Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Distinct alterations in white matter properties and organization related to maternal treatment initiation in neonates exposed to HIV but uninfected

HIV exposed-uninfected (HEU) infants and children are at risk of developmental delays as compared to HIV uninfected unexposed (HUU) populations. The effects of exposure to in utero HIV and ART regimens on the HEU the developing brain are not well understood. In a cohort of 2-week-old newborns, we used diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) tractography and graph theory to examine the influence of HIV and ART exposure in utero on neonate white matter integrity and organisation. The cohort included HEU infants born to mothers who started ART before conception (HEUpre) and after conception (HEUpost), as well as HUU infants from the same community. We investigated HIV exposure and ART duration group differences in DTI metrics (fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD)) and graph measures across white matter. We found increased MD in white matter connections involving the thalamus and limbic system in the HEUpre group compared to HUU. We further identified reduced nodal efficiency in the basal ganglia. Within the HEUpost group, we observed reduced FA in cortical-subcortical and cerebellar connections as well as decreased transitivity in the hindbrain area compared to HUU. Overall, our analysis demonstrated distinct alterations in white matter integrity related to the timing of maternal ART initiation that influence regional brain network properties.

Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28).

CONCLUSION

Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted.

Is antiviral treatment at the acute phase of COVID-19 effective for decreasing the risk of long-COVID? A systematic review

PURPOSE

Preliminary evidence suggests a potential effect of antiviral medication used during the acute COVID-19 phase for preventing long-COVID. This review investigates if having received pharmacological treatment during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection may reduce the risk of long-COVID.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv/bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to July 15th, 2023. Articles comparing the presence of long-COVID symptoms between individuals who received or not a specific medication, particularly antivirals, during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane's Risk of Bias (Rob) tool.

RESULTS

From 517 studies identified, 6 peer-reviewed studies and one preprint met all inclusion criteria. The sample included 2683 (n = 4) hospitalized COVID-19 survivors and 307,409 (n = 3) non-hospitalized patients. The methodological quality was high in 71% of studies (n = 5/7). Two studies investigating the effects of Nirmaltrevir/Ritonavir and three studies the effect of Remdesivir reported conflicting results on effectiveness for preventing long-COVID. Three studies investigating the effects of other medication such as Dexamethasone (n = 2) or Metformin (n = 1) found positive results of these medications for preventing long-COVID.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence about the effect of medication treatment with antivirals during acute COVID-19 and reduced risk of developing long-COVID is conflicting. Heterogeneous evidence suggests that Remdesivir or Nirmaltrevir/Ritonavir could have a potential protective effect for long-COVID. A limited number of studies demonstrated a potential benefit of other medications such as Dexamethasone or Metformin, but more studies are needed.

[Сardiac arrhythmias in people who have had a coronavirus infection COVID-19: A review]

Heart rhythm disorders are one of the most common complications of coronavirus infection. Heart rhythm disorders can develop in 6-17% of hospitalized patients, and in convalescents, COVID-19 can manifest itself up to 12 months after the completion of the acute phase of the disease. Among the mechanisms for the development of cardiac arrhythmias, there are a direct cytopathic effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the myocardium, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, electrolyte imbalance, hypoxia, the use of antibacterial, antimalarial and antiviral drugs, exudative pericarditis, autonomic dysfunction. The main COVID-19-mediated heart rhythm disorders are sinus tachycardia and bradycardia, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, long QT syndrome. Despite a significant amount of research, the literature data on the prevalence of certain types of cardiac arrhythmias (especially in COVID-19 convalescents), as well as methods for their correction, are somewhat contradictory and need to be clarified. Taking into account the impact of arrhythmia on the quality of life and mortality, active monitoring of convalescents of coronavirus infection, identification and development of approaches to the treatment of heart rhythm disorders in patients who have had COVID-19, seem to be relevant and promising areas in modern cardiology.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Databases were searched for studies that compared the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of baricitinib with standard therapy for the treatment of severe COVID-19 and clearly reported relevant outcomes published until December 31, 2022. The corresponding data were extracted from these studies. A fixed-effects model was used to calculate the pooled estimates. The study protocol can be accessed at PROSPERO (CRD42023394173).

RESULTS

The baricitinib group had a significantly lower mortality rate and proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation than the control group (OR = 0.61, 0.57; P = .008, 0.02; 95% CI 0.42-0.88; 0.35-0.92; I2 = 71% and 86%, respectively). The length of hospital stay and rates of severe adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Baricitinib reduces mortality and mechanical ventilation requirements in patients with severe COVID-19. Therefore, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the role of baricitinib in patients with severe COVID-19.

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

Introduction

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

COVID-19 outcome is not affected by anti-CD20 or high-titer convalescent plasma in immunosuppressed patients

The role of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in immunosuppressed individuals remains controversial. We describe the course of COVID-19 in patients who had received anti-CD20 therapy within the 3 years prior to infection. We compared outcomes between those treated with and those not treated with high titer SARS-CoV2 convalescent plasma. We identified 144 adults treated at Mayo clinic sites who had received anti-CD20 therapies within a median of 5.9 months prior to the COVID-19 index date. About one-third (34.7%) were hospitalized within 14 days and nearly half (47.9%) within 90 days. COVID-19 directed therapy included anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (n = 30, 20.8%), and, among those hospitalized within 14 days (n = 50), remdesivir (n = 45, 90.0%), glucocorticoids (n = 36, 72.0%) and convalescent plasma (n = 24, 48.0%). The duration from receipt of last dose of anti-CD20 therapy did not correlate with outcomes. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 14.7%. Administration of convalescent plasma within 14 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis was not significantly associated with any study outcome. Further study of COVID-19 in CD20-depleted individuals is needed focusing on the early administration of new and potentially combination antiviral agents, associated or not with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma.

Effects of novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) on presentation, management, and outcomes of acute cholecystitis at an academic tertiary care center cholecystitis management during COVID-19

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated adjustments to nearly all aspects of healthcare, including surgical care. The effects of these adjustments have not been well studied on acute surgical problems conventionally managed non-electively in large, tertiary care centers.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of admitted patients with acute cholecystitis at a US academic tertiary care center was performed. We compared the presentation, management, and 30-day outcomes of patients admitted during a 2-month time period during early COVID, to a pre-COVID control group of admitted cholecystitis patients over a 2-month span.

Results

The study cohort captured 24 patients, while the control cohort encompassed 53 patients. A non-significant trend toward non-operative management in the COVID cohort is reported. There was no delay in time-to-surgery or complication rate. No surgically managed patient developed COVID within 30 days of operation.

Conclusions

Operative management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic, with pre-operative testing and personal protective equipment guidelines, remained safe and effective.

A meta analysis on the utility of Anakinra in severe COVID-19 disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The most important presentation of COVID-19 is hyper inflammatory condition and cytokine storm that occurs due to excessive increase of the inflammatory mediators specially, pro-inflammatory interleukins such as IL-1β, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α which have an important role in the cytokine storm pathway. Up till now there is not a definitive treatment for COVID-19 disease, but according to the pathophysiology of the disease, Anakinra (Interleukin- 1 inhibitor) is an adjuvant treatment option in patients with severe COVID-19 by blocking the effect of IL-1. So, we aimed to summarize the studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of Anakinra in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) databases from inception till 7 Jan 2022. Additionally, we searched randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, cohort, case series, case control, case report more than 3 patients which contain confirmed cases of COVID-19 who received Anakinra (Interleukin- 1 inhibitor) for the management of hyper-inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 disease. A meta-analysis was conducted using review manager 5.4.

RESULTS

We included 44 articles in the systematic review. Ultimately, 23 studies were incorporated in the meta-analysis with a total number of 3179 patients. Our analysis showed statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: duration of ICU stays [MD = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.09, -0.03), p = 0.04], the number of patients who needed invasive mechanical ventilation [RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.39, 0.84), p = 0.004], and number of deaths [RR = 0.80, 95% CI (0.66, 0.99), p = 0.04]. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: length of hospital stays [MD = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42, 0.11), p = 0.26], oxygen-free days [MD = -0.81, 95% CI (-3.81, 2.20), p = 0.60], and the number of patients who needed non-invasive mechanical ventilation [RR = 1.09, 95% CI (0.47, 2.52), p = 0.84].

CONCLUSION

Anakinra showed some promising results in important outcomes related to COVID-19 as it significantly reduced the rate of mortality and the need of invasive mechanical ventilation. It should be used in severe cases more than mild and moderate cases to avoid possible immunosuppression complications. Anakinra use is safe in cases of COVID-19 at dose less than 100 mg. Another important outcome was significant reduction is the D-dimer level. Anakinra may be effective in the treatment of specific immunocompromised cases, but it should be used cautiously.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of early studies on ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been repurposed for COVID-19 treatment during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Although its antiviral efficacy was confirmed early in vitro and in preclinical studies, its clinical efficacy remained ambiguous. Our purpose was to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in terms of time to viral clearance based on the meta-analysis of available clinical trials at the closing date of the data search period, one year after the start of the pandemic. This meta-analysis was reported by following the PRISMA guidelines and by using the PICO format for formulating the question. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), bioRvix, and medRvix were searched for human studies of patients receiving ivermectin therapy with control groups. No language or publication status restrictions were applied. The search ended on 1/31/2021 exactly one year after WHO declared the public health emergency on novel coronavirus. The meta-analysis of three trials involving 382 patients revealed that the mean time to viral clearance was 5.74 days shorter in case of ivermectin treatment compared to the control groups [WMD = -5.74, 95% CI (-11.1, -0.39), p = 0.036]. Ivermectin has significantly reduced the time to viral clearance in mild to moderate COVID-19 diseases compared to control groups. However, more eligible studies are needed for analysis to increase the quality of evidence of ivermectin use in COVID-19.

A systematic review on efficacy, safety and treatment durability of intravenous immunoglobulin in autoimmune bullous dermatoses: Special focus on indication and combination therapy

Autoimmune bullous diseases (AIBDs) are a group of rare blistering dermatoses of the mucous membrane and/or skin. The efficacy, safety and treatment durability of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) as an alternative treatment should be explored to systematically review the available literature regarding treatment outcomes with IVIg in AIBD patients. The predefined search strategy was incorporated into the following database, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science on 18 July 2022. Sixty studies were enrolled using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The use of IVIg alone or combined with rituximab was reported in 500 patients with pemphigus, 82 patients with bullous pemphigoid, 146 patients with mucous membranes pemphigoid and 19 patients with epidermolysis bullosa acquisita. Disease remission with IVIg therapy and RTX + IVIg combination therapy were recorded as 82.8% and 86.7% in pemphigus, 88.0% and 100% in bullous pemphigoid and 91.3% and 75.0% in mucous membrane pemphigoid, respectively. In epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, treatment with IVIg led to 78.6% disease remission; no data were available regarding the treatment with RTX + IVIg in this group of patients. Among all the included patients, 37.5% experienced at least one IVIg-related side effect; the most common ones were headaches, fever/chills and nausea/vomiting. The use of IVIg with or without rituximab had a favourable clinical response in patients with AIBDs. IVIg has no major influence on the normal immune system, which makes its utilization for patients with AIBDs reasonable.

COVID-19 Mass Vaccination Campaign: An International Comparison of Qatar With GCC Nations and Other Global Groups

Objectives: Mass vaccination has been a key component in the effort to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Different countries have formulated their mass vaccination campaigns in different ways and with different priorities, with varying results. This study focuses on the case of Qatar in comparison with regional neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Community (GCC) and with global benchmarks (G7 and OECD nations) in terms of the deployment of its mass vaccination program.

Methods: Data on national vaccine administration and policy were obtained from Our World in Data and the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for the period of 25 November 2020, when public vaccination first began to be implemented within the GCC, and June 2021, when Qatar’s mass vaccination campaign concluded. Factors compared cross-nationally included the total number of vaccine doses administered, doses administered per 100 population, the time taken to reach certain vaccination thresholds (5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 doses per 100 population), and policy regarding administration to specific priority groups. Cumulative vaccination rates were also compared graphically by date.

Results: A descriptive comparison of vaccination rates illustrated that there were similar aggregate patterns among the GCC, G7, and OECD groups of countries, and that there was a great deal of heterogeneity in the patterns of vaccination between countries within each of these groups. The mass vaccination program in Qatar outpaced the aggregate GCC, G7, and OECD groups.

Conclusion: There were large between-country differences in the speed of mass vaccination progress which did not appear to be directly explained by national wealth. It is suggested that administrative and program management factors could account for some of these differences.

Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-infective drugs for patients with mild to severe COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Different anti-infective drugs have been proposed for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We carried out a network meta-analysis to assess their relative efficacy and safety.

Methods

We searched relevant databases for all randomized controlled trials that reported the efficacy and or safety of any anti-infective drugs published up to April 30, 2022 for different outcomes. We did both pairwise and network meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals using a fixed-effect model. We assessed studies for quality of evidence using an extension of the standard Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach considering P<0.05 to be statistically significant.

Results

We included 68 RCTs for 27,680 participants on 22 anti-infective drugs. For clinical recovery at 14 days Ivermectin (OR= 3.00, 95%CI: [1.82; 4.96]; p < 0.0001; moderate certainty evidence), Baricitinib plus Remdesivir (OR= 2.20, 95%CI: [1.35; 3.53]; p = 0.005; low certainty evidence), and Favipiravir (OR= 2.16, 95%CI: [1.27; 3.68]; p = 0.004; moderate certainty evidence) were statistically effective than standard of care. There was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the viral clearance at 14 days outcome and standard of care. In terms of death outcome, only combined therapy of Baricitinib and Remdesivir showed statistically significant risks of ratio (RR= 0.47, 95%CI: [0.23; 0.99]; p = 0.03). Arbidol (RR= 0.46, 95% CI: [0.23; 0.95]; p = 0.04) was statistically safe drug than standard of care.

Conclusion

This Network Meta-analysis suggests that Baricitinib plus Remdesivir is more effective than the other anti-infective drugs in treating patients with COVID-19 in terms of clinical recovery at 14 days, mortality and adverse events outcomes.

Association Between Serum Lipids and Survival in Patients With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Meta-analysis and Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To explore the association between lipids, polygenic profile scores (PPS) for biomarkers of lipid metabolism, markers of disease severity, and survival in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

METHODS

We meta-analyzed the current literature on the prognostic value of lipids in patients with ALS. Subsequently, we evaluated the relationship between lipid levels at diagnosis, clinical disease stage, and survival in all consecutive patients diagnosed in the Netherlands. We determined the hazard ratio (HR) of each lipid for overall survival, defined as death from any cause. A subset of patients was matched to a previous genome-wide association study; data were used to calculate PPS for biomarkers of lipid metabolism and to determine the association between observed lipid levels at diagnosis and survival.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of 4 studies indicated that none of the biomarkers of the lipid metabolism were statistically significantly associated with overall survival; there was, however, considerable heterogeneity between study results. Using individual patient data (N = 1,324), we found that increased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol was associated with poorer survival (HR of 1.33 (95% CI 1.14-1.55, p < 0.001)). The correlation between BMI and HDL cholesterol (Pearson r -0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.20) was negative and between BMI and triglycerides (TG) positive (Pearson r 0.18, 95% CI 0.12-0.24). Serum concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were lower in more advanced clinical stages (both p < 0.001). PPS for biomarkers of lipid metabolism explained 1.2%-13.1% of their variance at diagnosis. None of the PPS was significantly associated with survival (all p > 0.50).

DISCUSSION

Lipids may contain valuable information about disease severity and prognosis, but their main value may be driven as a consequence of disease progression. Our results underscore that gaining further insight into lipid metabolism and longitudinal data on serum concentrations of the lipid profile could improve the monitoring of patients and potentially further disentangle ALS pathogenesis.

Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At the end of 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expanded its approval for the recombinant human interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with elevated soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). However, the role of Anakinra in COVID-19 remains unanswered, especially in patients receiving different forms of respiratory support. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the safety and effects of Anakinra compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCSR)) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database to identify completed and ongoing studies from inception of each database to December 13, 2021. Since then, we monitored new published studies weekly up to June 30, 2022 using the CCSR. We included RCTs comparing treatment with Anakinra to placebo or standard care alone in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 1,627 patients (n_Anakinra = 888, n_control = 739, mean age 59.63 years, 64% male). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. We found that Anakinra makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 compared to placebo or standard care alone (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64-1.45; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 84 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 1593 participants; I² = 49%; low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Anakinra has no effect on adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding mortality, clinical improvement and worsening as well as on safety outcomes compared to placebo or standard care alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021257552.

Plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 is not a major causative factor for exacerbation in a mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains a global pandemic. Although several vaccines targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins protect against COVID-19 infection, mutations affecting virus transmissibility and immune evasion potential have reduced their efficacy, leading to the need for a more efficient strategy. Available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19 suggests that endothelial dysfunction with thrombosis is a central pathogenesis of progression to systemic disease, in which overexpression of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) may be important. Here we developed a novel peptide vaccine against PAI-1 and evaluated its effect on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced sepsis and SARS-CoV-2 infection in mice. Administration of LPS and mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 increased serum PAI-1 levels, although the latter showed smaller levels. In an LPS-induced sepsis model, mice immunized with PAI-1 vaccine showed reduced organ damage and microvascular thrombosis and improved survival compared with vehicle-treated mice. In plasma clot lysis assays, vaccination-induced serum IgG antibodies were fibrinolytic. However, in a SARS-CoV-2 infection model, survival and symptom severity (i.e., body weight reduction) did not differ between vaccine- and vehicle-treated groups. These results indicate that although PAI-1 may promote the severity of sepsis by increasing thrombus formation, it might not be a major contributor to COVID-19 exacerbation.

Impact of Bacterial Infections on COVID-19 Patients: Is Timing Important?

BACKGROUND

Along with important factors that worsen the clinical outcome of COVID-19, it has been described that bacterial infections among patients positive for a SARS-CoV-2 infection can play a dramatic role in the disease process. Co-infections or community-acquired infections are recognized within the first 48 h after the admission of patients. Superinfections occur at least 48 h after admission and are considered to contribute to a worse prognosis. Microbiologic parameters differentiate infections that happen after the fifth day of hospitalization from those appearing earlier. Specifically, after the fifth day, the detection of resistant bacteria increases and difficult microorganisms emerge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of bacterial infections in patients with COVID-19 on the length of the hospital stay and mortality.

METHODS

A total of 177 patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 pneumonia were consecutively sampled during the third and fourth wave of the pandemic at a University Hospital in Greece. A confirmed bacterial infection was defined as positive blood, urinary, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or any other infected body fluid. Patients with confirmed infections were further divided into subgroups according to the time from admission to the positive culture result.

RESULTS

When comparing the groups of patients, those with a confirmed infection had increased odds of death (odds ratio: 3.634; CI 95%: 1.795-7.358; p < 0.001) and a longer length of hospital stay (median 13 vs. 7 days). A late onset of infection was the most common finding in our cohort and was an independent risk factor for in-hospital death. Mortality and the length of hospital stay significantly differed between the subgroups.

CONCLUSION

In this case series, microbial infections were an independent risk factor for a worse outcome among patients with COVID-19. Further, a correlation between the onset of infection and a negative outcome in terms of non-infected, community-acquired, early hospital-acquired and late hospital-acquired infections was identified. Late hospital-acquired infections increased the mortality of COVID-19 patients whilst superinfections were responsible for an extended length of hospital stay.

A comparison of panitumumab and cetuximab in the treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Cetuximab and panitumumab are common antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) that can be used in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although these two drugs are considered to be very similar, differences in the efficacy and safety of cetuximab and panitumumab are still unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to explore the effects and adverse reactions of cetuximab and panitumumab in the treatment of mCRC.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang databases to identify records related to the efficacy and safety of cetuximab and panitumumab in the treatment of mCRC. The search terms were "cetuximab," "panitumumab," and "colorectal cancer." The deadline of searching was April 2022. Review manager 5.4 software was used to perform the statistical analysis for this meta-analysis. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate the overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) of cetuximab and panitumumab in the treatment of mCRC.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in OS, PFS, and response rate (RR) between cetuximab arm and panitumumab arm (OS: HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.81-1.03, p = .14; PFS: HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.83-1.02, p = .11; RR: OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.96-1.61, p = .14). We also did not observe any statistical difference between both arms in incidence of acneiform rash, severe acneiform rash, diarrhea, and severe diarrhea (acneiform rash: OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.84-1.42, p = .51; severe acneiform rash: OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.80-2.81, p = .21; diarrhea: OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.82-1.42, p = .58; severe diarrhea: OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.44-1.84, p = .77). The incidence of paronychia was decreased in the panitumumab arm, but that of hypomagnesemia and severe hypomagnesemia were decreased in the cetuximab arm. (paronychia: OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.55-1.00, p = .05; hypomagnesemia: OR = 1.85, 95% CI =1.41-2.41, p < .00001; severe hypomagnesemia: OR = 2.66, 95% CI = 1.52-4.67, p = .0006).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in OS, PFS and RR between the cetuximab arm and panitumumab arm in the treatment of mCRC. For adverse reactions, the incidence of paronychia was decreased in the panitumumab arm, and the incidence of hypomagnesemia was deceased in the cetuximab arm.

Case Fatality in Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Finland: A Nationwide Register-Based Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although single-center studies have reported declining case fatality rates (CFRs) of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), nationwide reports that also include sudden-death SAHs with long uninterrupted study periods have remained limited. Moreover, little is known about whether the time-dependent trends of SAH CFR differ by age and/or sex. Thus, we aimed to characterize the nationwide changes of SAH CFRs in Finland between 1998 and 2017.

METHODS

We used 2 externally validated nationwide registers to identify all hospitalized and nonhospitalized (sudden-death) aneurysmal SAH events in Finland during 1998-2017. In addition to overall 30-day CFRs, we determined annual proportions of sudden-death and 30-day CFRs among hospitalized patients with SAH. To estimate time-dependent trends, we calculated annual age-adjusted and sex-adjusted CFR changes (percent with 95% CIs).

RESULTS

Between 1998 and 2017, we identified 9,443 cases with SAH (57.6% women), of which 2,245 (23.8%) died before hospitalization and 3,715 (39.3%) died within 30 days after SAH. Among the 7,198 hospitalized patients with SAH, the 30-day CFR was 20.4%. During the study period, the overall age-adjusted and sex-adjusted CFR declined by an average of 1.8% (1.1%-2.6%) per year. The decreases were especially notable in the proportion of sudden deaths among middle-aged (aged 40-64 years) and older (aged 65 years or older) women (2.9% [1.1%-4.7%] and 2.3% [0.7%-4.0%] per year, respectively) and in the CFRs of hospitalized young (younger than 40 years) and middle-aged women (9.1% [2.3%-15.7%] and 4.3% [2.3%-6.5%] per year, respectively). On the contrary, the 30-day CFR of older (aged 65 years or older) hospitalized men increased by 3.5% (0.7%-6.3%) per year, while the proportions of older men who died before hospitalization remained unchanged.

DISCUSSION

The overall CFR of SAH seems to be decreasing, at least among women. The continued high CFR of hospitalized older men requires attention from clinicians and epidemiologists, especially if this trend is also common in other countries.

Pain in COVID-19: Quis est culpa?

<b>Background</b>: At present, during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, chronic pain is becoming more prominent, and it is also associated with the post-COVID-19 syndrome. Thanks to quick decisions on the therapy and as part of COVID-19 prevention, we have succeeded in stabilising the situation all over the world. On the other hand, ‘quick decisions’ have contributed to other significant issues which we are beginning to deal with now: in the effort to defeat the virus, many experts regarded the adverse effects of the medications used to be of secondary importance.<br /> <b>Purpose:</b> The article aims to demonstrate the side effects of treatment with various drugs (and their combinations) that are used to treat COVID-19 disease.<br /> <b>Method: </b>From the beginning of January until mid-May, the COVID-19 department of the 2nd Surgical Clinic of the Faculty of Medicine of the Comenius University in Bratislava (University Hospital Bratislava, Hospital of Saints Cyril and Methodius) treated 221 patients with moderate and severe course of COVID-19 (2nd wave of the pandemic). We saw some adverse effects and lack of effect of certain drugs for COVID-19.<br /> <b>Results: </b>The benefits of preventive measures compared to treatment are enormous. For example, corticoids can impair metabolism, cause diabetes, or suppress immunity. Antibiotics may cause colitis and blood pressure medications may negatively impact blood circulation.<br /> <b>Conclusion: </b>Preventive measures such as vaccination and activation of intrinsic antiviral immune systems are based on an incomparable benefit. Important in the process of the activation of antiviral immunity (linked to interferon synthesis) in the prevention of COVID-19 is the improvement of vitamin D deficit and the use of other micronutrients.<br /> <b>Practical value:</b> The results of the study will be valuable in the field of medicine, for virologists, pharmacologists, pharmacists, and medical professionals.

Remdesivir inhibits the progression of glioblastoma by enhancing endoplasmic reticulum stress

Glioblastoma (GBM) is one of the most aggressive primary malignant brain tumors. The major challenge is the lack of effective therapeutic drugs due to the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and tumor heterogeneity. Remdesivir (RDV), a new member of the nucleotide analog family, has previously been shown to have excellent antiviral effects and BBB penetration, and was predicted here to have anti-GBM effects. In vitro experiments, RDV significantly inhibited the growth of GBM cells, with IC₅₀ values markedly lower than those of normal cell lines or the same cell lines treated with temozolomide. Moreover, in multiple mouse models, RDV not only distinctly inhibited the progression and improved the prognosis of GBM but also exhibited a promising biosafety profile, as manifested by the lack of significant body weight loss, liver or kidney dysfunction or organ structural damage after administration. Furthermore, we investigated the anti-GBM mechanism by RNA-seq and identified that RDV might induce apoptosis of GBM cells by enhancing endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and activating the PERK-mediated unfolded protein response. In conclusion, our results indicated that RDV might serve as a novel agent for GBM treatment by increasing ER stress and inducing apoptosis in GBM cells.

Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon (Type I and Type III) therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Interferon (IFN) has been highlighted in several randomized controlled trials as an attractive therapeutic candidate based plausible mode of action, suppressed response in severe COVID-19, and inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of IFN in patients with COVID-19 according to clinical severity. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of IFN (systemic or inhaled IFN-α, -β, and -λ) treatment in adult patients with COVID-19 were identified by systematically searching electronic databases until January 2023. Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, meta-analysis, and certainty of evidence grading were followed for the systematic review. We included 11 trials comprising 6,124 patients. Compared with exclusive standard care or placebo, IFN therapy did not provide significant clinical benefits for mortality at day 28 (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.18, 9 studies, low-certainty evidence) and progression to mechanical ventilation (pooled RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81-1.43, 6 studies, low-certainty evidence) in patients with COVID-19. IFN therapy resulted in significantly increased hospital discharge on day 14 relative to the control arm (pooled RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04-1.59). These results were inconsistent compared to other comparable outcomes such as recovery at day 14 and time to clinical improvement. The IFN-treated arm was as safe as the control arm, regardless of clinical severity (pooled RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.64-1.19, 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). In conclusion, IFN therapy was safe but did not demonstrate favorable outcomes for major clinical indices in patients with COVID-19, particularly those with higher than moderate severity. IFN therapy was not associated with worsening outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Future clinical trials should evaluate the clinical efficacy of IFN therapy in patients with mild COVID-19 or at an earlier stage. Trial registration: The protocol for this review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42022301413.

Associations and mitigations: an analysis of the changing risk factor landscape for chronic kidney disease in primary care using national general practice level data

OBJECTIVES

Early recognition of chronic kidney disease (CKD) should be achieved by every modern healthcare system. The objective of this study was to investigate CKD risk factor trends in England using general practice level data.

DESIGN

Observational analysis of data at practice level for all general practices in England. Practice characteristics identified as potential CKD risk factors included comorbidities and local demography. Data were analysed using both univariate and multivariate analysis to identify significant factors that were associated with CKD diagnosis for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020.

SETTING

Publicly available data from UK primary care sources including Primary Care Quality and Outcomes Framework database, practice-level prescribing data from the British National Formulary and Public Health England health outcome data.

PARTICIPANTS

All data submitted from 6471 medium to large practices in England were included (over 46 million patients).

RISK FACTOR ANALYSIS

Potential risk factors were grouped into four classes based on existing literature: demographic factors, comorbidities, service and practice outcome factors, and prescribing data effects.

RESULTS

The original model's prediction of CKD improved from r² 0.38 to an r² of 0.66 when updated factors were included. Positive associations included known risk factors with higher relative risk such as hypertension and diabetes, along with less recognised factors such as depression and use of opiates. Negative associations included NSAIDs which are traditionally associated with increased CKD risk, and prescribing of antibiotics, along with more northerly locations.

CONCLUSIONS

CKD is a preventable disease with high costs and consequences. These data and novel analysis give clearer relative risk values for different patient characteristics with some unexpected findings such as potential harmful association between CKD and opiates, and a more benign association with NSAIDs. A deeper understanding of CKD risk factors is important to update and implement local and national management strategies. Further research is required to establish the causal nature of these associations and to refine location appropriate actions to minimise harm from CKD on regional and local levels.

T-cell cellular stress and reticulocyte signatures, but not loss of naïve T lymphocytes, characterize severe COVID-19 in older adults

In children and younger adults up to 39 years of age, SARS-CoV-2 usually elicits mild symptoms that resemble the common cold. Disease severity increases with age starting at 30 and reaches astounding mortality rates that are ~330 fold higher in persons above 85 years of age compared to those 18-39 years old. To understand age-specific immune pathobiology of COVID-19 we have analyzed soluble mediators, cellular phenotypes, and transcriptome from over 80 COVID-19 patients of varying ages and disease severity, carefully controlling for age as a variable. We found that reticulocyte numbers and peripheral blood transcriptional signatures robustly correlated with disease severity. By contrast, decreased numbers and proportion of naïve T-cells, reported previously as a COVID-19 severity risk factor, were found to be general features of aging and not of COVID-19 severity, as they readily occurred in older participants experiencing only mild or no disease at all. Single-cell transcriptional signatures across age and severity groups showed that severe but not moderate/mild COVID-19 causes cell stress response in different T-cell populations, and some of that stress was unique to old severe participants, suggesting that in severe disease of older adults, these defenders of the organism may be disabled from performing immune protection. These findings shed new light on interactions between age and disease severity in COVID-19.

Ivermectin compared with placebo in the clinical course in Mexican patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the development and application of vaccines against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) around the world, the scientific community is still trying to find some therapies to avoid or ameliorate the fatal evolution of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since the publication of the potential use of ivermectin as a treatment against the disease, a pleiad of information about it has been published. However, the evidence is not strong or weak enough to conclude its usefulness in the clinical evolution of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. We evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivermectin in the treatment of Mexican patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 in a three-day administration in comparison to placebo.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in 66 adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 ratio to ivermectin plus acetaminophen or placebo plus acetaminophen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects without a disease progression to severity according to COVID-19 guidelines by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since randomization to 14 days.

RESULTS

None of the participants presented progression to a severe state in either group. Viral load was measured on Days 1, 5, and 14. No significant differences were observed in baseline or 14-day between groups (p = 0.720 and 0.362, respectively). However, on Day 5, a significant difference in viral load was observed between groups (p = 0.039). The frequency of symptoms was similar between groups, and no significant differences were observed. The most frequent symptom was cough. One severe adverse event associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in the ivermectin group.

CONCLUSIONS

At standard doses, ivermectin is not effective to prevent progression to a severe state or reducing symptoms in adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19. Trial registration The study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04407507) on May 29, 2020.

Mediterranean diet and the risk of COVID-19 in the 'Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra' cohort

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A potential protection against COVID-19 by a high-quality dietary pattern is to be expected given the biological plausibility supporting the beneficial effects of an adequate dietary intake on the immune system. However, knowledge on the relationship between long-term maintained healthy dietary patterns, such as the Mediterranean diet, and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still sparse. We longitudinally assessed this association in a well-known Mediterranean cohort.

METHODS

We assessed 9,677 participants from the SUN Project, a prospective cohort of middle-aged university graduates in Spain. We inquired about a positive result in a COVID-19 diagnostic test during the months of February to December 2020. After excluding health professionals (HP), 5,194 participants were included in the statistical analyses (mean age: 52.6, SD: 12.4; 55.2% women). Food habits were assessed at baseline using a previously validated semiquantitative 136-item food frequency questionnaire. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (cumulative average of 2 repeated measurements 10 years apart) was assessed using the 0-to-9 Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS). We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for incident COVID-19 according to the MDS.

RESULTS

Among 5,194 non-HP participants, 122 reported to have received a positive COVID-19 diagnostic test. Participants with intermediate adherence to the Mediterranean diet (3 < MDS ≤ 6) had a significantly lower odds of developing COVID-19 (multivariable-adjusted OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34-0.73), and those with the highest adherence (MDS > 6) exhibited the lowest risk (multivariable-adjusted OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.16-0.84, p for trend < 0.001) as compared with participants with MDS ≤ 3. This inverse association remained robust within subgroups and in sensitivity analyses. Notwithstanding, no significant associations were observed for health professionals (p for interaction = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, better adherence to the Mediterranean diet may be associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. Our results are applicable only to persons who are not health professionals.

COVID-19 Case Management Outcomes Amongst Diabetes and Hypertensive Patients in the United Arab Emirates: A Prospective Study

The global pandemic of the novel Coronavirus infection 2019 (COVID-19) challenged the care of comorbid patients. The risk imposed by COVID-19 on diabetes patients is multisystemic, exponential, and involves glucose dysregulation. The increased burden for diabetes patients infected with COVID-19 is substantial in countries with a high prevalence of diabetics, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This study aims to explore the prevalence of diabetes, clinical characteristic, and outcomes of patients admitted for COVID-19 treatment with or without a concurrent preadmission diagnosis of diabetes. A prospective study was performed on 1199 adults admitted with confirmed COVID-19 from December 2020 to April 2021 to a single hospital in the UAE. The study compared the demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in COVID-19-infected patients with diabetes to patients without diabetes. The study endpoints include the development of new-onset diabetes, admission to ICU, trends in the blood glucose levels, and death. A total of 1199 patients (390 with diabetes) were included in the study. A diabetes prevalence was detected among 9.8% of the study population. Among the diabetes group, 10.8% were morbidly obese, 65.4% had associated hypertension, and 18.9% had coronary artery disease. Diabetes patients showed higher rates of ICU admission (11.1% vs. 7.1%), NIV requirement (9.6% vs. 6.4%), and intubation (5.45% vs. 2%) compared to the non-diabetes group. Advanced age was a predictor of a worsening COVID-19 course, while diabetes (p < 0.050) and hypertension (p < 0.025) were significant predictors of death from COVID-19. Nearly three-fourths (284 (73.4%)) of the diabetic patients developed worsened hyperglycemia as compared to one-fifth (171 (20.9%)) of the nondiabetic patients. New-onset diabetes was detected in 9.8% of COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 severity is higher in the presence of diabetes and is associated with worsening hyperglycemia and poor clinical outcomes. Preexisting hypertension is a predictor of COVID-19 severity and death.

Exploratory analysis of interleukin-38 in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCTION

A major contributor to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression and severity is a dysregulated innate and adaptive immune response. Interleukin-38 (IL-38) is an IL-1 family member with broad anti-inflammatory properties, but thus far little is known about its role in viral infections. Recent studies have shown inconsistent results, as one study finding an increase in circulating IL-38 in COVID-19 patients in comparison to healthy controls, whereas two other studies report no differences in IL-38 concentrations.

METHODS

Here, we present an exploratory, retrospective cohort study of circulating IL-38 concentrations in hospitalized COVID-19 patients admitted to two Dutch hospitals (discovery n = 148 and validation n = 184) and age- and sex-matched healthy subjects. Plasma IL-38 concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, disease-related proteins by proximity extension assay, and clinical data were retrieved from hospital records.

RESULTS

IL-38 concentrations were stable during hospitalization and similar to those of healthy control subjects. IL-38 was not associated with rates of intensive care unit admission or mortality. Only in men in the discovery cohort, IL-38 concentrations were positively correlated with hospitalization duration. A positive correlation between IL-38 and the inflammatory biomarker d-dimer was observed in men of the validation cohort. In women of the validation cohort, IL-38 concentrations correlated negatively with thrombocyte numbers. Furthermore, plasma IL-38 concentrations in the validation cohort correlated positively with TNF, TNFRSF9, IL-10Ra, neurotrophil 3, polymeric immunoglobulin receptor, CHL1, CD244, superoxide dismutase 2, and fatty acid binding protein 2, and negatively with SERPINA12 and cartilage oligomeric matrix protein.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that IL-38 is not associated with disease outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, moderate correlations between IL-38 concentrations and biomarkers of disease were identified in one of two cohorts. While we demonstrate that IL-38 concentrations are not indicative of COVID-19 severity, its anti-inflammatory effects may reduce COVID-19 severity and should be experimentally investigated.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for severe COVID-19 patients: An updated network meta-analysis of 48 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To date, there has been little agreement on what drug is the "best" drug for treating severe COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 28, 2022, with no language restrictions, of medications recommended for patients (aged 16 years or older) with severe COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on trials and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (ACM), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

We identified 4021 abstracts and of these included 48 RCTs comprising 9147 participants through database searches and other sources. For decrease in ACM, we found that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG (i.e., a hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenous immunoglobulin), methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/standard-of-care (SOC), interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, high dosage sarilumab (HS), auxora, and imatinib were effective when compared with placebo or SOC group. We found that colchicine and interferon-beta/SOC were only associated with the TEAEs of severe COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG, methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/SOC, interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma (CP), remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, HS, auxora, and imatinib were efficacious for treating severe COVID-19 patients. We found that most medications were safe in treating severe COVID-19. More large-scale RCTs are still needed to confirm the results of this study.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib and tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A comparison using systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: This review was performed to compare the efficacy and safety among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib and those who received tocilizumab independently with placebo or the standard of care (SOC). Methods: Relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials which evaluated the effect of baricitinib or tocilizumab as compared to placebo or the SOC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the 28-day mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were compared and pooled for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. A two-staged exploratory network meta-analysis using a multivariate meta-analysis was also performed. All analyses were performed in Stata version 16.0. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the generated evidence (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022323363). Results: Treatment with baricitinib [RR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.94), p = 0.02, i2 = 64.86%] but not with tocilizumab [RR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.07), p = 0.19, i2 = 24.41%] led to a significant improvement in the 28-day mortality as compared to that with the SOC. Treatment with baricitinib or tocilizumab, both independently led to a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization [baricitinib: mean difference, -1.13 days (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.76), p < 0.001, i2 = 0.00%; tocilizumab: mean difference, -2.80 days (95% CI, -4.17 to -1.43), p < 0.001, i2 = 55.47%] and a significant improvement in the proportion of patients recovering clinically by day 28 [baricitinib: RR, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03-1.48), p = 0.02, i2 = 27.20%; tocilizumab: RR, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.78), p < 0.001, i2 = 34.59%] as compared to those with the SOC. From the safety point of view, both these drugs showed similar results. There were fewer patients who experienced any serious adverse event following treatment with barictinib and tocilizumab as compared to those following treatment with the SOC [baricitinib: RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.92), p = 0.01, i2 = 12.63%; tocilizumab: RR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-1.01), p = 0.07, i2 = 0.00%]. Conclusion: As baricitinib and tocilizumab are recommended interchangeably by various guidelines for the management of COVID-19, considering the better 28-day mortality data and other comparable efficacy and safety outcomes, baricitinib may be favored over tocilizumab considering its ease of administration, shorter half-life, and lower cost of treatment.

Les misérables: a Parallel Between Antimicrobial Resistance and COVID-19 in Underdeveloped and Developing Countries

Purpose of Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has been responsible for more than 6.3 million deaths worldwide. During the pandemic, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics has increased, contributing to the spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria. In this review, we aim to determine the spread and impact of antibiotic treatments in patients with COVID-19, focusing on underdeveloped and developing countries.

Recent Findings

Meta-analysis revealed that bacterial co-infections and secondary infections are relatively rare in COVID-19 patients, corresponding to less than 20% of hospitalized patients. Even so, most of these patients have received antibiotic treatments.

Summary

This review discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic could increase the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains to currently available antibiotics. Initially, we discussed the spread and impact of multidrug resistance of ESKAPE pathogens associated with nosocomial infections and analyzed their risk of secondary infections in patients with COVID-19. Then we highlight three factors related to the spread of resistant bacteria during the current pandemic: overprescription of antibiotics followed by self-medication. Finally, we discussed the lack of availability of diagnostic tests to discriminate the etiologic agent of a disease. All these factors lead to inappropriate use of antibiotics and, therefore, to an increase in the prevalence of resistance, which can have devastating consequences shortly. The data compiled in this study underscore the importance of epidemiological surveillance of hospital isolates to provide new strategies for preventing and controlling infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. In addition, the bibliographic research also highlights the need for an improvement in antibiotic prescribing in the health system.

Potential limitations in systematic review studies assessing the effect of the main intervention for treatment/therapy of COVID-19 patients: An overview

Background

Although several studies have assessed the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of interventions in treating the COVID-19, many of them have limitations that can have an immense impact on their results. This study aims to assess the potential limitations in systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the effect of interventions on the treatment of the COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences (WOS) databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2022. All systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness, efficacy, safety, and outcome of the main intervention (Favipiravir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, or Tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and reported the potential limitations of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) for review articles. We conducted a content analysis and prepared a narrative summary of the limitations.

Results

Forty-six studies were included in this review. Ninety one percent of the included studies scored as strong quality and the remaining (9%) as moderate quality. Only 29.7% of the included systematic reviews have a registered protocol. 26% of the included studies mentioned a funding statement. The main limitations of the included studies were categorized in 10 domains: sample size, heterogeneity, follow-up, treatment, including studies, design, definitions, synthesis, quality, and search.

Conclusion

Various limitations have been reported in all the included studies. Indeed, the existence of limitations in studies can affect their results, therefore, identifying these limitations can help researchers design better studies. As a result, stronger studies with more reliable results will be reported and disseminated. Further research on COVID-19 SRs is essential to improve research quality and also, efficiency among scientists across the world.

Tinnitus emerging in the context of a COVID-19 infection seems not to differ in its characteristics from tinnitus unrelated to COVID-19

Background and aim

COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, for which the first cases were reported in China, by December 2019. The spectrum of clinical presentations is wide, ranging from asymptomatic cases to a severe acute respiratory syndrome, sometimes with multiple systems involvement. Viral infections, including those related to respiratory virus, may cause hearing loss and, by extent, considering its pathophysiology, tinnitus. A systematic review on inner ear related symptoms in patients with COVID-19 reported 4.5% occurrence rate of tinnitus, with high variance of prevalence between the studies. Our aim is to further explore the relationship between COVID-19 and tinnitus. For this purpose we analyzed a sample of people who had suffered from a COVID-19 infection in the city of Volta Redonda, Brazil. In detail, we compared those with new onset tinnitus during or after the COVID-19 infection with those without tinnitus and those with tinnitus onset before the COVID-19 infection.

Methods

Fifty-seven patients over 18 years old and previously diagnosed with COVID-19 confirmed by a RT-PCR test were included. Patients were subdivided in three groups: no tinnitus (NT), tinnitus that already existed before COVID-19 (chronic tinnitus, CT) and tinnitus that arose during or after COVID-19 (post-COVID-19 tinnitus, PCT). Data concerning COVID-19 symptoms, drugs prescribed for COVID-19, tinnitus characteristics, comorbidities and other otological symptoms were collected. For all the patients, tonal audiometry and otoacoustic emissions were performed. Tinnitus patients fulfilled the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and visual-analog scales (VAS) for loudness and distress. Patients with CT answered a simple question about the worsening of their tinnitus after COVID-19.

Results

PCT was reported by 19.3% of the patients, while 22.8% reported CT. No statistical difference was found between CT and PCT concerning hearing function, tinnitus characteristics and tinnitus distress. There was also no statistically significant difference between PCT and NT with respect to COVID-19 symptoms and pharmacological COVID-19 treatment. Patients with CT reported worsening of their tinnitus after COVID-19.

Conclusion

As with other viral infections, inner ear symptoms may be associated with COVID-19. In our sample patients with tinnitus onset before COVID-19 and those with tinnitus onset during or after COVID-19 did not differ significantly in their clinical characteristics and their hearing function, suggesting that tinnitus occurring in the context of a COVID-19 infection is not related to a unique pathophysiological mechanism. The comparison of COVID-19 patients, who developed tinnitus with those who did not develop tinnitus did not reveal any differences in COVID-19 symptoms or COVID-19 treatment. Thus, there was no hint, that a specific expression of COVID-19 is closely related to post COVID-19 tinnitus onset. Although some drugs used to treat tinnitus are known to damage the inner ear cells (especially hydroxychloroquine), we did not see any relationship between the intake of these drugs and tinnitus onset, eventually due to the short prescription time and low doses. Among those patients who had tinnitus before COVID-19 30,8% reported worsening after COVID-19. Overall, tinnitus emerging in the context of a COVID-19 infection seems not to differ from tinnitus unrelated to COVID-19. For further exploring the relationship of tinnitus and COVID-19, large population based studies are warranted.

Efficiency of maxillary total arch distalization using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) for treatment of Class II-malocclusions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the treatment effects and post-treatment stability of the maxillary total arch distalization using TADs during the non-extraction treatment of class II malocclusions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study involved an electronic search followed by hand searching for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies about maxillary total arch distalization using TADs. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis was performed for dental, skeletal and soft tissue changes using the Generic-inverse variance approach by use of the mean difference and random-effect model.

RESULTS

In total, 1788 articles were identified, 88 full texts were screened and 22 studies were found eligible; 17 of them were included in the quantitative analysis. The means of distalization/distal tipping of the maxillary first molar were 4mm/3.17° in adults, 3.95mm/1.61° in adolescents after treatment with the Modified C-Palatal plate (MCPP), while they were 2.44mm/2.91° with the inter-radicular mini-screws. Both MCPP's treatment in adults and inter-radicular mini-screws resulted in significant intrusion of U6 (1.64 and 0.75mm, respectively), while insignificant extrusion of U6 was resulted in adolescents treated by MCPP. MCPP appliances resulted in palatal inclination/extrusion of maxillary incisors U1 (6.77°/2mm in adults, 7.46°/3.14mm in adolescents). In contrast, inter-radicular mini-screws resulted in less palatal less amount of palatal inclination/insignificant intrusion of U1 (2.42°/0.14mm). MCPP treatment also resulted in significant changes in the skeletal measurements (SNA, ANB, occlusal and mandibular planes). Insignificant differences were found between subgroups in the retraction amount of maxillary incisors, as well as the upper and lower lips. In the follow-up of adolescents treated with MCPP, a significant amount of mesial movement, mesial tipping, and extrusion (2.94mm, 2.84°, and 3.94mm, respectively) was found. However, skeletal and occlusal corrections of the Class II relationship were maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillary total arch distalization using TADs can be an effective and stable treatment procedure. However, RCTs or prospective cohort studies are highly recommended to establish a clinical evidence regarding their efficiency.

Efficacy of tocilizumab in the treatment of COVID-19: An umbrella review

Tocilizumab is an interleukin (IL)‐6 receptor inhibitor that has been proposed as a therapeutic agent for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The aim of this umbrella review was to determine the efficacy of tocilizumab in treating COVID‐19, and to provide an overview of all systematic reviews on this topic. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science collection, the Cochrane library, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar, as well as the medRxiv preprint server. These databases were searched up to 30 September 2021, using the following keywords: ‘SARS‐CoV‐2’, ‘COVID‐19’, ‘tocilizumab’, ‘RHPM‐1’, ‘systematic review’, and ‘meta‐analysis’. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews (with or without meta‐analysis) investigating the efficacy or safety of tocilizumab in confirmed COVID‐19 patients. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to assess quality of the included articles, while publication bias was examined using Egger's test. A total of 50 eligible systematic reviews were included. The pooled estimates showed significant reductions in clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61–0.93), deaths (RR 0.78; 95%CI, 0.71–0.85) and the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.77; 95%CI, 0.64–0.92) for those receiving tocilizumab compared with the control group. Also, an emerging survival benefit was demonstrated for those who received tocilizumab, over those in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.52; 95%CI, 0.43–0.63). In addition, tocilizumab substantially increased the number of ventilator‐free days, compared with the control treatments (weighted mean difference (WMD) 3.38; 95%CI, 0.51–6.25). Furthermore, lymphocyte count (WMD 0.26 × 10⁹/L; 95%CI, 0.14–0.37), IL‐6 (WMD 176.99 pg/mL; 95%CI, 76.34–277.64) and D‐dimer (WMD 741.08 ng/mL; 95%CI, 109.42–1372.75) were all significantly elevated in those receiving tocilizumab. However, the level of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (WMD −30.88 U/L; 95%CI, −51.52, −10.24) and C‐reactive protein (CRP) (WMD ‐104.83 mg/L; 95%CI, −133.21, −76.46) were both significantly lower after treatment with tocilizumab. Tocilizumab treatment reduced the risk of intubation, mortality and the length of hospital stay, without increasing the risk of superimposed infections in COVID‐19 patients. Therefore, tocilizumab can be considered an effective therapeutic agent for treating patients with COVID‐19.

The Synergistic Inhibition of Coronavirus Replication and Induced Cytokine Production by Ciclesonide and the Tylophorine-Based Compound Dbq33b

Ciclesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid used to treat asthma and has been repurposed as a treatment for mildly ill COVID-19 patients, but its precise mechanism of action is unclear. Herein, we report that ciclesonide blocks the coronavirus-induced production of the cytokines IL-6, IL-8, and MCP-1 by increasing IκBα protein levels and significantly decreasing p65 nuclear translocation. Furthermore, we found that the combination of ciclesonide and dbq33b, a potent tylophorine-based coronavirus inhibitor that affects coronavirus-induced NF-κB activation a little, additively and synergistically decreased coronavirus-induced IL-6, IL-8, and MCP-1 cytokine levels, and synergistically inhibited the replication of both HCoV-OC43 and SARS-CoV-2. Collectively, the combination of ciclesonide and dbq33b merits consideration as a treatment for COVID-19 patients who may otherwise be overwhelmed by high viral loads and an NF-κB-mediated cytokine storm.

Immunomodulatory therapy for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies.

AIM

To describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of hyperinflammation and abnormal immune responses to disease progression together with a complete narrative review of the different immunoadjuvant treatments used so far in COVID-19 and their indication in severe and life-threatening subsets.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was developed. Authors reviewed the selected manuscripts following the PRISMA recommendations for systematic review and meta-analysis documents and selected the most appropriate. Finally, a recommendation of the use of each treatment was established based on the level of evidence of the articles and documents reviewed. This recommendation was made based on the consensus of all the authors.

RESULTS

A brief rationale on the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune response, and inflammation was developed. The usefulness of 10 different families of treatments related to inflammation and immunopathogenesis of COVID-19 was reviewed and discussed. Finally, based on the level of scientific evidence, a recommendation was established for each of them.

CONCLUSION

Although several promising therapies exist, only the use of corticosteroids and tocilizumab (or sarilumab in absence of this) have demonstrated evidence enough to recommend its use in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Endotypes including both, clinical and biological characteristics can constitute specific targets for better select certain therapies based on an individualized approach to treatment.

The efficacy and safety of combined chinese herbal medicine and western medicine therapy for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) with and without Western medicine (WM) for different severity of COVID-19.

METHODS

CNKI, PubMed, Wanfang Database, ClinicalTrails.gov, Embase, ChiCTR and ICTRP were searched from 01 Jan, 2020 to 30 Jun, 2021. Two authors independently assessed all the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for trial inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). Evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes included total effectiveness rate. Secondary outcomes included improvements in symptom improvement and total adverse event rate. Different severity of COVID-19 patients was assessed in subgroup analysis. This study was registered with INPLASY, INPLASY202210072.

RESULTS

22 high quality RCTs involving 1789 participants were included. There were no trial used CHM alone nor compare placebo or no treatment. Compared with WM, combined CHM and WM (CHM-WM) treatment showed higher total effectiveness rate, lower symptom scores of fever, cough, fatigue, dry throat and pharyngalgia, shorter mean time to viral conversion, better Computerized Tomography (CT) image and blood results, fewer total adverse events and worse conditions (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the total effectiveness rate of combined CHM-WM group was significantly higher than WM group, especially for mild and moderate patients. No significant differences in mortality and adverse events were found between combined CHM-WM and WM treatment. No serious adverse events and long-term outcomes were reported.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supported the therapeutic effects and safety of combined CHM-WM treatment on COVID-19, especially for patients with mild and moderate symptoms. Long-term effects of therapy are worthy in further study.

Death and invasive mechanical ventilation risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and/or antiviral agents: A systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol

Background

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has claimed >4 million lives globally, and these deaths often occurred in hospitalized patients with comorbidities. Therefore, the proposed review aims to distinguish the inpatient mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation risk in COVID-19 patients treated with the anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and/or the antiviral agents.

Methods

A search in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus will ensue for the publications on randomized controlled trials testing the above, irrespective of the publication date or geographic boundary. Risk of bias assessment of the studies included in the review will occur using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Frequentist method network meta-analyses (NMA) will compare each outcome’s risk across both types of anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents in one model and each in separate models. Additional NMA models will compare these in COVID-19 patients who were severely or critically ill, immunocompromised, admitted to the intensive care unit, diagnosed by nucleic acid amplification test, not treated with steroids, <18 years old, and at risk of infection due to variants of concern. The plan of excluding non-hospitalized patients from the proposed review is to minimize intransitivity risk. The acceptance of the network consistency assumption will transpire if the local and overall inconsistency assessment indicates no inconsistency. For each NMA model, the effect sizes (risk ratio) and their 95% confidence intervals will get reported in league tables. The best intervention prediction and quality of evidence grading will happen using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-based Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach, respectively. Sensitivity analysis will repeat the preliminary NMA while excluding the trials at high risk of bias. The Stata statistical software (v16) will be used for analysis. The statistical significance will get determined at p<0.05 and 95% confidence interval.

Trial registration

PROSPERO Registration No: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021277663.

Changes in the Profile of Antibiotic Prescriptions by Dentists in Brazil during the Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, people worldwide, including the scientific community, were insecure and fearful. The lack of vaccines at the beginning of the pandemic and the high mortality rate led to a search for alternative treatments for COVID-19. Among these proposals, a postulated activity of azithromycin was frequently studied in early treatment. In view of this, many countries saw an increase in the consumption of this antibiotic. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate, in Brazil, whether there was an increase in azithromycin prescriptions made by dentists, as they may have been prescribing this antibiotic as a probable treatment for COVID-19. This is an interrupted time series that analyzed antimicrobial prescriptions data between January 2014 and July 2021. The data were taken from the National System of Controlled Products Management, and pre- and postpandemic periods were compared. To assess changes in azithromycin consumption, Joinpoint regression and analysis of variance, followed by Dunnett’s test, were used. More than 38 million prescriptions written during the period were analyzed. Amoxicillin (72.3%), azithromycin (18.0%), cephalexin (6.1%), and metronidazole (3.58%) were the most prescribed antibiotics. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a drop in amoxicillin prescriptions motivated by a decrease in consultations, but conversely, in less than three months, azithromycin prescriptions grew by more than 100%. The exaggerated use of this antibiotic during the pandemic will certainly have consequences in the short and medium term on indicators of bacterial resistance. The use of guidelines and respect for the therapeutic protocols of government agencies should be fundamental for collective and strategic action in the fight against health emergencies.

Timing of convalescent plasma administration and 28-day mortality in COVID-19 pneumonia

This is a multicenter cohort study including consecutive, hospitalized patients ≥18 years, with moderate to severe COVID-19, carried out to evaluate the relationship between the timing of convalescent plasma administration and 28-day mortality. Data were prospectively collected between May 14, 2020 and October 31, 2020. Patients were grouped according to the timing of administration of convalescent plasma as <3 days, between 3 and 7 days, and >7 days. The main outcome variable was 28-day mortality. Independent predictors of mortality were identified by logistic regression. Of 4719 patients receiving convalescent plasma, 3036 (64.3%) were in the general ward, 1171 (24.8%) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and 512 (10.8%) in the ICU on mechanical ventilation. Convalescent plasma was administered to 3113 (66%) patients within the first 3 days of hospital admission, to 1380 (29.2%) between 3 and 7 days, and to 226 after 7 days; 28-day mortality was, respectively, 18.1%, 30.4% and 38.9% (p<0.001). In the regression model, convalescent plasma administration within the first 3 days of admission was associated with reduced 28-day mortality, compared with the administration after 7 days (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53). Early convalescent plasma administration was associated to a significant decreased mortality in patients in the general ward (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.69) and in the ICU (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64), but not in those requiring mechanical ventilation (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.01). In conclusion, this study suggests that early administration of convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19 pneumonia is critical to obtain therapeutic benefit.

Prescription for COVID-19 by non-medical professionals during the pandemic in Colombia: a cross-sectional study

Background:

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the behavior of self-medication (SM). Given the massive release of misleading information during the pandemic, some pharmacies recommend drugs such as ivermectin, azithromycin, and hydroxychloroquine that are not useful for preventing or treating COVID-19 and could expose patients to unnecessary adverse drug reactions (ADRs), drug-drug interactions (DDIs), disease masking, and antibiotic resistance.

Rationale:

SM with drugs advertised for COVID-19 can have consequences, and people should be aware of approved uses, potential contraindications, and ADRs. Thus, the aim of this study was to know the drug therapies including natural products and homeopathic drugs offered by Colombian pharmaceutical establishments for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as well as the information provided on the safe use of the product.

Methods:

An observational, cross-sectional mystery shopping study was carried out to determine the pharmaceutical alternatives for the management of COVID-19 offered by pharmaceutical establishments (drugstores, pharmacies, homeopathic pharmacies, and nutritional supplements stores) in Colombia, and information related to the safe use of the product. The study included 482 pharmaceutical establishments from 16 Colombian departments. Data collection was done through telephone calls to each of the establishments following an interview protocol pretending to be a patient who presents symptoms related to COVID-19.

Results:

About 57.3% (276) of the establishments recommended a product for the treatment of COVID-19 infection, 66.6% (321) asked whether the caller had COVID-19 symptoms and what they are, and 44.2% (213) suggested taking a COVID-19 test. Of 59 drugs suggested by pharmacies, the most recommended were azithromycin, ivermectin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and ASA (aspirin). From the establishments that recommended a product, dosage was indicated in 85.5% (236) of the pharmaceutical establishments and 14.5% (40) of the establishments reported the most common adverse effects of this substance. About 9.4% (26) of the establishments reported possible interactions of the recommended drugs and substances with food, beverages, or supplements.Conclusion: Pharmaceutical establishments in Colombia seem to have significantly contributed to self-medication for COVID-19 in Colombia during the pandemic. This behavior is inappropriate, since the mild forms of the disease do not have a specific treatment.

Plain Language Summary

Self-medication induced by pharmaceutical establishments in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the behavior of self-medication (SM). Given the massive release of misleading information during the pandemic, some pharmacies recommend drugs such as ivermectin, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine among others, which are not useful for preventing or treating COVID-19 and could expose patients to unnecessary side effects and interactions with other medications. People should be aware of the approved and non-approved uses, and potential side effects of these drugs. Rationale: The aim of this study was to know the drugs, including natural products and homeopathic drugs, offered by Colombian pharmaceutical establishments for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as well as the information provided on the safe use of the product. Methods: The study was done using the mystery shopping method, collecting data through telephone calls to each of the establishments by a trained individual pretending to be a patient with COVID-19 symptoms. The study included 482 pharmaceutical establishments from 16 Colombian departments. Results: Of 59 drugs suggested by pharmacies, the most recommended were azithromycin, ivermectin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and aspirin. The recommended dose was indicated in 85.5% (236) of the pharmaceutical establishments, and 14.5% (40) of them reported the most common adverse effects of the recommended product. About 9.4% (26) of the establishments reported possible interactions of the recommended drugs and substances with food, beverages, or supplements. Conclusion: The majority of the pharmaceutical establishments included in the study promoted inadequate self-medication for COVID-19 in Colombia during the pandemic.

Bacterial and Fungal Co-Infections and Superinfections in a Cohort of COVID-19 Patients: Real-Life Data from an Italian Third Level Hospital

The use of immune suppressive drugs combined with the natural immune suppression caused by SARS-CoV-2 can lead to a surge of secondary bacterial and fungal infections. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of superinfections in hospitalized subjects with COVID-19. We carried out an observational retrospective single center cohort study. We enrolled patients admitted at the “Garibaldi” hospital for ≥72 h, with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. All patients were routinely investigated for bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens. A total of 589 adults with COVID-19 were included. A total of 88 infections were documented in different sites among 74 patients (12.6%). As for the etiology, 84 isolates were bacterial (95.5%), while only 4 were fungal (4.5%). A total of 51 episodes of hospital-acquired infections (HAI) were found in 43 patients, with a bacterial etiology in 47 cases (92.2%). Community-acquired infections (CAIs) are more frequently caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, while HAIs are mostly associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A high rate of CAIs and HAIs due to the use of high-dose corticosteroids and long hospital stays can be suspected. COVID-19 patients should be routinely evaluated for infection and colonization. More data about antimicrobial resistance and its correlation with antibiotic misuse in COVID-19 patients are required.

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Antimicrobials in COVID-19: strategies for treating a COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a serious global challenge, with the world engulfed in fighting second, third and fourth waves of the disease, which is reaching scary proportions in terms of cases and mortality in countries like India. Despite the urgent need of proven management protocols, there is still confusion about the best practices for treating COVID-19 with different pharmaceutical interventions. Antimicrobials are empirically used in COVID-19 patients. During the initial phase of this pandemic, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin and doxycycline were widely suggested for possible prophylaxis or treatment for COVID-19 in outpatient as well as hospitalized settings. Various national and international guidelines recommended its use. However, cumulative evidence from subsequent clinical trials has revealed no significant clinical benefits in any setting, with the risk of adverse effects being high particularly in combination with azithromycin. Yet, there is continued use of antimicrobials particularly in outpatient settings which should be avoided because there is no justifiable rationale for doing so. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) was one of the top problems for global public health before the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began. AMR, which is already a difficult problem, must now be handled in the context of a changing healthcare sector.

Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the behavior of self-medication has increased. The dissemination of misleading information regarding the efficacy of certain drugs or substances for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been the major contributing factor for this phenomenon. Alongside with the increase in self-medication behavior, the inherent risks to this act such as drug-drug interactions, adverse events, drug toxicity, and masking of symptoms have also increased. Self-medication in the context of COVID-19 has led to drug misuse leading in some cases to the development of fatal adverse drug reactions. It is important that during this ongoing pandemic drugs with potential clinical efficacy against COVID-19 are adequately analyzed regarding their efficacy, safety, and monitoring. The aim of this review is to describe the available evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and monitoring of the drugs and substances that have been shown to be frequently used for self-medication in patients with COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ivermectin, azithromycin, vitamins, aspirin, and chlorine dioxide) to adequately characterize their risks, safe use, monitoring strategies, and to reinforce the concept that these substances should not be used for self-medication and require a medical prescription.

Plain Language Summary

Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19 Dissemination of information about potential COVID-19 treatments has led individuals to self-medicate and expose themselves to risks such as drug-drug interactions, side effects, antibiotic resistance, and misdiagnosis. There is a need to review the medical literature to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the drugs and substances commonly used by the population for the treatment and prevention of SARS CoV-2 infection. In this review, we included drugs that are frequently used for self-medication and commonly advertised such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide, azithromycin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others. A brief introduction of the drug and its mechanism of action, followed by a summary of the efficacy in COVID-19 and safety, will be described for each drug in order to promote their responsible use.