3-months prior to the pandemic and the COVID-19 diagnosis was chosen as the exposure of interest. All-cause of death was selected as the primary outcome. Hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, and need for mechanical ventilation were identified as secondary outcomes. Overall, 17 drugs were significantly associated with decreased COVID-19 severity. Previous exposure to two types of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, PCV13 (odds ratio (OR), 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12-0.81 and OR, 0.33, 95% CI, 0.15-0.73), diphtheria toxoid and tetanus toxoid vaccine (OR, 0.38, 95% CI, 0.15-0.93) were significantly associated with a decreased risk of death (primary outcome). Secondary analyses identified several other significant associations showing lower risk for COVID-19 outcomes: acellular pertussis vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), flaxseed extract, ethinyl estradiol, estradiol, turmeric extract, ubidecarenone, azelastine, pseudoephedrine, dextromethorphan, omega-3 fatty acids, fluticasone, and ibuprofen. In conclusion, this cohort study leveraged EHR data to identify a list of drugs that could be repurposed to improve COVID-19 outcomes. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of the proposed drugs.

Corticosteroids for treatment of COVID-19: effect, evidence, expectation and extent

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced the COVID-19 occurrence as a global pandemic in March 2020. The treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients is based on the experience gained from SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infection during 2003. There is no clinically accepted therapeutic drug(s) accessible yet for the treatment of COVID-19.

MAIN BODY

Corticosteroids, i.e., dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, hydrocortisone and prednisone are used alone or in combination for the treatment of moderate, severe and critically infected COVID-19 patients who are hospitalized and require supplemental oxygen as per current management strategies and guidelines for COVID-19 published by the National Institutes of Health. Corticosteroids are recorded in the WHO model list of essential medicines and are easily accessible worldwide at a cheaper cost in multiple formulations and various dosage forms. Corticosteroid can be used in all age group of patients, i.e., children, adult, elderly and during pregnancy or breastfeeding women. Corticosteroids have potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects in both primary and secondary immune cells, thereby reducing the generation of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines and lowering the activation of T cells, monocytes and macrophages. The corticosteroids should not be used in the treatment of non-severe COVID-19 patients because corticosteroids suppress the immune response and reduce the symptoms and associated side effects such as slow recovery, bacterial infections, hypokalemia, mucormycosis and finally increase the chances of death.

CONCLUSION

Intensive research on corticosteroid therapy in COVID-19 treatment is urgently needed to elucidate their mechanisms and importance in contributing toward successful prevention and treatment approaches. Hence, this review emphasizes on recent advancement on corticosteroid therapy for defining their importance in overcoming SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, their mechanism, efficacy and extent of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Background

It has been found that there is overactivation of immune response in patients with COVID-19. Several studies are going on to assess the role of immunomodulation. IL-6 antibodies such as tocilizumab have been found to have efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. We aim to assess the role of sarilumab in the treatment of COVID-19 through this review. Main Body. Functional outcomes were assessed on the basis of PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, mortality, and ventilation. Adverse events of studies were also noted. Five studies were included in the study. There was improvement in PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, reduction in the mortality of the patients, and less number of patients were on ventilation, but there were no significant differences among the comparison and sarilumab group. Sarilumab did not have notable adverse events and can be considered a safe drug.

Conclusion

Sarilumab is a safe drug with good clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and, hence, could be used as an alternative regimen for the treatment. Further prospective studies exploring the relations with baseline biomarkers of inflammation commonly measured such as C-reactive protein and IL-6 would be necessary for a correlation with the treatment.

Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect.

RESULTS

We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs.

REGISTRATION

CRD42020192095.

Emerging and Established Histological Techniques for the Analysis of Thrombosis in COVID-19 Lungs

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the potentially lethal disease that is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Patients with COVID-19 have an increased risk of thrombosis, but the role of thrombosis in the pathogenesis and progression of severe COVID-19 remains unclear. A better understanding of the contribution of thrombosis to the development and progression of COVID-19 could lead to the development of novel COVID-19 treatments. For this reason, established and emerging histological techniques have recently been used to analyze COVID-19 lungs quantitatively and visually and in two and three dimensions. The gold standard and novel state-of the-art histological techniques that have been used to assess thrombosis in COVID-19 lungs are described in this Mini Review.

Covid-19 and development of heart failure: mystery and truth

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is a novel worldwide pandemic caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). During Covid-19 pandemic, socioeconomic deprivation, social isolation, and reduced physical activities may induce heart failure (HF), destabilization, and cause more complications. HF appears as a potential hazard due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, chiefly in elderly patients with underlying comorbidities. In reality, the expression of cardiac ACE2 is implicated as a target point for SARS-CoV-2-induced acute cardiac injury. In SARS-CoV-2 infection, like other febrile illnesses, high blood viscosity, exaggerated pro-inflammatory response, multisystem inflammatory syndrome, and endothelial dysfunction-induced coagulation disorders may increase risk of HF development. Hypoxic respiratory failure, as in pulmonary edema, severe acute lung injury (ALI), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may affect heart hemodynamic stability due to the development of pulmonary hypertension. Indeed, Covid-19-induced HF could be through the development of cytokine storm, characterized by high proliferation pro-inflammatory cytokines. In cytokine storm-mediated cardiac dysfunction, there is a positive correlation between levels of pro-inflammatory cytokine and myocarditis-induced acute cardiac injury biomarkers. Therefore, Covid-19-induced HF is more complex and related from a molecular background in releasing pro-inflammatory cytokines to the neuro-metabolic derangements that together affect cardiomyocyte functions and development of HF. Anti-heart failure medications, mainly digoxin and carvedilol, have potent anti-SARS-CoV-2 and anti-inflammatory properties that may mitigate Covid-19 severity and development of HF. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to the development of HF due to direct acute cardiac injury or through the development of cytokine storms, which depress cardiomyocyte function and cardiac contractility. Anti-heart failure drugs, mainly digoxin and carvedilol, may attenuate severity of HF by reducing the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and prevent the development of cytokine storms in severely affected Covid-19 patients.

Dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy in covid-19 pneumonia: A retrospective and comparative study of 513 cases

Backgrounds

Corona virus disease 19 (Covid-19) affects especially the respiratory tract, and induces lung injury which may progress to the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Various treatment options were tried all over the world, corticosteroids had showed beneficial effects.The Objective of this study, is to compare the safety and efficiency of two corticosteroids: dexamethasone and prednisolone in the treatment of Covid-19 infection.

Methods

This retrospective and comparative study included 513 patients diagnosed with Covid-19 infection and were admitted to intensive care unit of our university hospital center of MOHAMMED VI Oujda from March 1, 2020, to December 31st^, 2020.

Results

In this study, 513 cases were included, 230 patients were received methylprednisolone, and 283 were treated with dexamethasone. The median age in methylprednisolone group was 64 years, and 63 years in the second group treated with dexamethasone. Patients treated with dexamethasone had more critically lesions compared to patients treated with methylprednisolone (67.6%), these patients had a good evolution with a significant reduction of oxygen supplementation, lower use of invasive ventilation and a significant improvement in biological parameters. The difference in outcome between the two groups in terms of mortality was significantly reduced in the second group.

Conclusion

Both steroids are efficient in the management of mild, moderate and severe Covid-19 pneumonia with a clear superiority of dexamethasone especially in severe forms.

Identification of Immune Activation Markers in the Early Onset of COVID-19 Infection

This study aimed to determine the specific cytokine profile in peripheral blood during the early onset of COVID-19 infection. This was a cross-sectional exploratory, single center study. A total of 55 plasma samples were studied. Serum samples of adults showing symptoms of COVID-19 infection who were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection (CoV+, n=18) at the COVID-19 outpatient clinic of the Medical University of Vienna were screened for immune activation markers by Luminex technology. Additionally, age and gender-matched serum samples of patients displaying COVID-19 associated symptoms, but tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (CoV-, n=16) as well as healthy controls (HC, n=21) were analyzed. COVID-19 positive (CoV+) patients showed a specific upregulation of BLC (141; 74-189 pg/mL), SCD30 (273; 207-576 pg/mL), MCP-2 (18; 12-30 pg/mL) and IP-10 (37; 23-96 pg/mL), compared to patients with COVID19-like symptoms but negative PCR test (CoV-), BLC (61; 22-100 pg/mL), sCD30L (161; 120-210 pg/mL), MCP-2 (8; 5-12 pg/mL) and IP-10 (9; 6-12 pg/mL) and healthy controls (HC) (BLC 22; 11-36 pg/mL, sCD30 74; 39-108 pg/mL, MCP-2 6; 3-9. pg/mL, IP-10 = 8; 5-13). The markers APRIL, sIL-2R, IL7, MIF, MIP-1b, SCF, SDF-1a, sTNF-RII were elevated in both CoV+ and CoV- patient groups compared to healthy controls. HGF, MDC and VEGF-A were elevated in CoV- but not CoV+ compared to healthy controls. BLC, sCD30, MCP-2 and IP-10 are specifically induced during early stages of COVID-19 infection and might constitute attractive targets for early diagnosis and treatment of this disease.

The efficacy of corticosteroids therapy in patients with moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

We performed a multicenter, randomized open-label trial in patients with moderate to severe Covid-19 treated with a range of possible treatment regimens.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimen groups at a ratio of 1:1:1. The primary outcome of this study was admission to the intensive care unit. Secondary outcomes were intubation, in-hospital mortality, time to clinical recovery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Between April 13 and August 9, 2020, a total of 336 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the 3 treatment regimens including group I (hydroxychloroquine stat, prednisolone, azithromycin and naproxen; 120 patients), group II (hydroxychloroquine stat, azithromycin and naproxen; 116 patients), and group III (hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir (116 patients). The mean LOS in patients receiving prednisolone was 5.5 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population and 4.4 days in the per-protocol (PP) population compared with 6.4 days (mITT population) and 5.8 days (PP population) in patients treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir.

RESULTS

The mean LOS was significantly lower in the mITT and PP populations who received prednisolone compared with populations treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir (p = 0.028; p = 0.0007). We observed no significant differences in the number of deaths, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation between the Modified ITT and per-protocol populations treated with prednisolone and Lopinavir/Ritonavir, although these outcomes were better in the arm treated with prednisolone. The time to clinical recovery was similar in the modified ITT and per-protocol populations treated with prednisolone, lopinavir/ritonavir, and azithromycin (P = 0.335; P = 0.055; p = 0.291; p = 0.098).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study show that therapeutic regimen (regimen I) with low dose prednisolone was superior to other regimens in shortening the length of hospital stay in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. The steroid sparing effect may be utilized to increase the effectiveness of corticosteroids in the management of diabetic patients by decreasing the dosage.

Pan-selectin inhibitors as potential therapeutics for COVID-19 treatment: in silico screening study

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly throughout the globe. The spectrum of disease is broad but among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, respiratory failure from acute respiratory distress syndrome is the leading cause of mortality. There is an urgent need for an effective treatment. The current focus has been developing novel therapeutics, including antivirals, protease inhibitors, vaccines and targeting the overactive cytokine response with anti-cytokine therapy. The overproduction of early response proinflammatory cytokines results in what has been described as a "cytokine storm" is leading eventually to death when the cells fail to terminate the inflammatory response. Accumulating evidence shows that inflammatory cytokines induce selectin ligands that play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases by mediating leukocyte migration from the blood into the tissue. Thus, the selectins and selectin ligands represent a promising therapeutic target for the treatment of COVID-19. In this paper, potential pan-selectin inhibitors were identified employing a virtual screening using a docking procedure. For this purpose, the Asinex and ZINC databases of ligands, including approved drugs, biogenic compounds and glycomimetics, altogether 923,602 compounds, were screened against the P-, L- and E-selectin. At first, the experimentally confirmed inhibitors were docked into all three selectins' carbohydrate recognition domains to assess the suitability of the screening procedure. Finally, based on the evaluation of ligands binding, we propose 10 purchasable pan-selectin inhibitors to develop COVID-19 therapeutics.

Meta-analysis of the association between angiotensin pathway inhibitors and COVID-19 severity and mortality

BACKGROUND

Conflicting findings and the analysis of unpublished and retracted data have led to controversy on the safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in people with COVID-19 infection. This meta-analysis examined the association of prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) with the outcome from COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted to find published studies that reported the outcome of COVID-19 in relation to prescription of ACEI or ARB. Two authors (MF and AD) independently screened and extracted data and assessed study quality and strength of association using standardised tools. The endpoints for the meta-analyses were severe or critical disease outcome and mortality based on standardised criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies including 8389 people prescribed ACEI or ARB and 20,989 people not prescribed these medications were included. The quality of studies varied, and the overall strength of association was poor with a high risk of confounding bias. Patients prescribed ACEI or ARB had a greater prevalence of risk factors. Meta-analysis found an association between prescription of ACEI or ARB with severe or critical disease outcome (risk ratio, RR, 1.23, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.06 to 1.42, p = 0.006, I2 = 88%) but this association was lost in sensitivity analyses. There was no association between ACEI or ARB prescription and mortality (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.50, p = 0.19, I2 = 82%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that people prescribed ACEI or ARB more commonly had severe or critical disease outcome, but not mortality, in published cohorts of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. This finding is most likely due to a greater prevalence of risk factors in these patients rather than due to exposure to angiotensin pathway inhibitors.

A practical guidance on the use of intravenous insulin infusion for management of inpatient hyperglycemia: Intravenous Insulin Infusion for Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia

BACKGROUND

We aim to provide a practical guidance on the use of intravenous insulin infusion for managing inpatient hyperglycemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This document was formulated based on the review of available literature and personal experience of authors. We have used various case scenarios to illustrate variables which should be taken into account when deciding adjustments in infusion rate, including but not restricted to ambient blood glucose level and magnitude of blood glucose change in the previous hour.

CONCLUSION

The guidance can be generalized to any situation where dedicated protocols are lacking, trained manpower is not available and resource constraints are present.

Comprehensive Consensus Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Drug Repurposing Campaigns

The current COVID-19 pandemic has elicited extensive repurposing efforts (both small and large scale) to rapidly identify COVID-19 treatments among approved drugs. Herein, we provide a literature review of large-scale SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drug repurposing efforts and highlight a marked lack of consistent potency reporting. This variability indicates the importance of standardizing best practices-including the use of relevant cell lines, viral isolates, and validated screening protocols. We further surveyed available biochemical and virtual screening studies against SARS-CoV-2 targets (Spike, ACE2, RdRp, PLpro, and Mpro) and discuss repurposing candidates exhibiting consistent activity across diverse, triaging assays and predictive models. Moreover, we examine repurposed drugs and their efficacy against COVID-19 and the outcomes of representative repurposed drugs in clinical trials. Finally, we propose a drug repurposing pipeline to encourage the implementation of standard methods to fast-track the discovery of candidates and to ensure reproducible results.