A multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hydroxychloroquine and a retrospective study in adult patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Even one dose of tocilizumab could hinder bad prognosis of cytokines storm in COVID-19 patients

Severe COVID-19 pneumonia is a principal cause of death due to cascade of hyper inflammatory condition that leading to lung damage. Therefore, an effective therapy to countercurrent the surge of uncontrolled inflammation is mandatory to propose. Anti-interlukin-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal therapy, tocilizumab (TCZ) showed potential results in COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to emphasize the factors associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients that treated with tocilizumab and may influence the level of serum IL-6. A retrospective cohort study included all patients with clinical parameters that pointed to presence of cytokines storm and treated with one or more doses of TCZ beside the regular protocol of COVID-19 pneumonia. The factors that influence the mortality in addition to the level of serum IL-6 were analyzed. A total of 377 patients were included, 69.5 % of them received only one dose of TCZ which started mainly at the third day of admission. The mortality rate was 29.44 %. Regardless the time of starting TCZ, just one dose was fair enough to prevent bad consequence; OR = 0.04, P = 0.001.However, in spite of protective action of TCZ, older age and female sex were significant risk factors for mortality, P = 0.001 and 0.01 respectively, as well heart disease. Moreover, increasing the level of neutrophil, AST and IL-6 were associated with bad prognosis. In the same line, treatment with ivermectin, chloroquine and remdesivir inversely affect the level of IL-6. Early treatments of COVID-19 pneumonia with at least one dose of tocilizumab minimized the fatality rate.

Evaluation of Global Post-Outbreak COVID-19 Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic with millions of cases and deaths. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to establish effective therapies. However, the methodological quality of these trials is paramount, as it directly impacts the reliability of results. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to assess the methodological approach, execution diversity, global trends, and distribution of COVID-19 treatment RCTs post-outbreak, covering the period from the second wave and onward up to the present.

Methods

We utilize articles from three electronic databases published from September 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant RCTs. Data extraction involved the collection of various study details. Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool assessed methodological quality, while implementation variability was evaluated against registration information. Bibliometric analysis, including keyword co-occurrence and country distribution, used VOSviewer and Tableau software.

Results

Initially, 501 studies were identified, but only 22 met the inclusion criteria, of which 19 had registration information. The methodological quality assessment revealed deficiencies in five main domains: randomization process (36%), deviations from intended interventions (9%), missing outcome data (4%), measurement of the outcome (18%), and selection of reported results (4%). An analysis of alignment between research protocols and registration data revealed common deviations in eight critical aspects. Bibliometric findings showcased global collaboration in COVID-19 treatment RCTs, with Iran and Brazil prominently contributing, while keyword co-occurrence analysis illuminated prominent research trends and terms in study titles and abstracts.

Conclusion

This study offers valuable insights into the evaluation of COVID-19 treatment RCTs. The scarcity of high-quality RCTs highlights the importance of enhancing trial rigor and transparency in global health emergencies.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

An overview on the treatments and prevention against COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to plague the world. While COVID-19 is asymptomatic in most individuals, it can cause symptoms like pneumonia, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), and death in others. Although humans are currently being vaccinated with several COVID-19 candidate vaccines in many countries, however, the world still is relying on hygiene measures, social distancing, and approved drugs.

RESULT

There are many potential therapeutic agents to pharmacologically fight COVID-19: antiviral molecules, recombinant soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, corticosteroids, interferon therapies, and herbal agents. By an understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 structure and its infection mechanisms, several vaccine candidates are under development and some are currently in various phases of clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

This review describes potential therapeutic agents, including antiviral agents, biologic agents, anti-inflammatory agents, and herbal agents in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. In addition to reviewing the vaccine candidates that entered phases 4, 3, and 2/3 clinical trials, this review also discusses the various platforms that are used to develop the vaccine COVID-19.

Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine in Pre-exposure Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Prophylaxis among High-Risk HealthCare Workers: A Multicenter Study

Background

Prophylaxis could be an established strategy to potentially prevent and control infectious diseases and should be considered in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis treatment strategy in the reduction of the risk of COVID-19 among health professionals.

Materials and Methods

The health professionals were randomly assigned (1:1) to the control group without receiving any hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis and the hydroxychloroquine group receiving a weekly hydroxychloroquine dose of 400 mg up to 12 weeks.

Results

A total of 146 health professionals were randomly enrolled in this study between August 11 and November 11 in 2020. Among the screened health professionals, 21 (14.6%) were infected with COVID-19 during the 12 weeks, and 14 (66.6%) out of the 21 health professionals were in the control group. Most participants with COVID-19 had mild symptoms (62%). In addition, 9.5% (n = 2) of the participants suffered from moderate disease and 28.5% were diagnosed with severe symptoms. In the hydroxychloroquine group, 5 (7.1%) and 2 (2.8%) participants were reported with mild and moderate symptoms of COVID-19, respectively, and 2 participants had moderate, 8 (10.9%) participants had mild symptoms, and 6 (8.2%) participants had severe symptoms in the control group, within 3 months. Severe symptoms of COVID-19 were not observed in the hydroxychloroquine group.

Conclusion

This study addressed the effect and benefit of hydroxychloroquine administration for the prevention of COVID-19 among health professionals. The improved perception of prophylaxis might highlight its important role in future COVID-19 outbreaks to prevent hospital transmission, which is a major route of spread.

Development and validation of a predictive scoring system for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 Egyptian patients: a retrospective study

SARS-CoV-2 virus has rapidly spread worldwide since December 2019, causing COVID-19 disease. In-hospital mortality is a common indicator for evaluating treatment outcomes. Therefore, the developing and validating a simple score system from observational data could assist in modulating the management procedures. A retrospective cohort study included all data records of patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2. The factors that associated with mortality were analyzed, then allocation of potential predictors of mortality was executed using different logistic regression modeling, subsequently scoring system was developed from the most weighted predictors. The mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was 28.5% and 28.74%, respectively. The most significant factors that affected in-hospital mortality were old age (> 60 years), delay in hospital admission (> 4 days), high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio "NLR" (> 3); higher computed tomography severity score; and CT-SS (> 20), in addition to using remdesivir and tocilizumab in the treatment protocol (P < 0.001 for all). The validity of the newly performed score was significant; the AUC was 85%, P < 0.001, and its prognostic utility was good; the AUC was 75%, P < 0.001. The prognostic utility of newly developed score system (EGY.Score) was excellent and could be used to adjust the treatment strategy of highly at-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Biologic Functions of Hydroxychloroquine in Disease: From COVID-19 to Cancer

Chloroquine (CQ) and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), initially utilized in the treatment of malaria, have now developed a long list of applications. Despite their clinical relevance, their mechanisms of action are not clearly defined. Major pathways by which these agents are proposed to function include alkalinization of lysosomes and endosomes, downregulation of C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) expression, high-mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1) inhibition, alteration of intracellular calcium, and prevention of thrombus formation. However, there is conflicting data present in the literature. This is likely the result of the complex overlapping pathways between these mechanisms of action that have not previously been highlighted. In fact, prior research has focused on very specific portions of particular pathways without describing these in the context of the extensive CQ/HCQ literature. This review summarizes the detailed data regarding CQ/HCQ's mechanisms of action while also providing insight into the overarching themes. Furthermore, this review provides clinical context to the application of these diverse drugs including their role in malaria, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular disease, thrombus formation, malignancies, and viral infections.

Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19: updated guidelines (July 2022)

Background

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), an infectious disease caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese Rapid/Living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCG.

Methods

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on September 9, 2020, and this is the revised edition (version 5.0; released on July 15, 2022). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following 10 drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), anticoagulants (CQ7), baricitinib (CQ8), casirivimab/imdevimab (CQ9-1), sotrovimab (CQ9-2), molnupiravir (CQ10), and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (CQ11).

Recommendations

Favipiravir is not suggested for all patients with COVID-19 (GRADE 2C). Remdesivir is suggested for patients with mild COVID-19 who do not require oxygen, and patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (both GRADE 2B). Corticosteroids are recommended for moderate and severe COVID-19 (GRADE 1B, 1A). However, their administration is not recommended for mild COVID-19 (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is suggested for moderate and severe COVID-19 (GRADE 2B, 2C). Anticoagulant administration is recommended for moderate and severe COVID-19 (Good Practice Statement). Baricitinib is suggested for moderate and severe COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). Casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab are recommended for mild COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are recommended for mild COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). SARS-CoV-2 mutant strains emerge occasionally, and each time, the treatment policy at clinics is forced to change drastically. We ask health-care professionals in the field to refer to the recommendations in these guidelines and use these to keep up to date with COVID-19 epidemiological information.

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

Introduction

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

Main recommendations

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

Changes in management as a result of the guideline

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: Rapid updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to grow and spread throughout the world since being declared a pandemic. Despite extensive scientific research globally including repurposing of several existing drugs, there is no effective or proven therapy for this enigmatic disease which is still largely managed empirically This systematic review evaluated the role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 infection and was conducted using Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews of interventional studies including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Only prospective clinical trials randomly assigning COVID-19 patients to HCQ plus standard of care therapy (test arm) versus placebo/standard of care (control arm) were included. Data were pooled using the random-effects model and expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 10,492 patients from 19 randomised controlled trials were included. The use of HCQ was not associated with higher rates of clinical improvement (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.96-1.03, p = 0.79) or reduction in all-cause mortality by Day14 (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.97-1.19, p = 0.19) or Day28 (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.99-1.19, p = 0.09) compared to placebo/standard of care. There was no significant difference in serious adverse events between the two arms (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.85-1.19, p = 0.95). There is low-to-moderate certainty evidence that HCQ therapy is generally safe but does not reduce mortality or enhance recovery in patients with COVID-19 infection.

Tocilizumab and COVID-19: Timing of Administration and Efficacy

Elevated concentrations of interleukin-6 have been demonstrated to be an important key factor in COVID-19 host immune impairment. It represents an important prognostic factor of harm associated with COVID-19 infection by stimulating a vigorous proinflammatory response, leading to the so-called “cytokine storm”. Therefore, immunomodulatory interventions targeting interleukin-6 receptor antagonism have been investigated as potential treatments to counterbalance the host immune dysregulation and to support the advantageous effects of corticosteroids. Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that has gained much interest during the COVID-19 pandemic as an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist. Various early observational studies have reported beneficial effects of tocilizumab. Moreover, consequent randomized controlled trials have subsequently shown significant positive results about tocilizumab efficacy and safety, focusing on outcomes like mortality, risk of intensive care unit admission, and the need for mechanical ventilation, while others presented conflicting findings. In this review, we first described the pathophysiology of COVID-19 infection while highlighting the role of interleukin-6. Furthermore, we also discussed the non-conclusive evidence about tocilizumab to be used as the standard of care therapy for all patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, as well as its beneficial effects in selected patients.

ESCMID COVID-19 living guidelines: drug treatment and clinical management

SCOPE

In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19.

SCOPE

The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised.

The impact of therapeutics on mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analyses informing the European Respiratory Society living guideline

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a high mortality rate. There are an increasing number of published randomised controlled trials for anti-inflammatory, anti-viral and other treatments. The European Respiratory Society Living Guidelines for the Management of Hospitalised Adults with COVID-19 were published recently, providing recommendations on appropriate pharmacotherapy.Patient, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes questions for key interventions were identified by an international panel and systematic reviews were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The importance of end-points were rated, and mortality was identified as the key "critical" outcome for all interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies and provide effect estimates for the impact of treatments on mortality.Corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibodies, colchicine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β have been reviewed.Our results found further evidence in support of the use of corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, and anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. These data support the need to identify additional therapies with beneficial effects on mortality.

Hydroxychloroquine: a comprehensive review and its controversial role in coronavirus disease 2019

Hydroxychloroquine, initially used as an antimalarial, is used as an immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory agent for the management of autoimmune and rheumatic diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus. Lately, there has been interest in its potential efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, with several speculated mechanisms. The purpose of this review is to elaborate on the mechanisms surrounding hydroxychloroquine. The review is an in-depth analysis of the antimalarial, immunomodulatory, and antiviral mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine, with detailed and novel pictorial explanations. The mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine are related to potential cardiotoxic manifestations and demonstrate potential adverse effects when used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Finally, current literature associated with hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 has been analyzed to interrelate the mechanisms, adverse effects, and use of hydroxychloroquine in the current pandemic. Currently, there is insufficient evidence about the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. KEY MESSAGES HCQ, initially an antimalarial agent, is used as an immunomodulatory agent for managing several autoimmune diseases, for which its efficacy is linked to inhibiting lysosomal antigen processing, MHC-II antigen presentation, and TLR functions. HCQ is generally well-tolerated although severe life-threatening adverse effects including cardiomyopathy and conduction defects have been reported. HCQ use in COVID-19 should be discouraged outside clinical trials under strict medical supervision.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine from randomized controlled trials on malarial and non-malarial conditions

BACKGROUND

Despite the expectations regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management, concerns about their adverse events have remained.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of CQ and HCQ from malarial and non-malarial randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The primary outcomes were the frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs), retinopathy, and cardiac complications. Search strategies were applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Trip databases. We used a random-effects model to pool results across studies and Peto's one-step odds ratio (OR) for event rates below 1%. Both-armed zero-event studies were excluded from the meta-analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

One hundred and six RCTs were included. We found no significant difference between CQ/HCQ and control (placebo or non-CQ/HCQ) in the frequency of SAEs (OR: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.26, 33 trials, 15,942 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). However, there was a moderate certainty of evidence that CQ/HCQ increases the incidence of cardiac complications (RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.10-2.38, 16 trials, 9908 participants). No clear relationship was observed between CQ/HCQ and retinopathy (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: - 0.4-6.57, 5 trials, 344 participants, very low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

CQ and HCQ probably do not increase SAEs, with low frequency of these adverse events on malarial and non-malarial conditions. However, they may increase cardiac complications especially in patients with COVID-19. No clear effect of their use on the incidence of retinopathy was observed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020177818.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

REGISTRATION

CRD42020192095.

Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, with or without azithromycin, in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 tests, length of stay, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to normalization of body temperature, incidence of adverse events and incidence of QT prolongations. Results: Fifty-one studies (n = 61,221) were included. Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine showed no efficacy in all primary efficacy outcomes, but was associated with increased odds of QT prolongations. Conclusion: Due to a lack of efficacy and increased odds of cardiac adverse events, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine should not be used for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications.

Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review

Background

Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published.

Methods

We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs.

Results

We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence.

Conclusions

Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.

Complex analysis of the personalized pharmacotherapy in the management of COVID-19 patients and suggestions for applications of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine attitude

Aims

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is rapidly spreading worldwide. Drug therapy is one of the major treatments, but contradictory results of clinical trials have been reported among different individuals. Furthermore, comprehensive analysis of personalized pharmacotherapy is still lacking. In this study, analyses were performed on 47 well-characterized COVID-19 drugs used in the personalized treatment of COVID-19.

Methods

Clinical trials with published results of drugs use for COVID-19 treatment were collected to evaluate drug efficacy. Drug-to-Drug Interactions (DDIs) were summarized and classified. Functional variations in actionable pharmacogenes were collected and systematically analysed. “Gene Score” and “Drug Score” were defined and calculated to systematically analyse ethnicity-based genetic differences, which are important for the safer use of COVID-19 drugs.

Results

Our results indicated that four antiviral agents (ritonavir, darunavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir) and three immune regulators (budesonide, colchicine and prednisone) as well as heparin and enalapril could generate the highest number of DDIs with common concomitantly utilized drugs. Eight drugs (ritonavir, daclatasvir, sofosbuvir, ribavirin, interferon alpha-2b, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ceftriaxone had actionable pharmacogenomics (PGx) biomarkers among all ethnic groups. Fourteen drugs (ritonavir, daclatasvir, prednisone, dexamethasone, ribavirin, HCQ, ceftriaxone, zinc, interferon beta-1a, remdesivir, levofloxacin, lopinavir, human immunoglobulin G and losartan) showed significantly different pharmacogenomic characteristics in relation to the ethnic origin of the patient.

Conclusion

We recommend that particularly for patients with comorbidities to avoid serious DDIs, the predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM, 3 PM) strategies have to be applied for COVID-19 treatment, and genetic tests should be performed for drugs with actionable pharmacogenes, especially in some ethnic groups with a higher frequency of functional variations, as our analysis showed. We also suggest that drugs associated with higher ethnic genetic differences should be given priority in future pharmacogenetic studies for COVID-19 management. To facilitate translation of our results into clinical practice, an approach conform with PPPM/3 PM principles was suggested. In summary, the proposed PPPM/3 PM attitude should be obligatory considered for the overall COVID-19 management.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13167-021-00247-0.

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: - 1.06, 95% CI - 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: - 0.64, 95% CI - 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were searched until 2nd of December 2020. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, need of mechanical ventilation, need of non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and oxygen support at 14 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes were clinical recovery and worsening, discharge, radiological progression of pneumonia, virologic clearance, serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events. Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Thirteen RCTs (n=18,540) were included. Hydroxychloroquine total doses ranged between 2000 and 12,400 mg; treatment durations were from 5 to 16 days and follow up times between 5 and 30 days. Compared to controls, hydroxychloroquine non-significantly increased mortality at 14 days (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.92-1.25) or 30 days (RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.00-1.16). Hydroxychloroquine did not affect other primary or secondary outcomes, except SAEs that were significantly higher than the control (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.05-1.46). Eleven RCTs had high or some concerns of bias. Subgroup analyses were consistent with main analyses. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients and caused more severe adverse events. Hydroxychloroquine should not be recommended as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Immunomodulatory therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the available information on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

As part of a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce, a systematic literature search was conducted from January 2019 to 11 December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome framework and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage. The risk of bias was assessed with validated tools.

RESULTS

Of the 60 372 records, 401 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were at variable risk of bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were available for the following drugs: hydroxychloroquine (n=12), glucocorticoids (n=6), tocilizumab (n=4), convalescent plasma (n=4), interferon beta (n=2), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) (n=2) and n=1 each for anakinra, baricitinib, colchicine, leflunomide, ruxolitinib, interferon kappa and vilobelimab. Glucocorticoids were able to reduce mortality in specific subsets of patients, while conflicting data were available about tocilizumab. Hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial at any disease stage, one RCT with anakinra was negative, one RCT with baricitinib+remdesivir was positive, and individual trials on some other compounds provided interesting, although preliminary, results.

CONCLUSION

Although there is emerging evidence about immunomodulatory therapies for the management of COVID-19, conclusive data are scarce with some conflicting data. Since glucocorticoids seem to improve survival in some subsets of patients, RCTs comparing glucocorticoids alone versus glucocorticoids plus anticytokine/immunomodulatory treatment are warranted. This systematic literature review informed the initiative to formulate EULAR 'points to consider' on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory treatment from the rheumatology perspective.

Current advances in pharmacological treatments for patients with COVID-19

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, more than 150 million people in over 200 countries have been infected, with over 3 million people dying due to it, as of May 1, 2021. Many researchers are working continuously to find effective drug treatments for COVID-19; however, the optimal treatment approach remains unclear. In this article, current advances in pharmacological treatments for patients with COVID-19 are discussed. Data obtained from recent studies indicate a mortality benefit with the administration of dexamethasone or adjunctive tocilizumab and potential clinical benefits with remdesivir (with or without baricitinib). Several monoclonal antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been developed. The US Food and Drug Administration issued two emergency use authorizations: one for bamlanivimab/etesevimab and another for casirivimab/imdevimab for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, at high risk of progression to severe disease and/or hospitalization. The pathogenesis of COVID-19 indicates that antiviral treatments would be most beneficial in the early phase of the infection that is primarily driven by replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapies are likely to be more beneficial during the late phase of the infection, when the disease is driven by an exaggerated immune/inflammatory response to the virus that causes tissue damage.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19 in West Virginia

This study examines the clinical characteristics, outcomes and types of management in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, in the hospitals affiliated with West Virginia University. We included patients from West Virginia with SARS-CoV-2 infection between 15 April to 30 December 2020. Descriptive analysis was performed to summarize the characteristics of patients. Regression analyses were performed to assess the association between baseline characteristics and outcomes. Of 1742 patients, the mean age was 47.5 years (±22.7) and 54% of patients were female. Only 459 patients (26.3%) reported at least one baseline symptom, of which shortness of breath was most common. More than half had at least one comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common. There were 131 severe cases (7.5%), and 84 patients (4.8%) died despite treatment. The mean overall length of hospital stay was 2.6 days (±6.9). Age, male sex, and comorbidities were independent predictors of outcomes. In this study of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from West Virginia, older patients with underlying co-morbidities had poor outcomes, and the in-hospital mortality was similar to the national average.

Mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Many meta-analyses have been published about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Most of them included observational studies, and few have assessed HCQ as a prophylaxis or evaluated its safety profile. We searched multiple databases and preprint servers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed HCQ for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. We summarized the effect of HCQ on mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes. Out of 768 papers screened, 21 RCTs with a total of 14,138 patients were included. A total of 9 inpatient and 3 outpatient RCTs assessed mortality in 8596 patients with a pooled risk difference of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.03, I2  = 1%, p = 0.07). Six studies assessed viral clearance at 7 days with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.11 (95% CI 0.86-1.42, I2  = 61%, p = 0.44) and 5 studies at 14 days with a pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.89-1.04, I2  = 0%, p = 0.34). Several trials showed no significant effect of HCQ on other clinical outcomes and. Five prevention RCTs with 5012 patients found no effect of HCQ on the risk of acquiring COVID-19. Thirteen trials showed that HCQ was associated with increased risk of adverse events. We observed, with high level of certainty of evidence, that HCQ is not effective in reducing mortality in patients with COVID-19. Lower certainty evidence also suggests that HCQ neither improves viral clearance and other clinical outcomes, nor prevents COVID-19 infection in patients with high-risk exposure. HCQ is associated with an increased rate of adverse events.

Use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

COVID-19 has quickly become a public health problem worldwide, and treatment for this new disease is needed. Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial that in vitro studies have shown action against SARS-CoV-2, which is why it has been the target of clinical studies with conflicting results. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the association of hydroxychloroquine use with the virological cure, clinical recovery, mortality, and development of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs were searched until 7 January 2021, for randomized clinical trials with COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. Of the 130 studies found, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the patient's control group, the risk ratio (RR) for the virological cure and clinical recovery with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine use was 1.04 (95%CI 0.91-1.17) and 1.03 (95%CI 0.92-1.13), respectively. Hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin) was also not associated with mortality (RR = 1.09, 95%CI 0.98-1.20). Treatment with hydroxychloroquine was associated with any adverse effects (RR = 1.50, 95%CI 1.18-1.81). Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine use did not have a significant effect on virological cure, the time of clinical recovery, and improvement in survival in COVID-19 patients. However, patients who used hydroxychloroquine showed an increase in adverse effects.

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine as Therapeutics for COVID-19: Truth under the Mystery

The outbreak of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly evolved into a global pandemic. One major challenge in the battle against this deadly disease is to find effective therapy. Due to the availability and proven clinical record of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) in various human diseases, there have been enormous efforts in repurposing these two drugs as therapeutics for COVID-19. To date, substantial amount of work at cellular, animal models and clinical trials have been performed to verify their therapeutic potential against COVID-19. However, neither lab-based studies nor clinical trials have provided consistent and convincing evidence to support the therapeutic value of HCQ/CQ in the treatment of COVID-19. In this mini review we provide a systematic summary on this important topic and aim to reveal some truth covered by the mystery regarding the therapeutic value of HCQ/CQ in COVID-19.

QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, or lopinavir/ritonavir: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are drugs that were used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) during the early pandemic period. It is well‐known that these agents can prolong the QTc interval and potentially induce Torsades de Pointes (TdP). We aim to assess the prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation and arrhythmic events in COVID‐19 patients treated with these drugs.

Methods

We searched electronic databases from inception to September 30, 2020 for studies reporting peak QTc ≥500 ms, peak QTc change ≥60 ms, peak QTc interval, peak change of QTc interval, ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, or atrioventricular block (AVB). All meta‐analyses were conducted using a random‐effects model.

Results

Forty‐seven studies (three case series, 35 cohorts, and nine randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 13 087 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of peak QTc ≥500 ms was 9% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3%–18%) and 8% (95%CI, 3%–14%) in patients who received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin, respectively. Likewise, the use of hydroxychloroquine (risk ratio [RR], 2.68; 95%CI, 1.56–4.60) and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (RR, 3.28; 95%CI, 1.16–9.30) was associated with an increased risk of QTc prolongation compared to no treatment. Ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, and AVB were reported in <1% of patients across treatment groups. The only two studies that reported individual data of lopinavir/ritonavir found no cases of QTc prolongation.

Conclusions

COVID‐19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine with or without azithromycin had a relatively high prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation. However, the prevalence of arrhythmic events was very low, probably due to underreporting. The limited information about lopinavir/ritonavir showed that it does not prolong the QTc interval.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

COVID-19 illness and autoimmune diseases: recent insights

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to explore whether patients with autoimmune diseases (AIDs) were at high risk of infection during the COVID-19 epidemic and how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic affected immune system.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the foreign databases (NCBI, web of science, EBSCO, ELSEVIER ScienceDirect) and Chinese databases (WanFang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), VIP, CBM) to locate all relevant publications (up to January 10, 2021). The search strategies used Medical Search Headings (MeSH) headings and keywords for "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" or "coronavirus" and "autoimmune disease".

RESULTS

This review evaluates the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the immune system through ACE-2 receptor binding as the main pathway for cell attachment and invasion. It is speculated that SARS-COV-2 infection can activate lymphocytes and inflammatory response, which may play a role in the clinical onset of AIDs and also patients were treated with immunomodulatory drugs during COVID-19 outbreak. Preliminary studies suggested that the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 in patients with AIDs treated with immunomodulators or biologics might not increase. A large number of samples are needed for further verification, leading to an excessive immune response to external stimuli.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between autoimmune diseases and SARS-CoV-2 infection is complex. During the COVID-19 epidemic, individualized interventions for AIDs should be provided such as Internet-based service.

COVID-19: Risk Factors Associated with Infectivity and Severity

COVID‐19 is highly transmissible; however, its severity varies from one individual to another. Variability among different isolates of the virus and among its receptor (ACE2) may contribute to this severity, but comorbidity plays a major role on disease prognosis. Many comorbidities have been reported to be associated with severe COVID‐19 patients. We have collected data from retrospective studies which include clinical and epidemiological features of patients and categorize them into severe/mild, ICU/non‐ICU and survivors/dead patients. In this review, we give an update about SARS‐CoV‐2 structure with emphasis on the possible reasons for the severity of the virus in patients. We also collected information and patients’ data to highlight the relation between COVID‐19 patients and comorbidities.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Efficacy and safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide and an effective treatment is needed. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have shown in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 which causes the disease, but the evidence from in vivo studies so far has been inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for all articles published between 01 January 2020 to 15 September 2020 on CQ/HCQ and COVID-19 using a predefined search protocol; without any language restrictions. A search of grey literature repositories (New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature and Open Grey), and pre-publication server deposits (medRxIV and bioRxIV) was also performed.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) which compared CQ/HCQ to standard supportive therapy in treating COVID-19 were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from original publications by four independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effect models. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The primary prespecified efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse effect attributed to use of CQ/HCQ.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included and pooled in the mortality meta-analysis (6,592 unique participants; mean age = 59.4 years; 42% women). CQ/HCQ did not show any mortality benefit when compared to standard supportive therapy (Pooled Relative Risk [RR] 1.07; 95% CI = 0.97-1.18; I2 statistic = 0.00%). Sensitivity and sub-group analyses showed similar findings. Any adverse event was significantly higher in patients randomized to CQ/HCQ (RR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.53-4.12; n = 1,818 patients), but the risk of developing severe adverse event was not statistically significant (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.53-1.86; n = 6,456 patients).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Evidence from currently published RCTs do not demonstrate any added benefit for the use of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Modalities and Mechanisms of Treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is spreading rapidly throughout the world. Although COVID-19 has a relatively low case severity rate compared to SARS and Middle East Respiratory syndrome it is a major public concern because of its rapid spread and devastating impact on the global economy. Scientists and clinicians are urgently trying to identify drugs to combat the virus with hundreds of clinical trials underway. Current treatments could be divided into two major part: anti-viral agents and host system modulatory agents. On one hand, anti-viral agents focus on virus infection process. Umifenovir blocks virus recognizing host and entry. Remdesivir inhibits virus replication. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine involve preventing the whole infection process, including virus transcription and release. On the other hand, host system modulatory agents are associated with regulating the imbalanced inflammatory reaction and biased immune system. Corticosteroid is believed to be commonly used for repressing hyper-inflammation, which is one of the major pathologic mechanisms of COVID-19. Convalescent plasma and neutralizing antibodies provide essential elements for host immune system and create passive immunization. Thrombotic events are at high incidence in COVID-19 patients, thus anti-platelet and anti-coagulation are crucial, as well. Here, we summarized these current or reproposed agents to better understand the mechanisms of agents and give an update of present research situation.

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

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

Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCGs. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on 9 September, 2020, and this document is the revised edition (version 3.1) (released 30 March, 2021). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following seven drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), hydroxychloroquine (CQ3), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), ciclesonide (CQ6), and anticoagulants (CQ7). Favipiravir is recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 2C); remdesivir for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Hydroxychloroquine is not recommended for all COVID-19 patients (GRADE 1B). Corticosteroids are recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 1B) and severe COVID-19 patients requiring ventilator management/intensive care (GRADE 1A); however, their use is not recommended for mild COVID-19 patients not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Anticoagulant therapy is recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization and severe COVID-19 patients requiring ventilator management/intensive care (GRADE 2C). We hope that these clinical practice guidelines will aid medical professionals involved in the care of COVID-19 patients.

Update of the recommendations of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group for the approach to COVID-19 in Intensive Care Medicine

INTRODUCTION

The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Due to the evolution of knowledge, the panel of experts was again convened to review the current evidence and issue updated recommendations.

METHODS

A national panel of experts who declared that they had no conflicts of interest regarding the development of the recommendations was assembled. Operational questions were developed based on the PICO methodology, and a rapid systematic review was conducted by consulting different bibliographic sources. The panel determined the direction and strength of the recommendations using two Delphi rounds, conducted in accordance with the principles of the GRADE system. A strong recommendation received the wording "is recommended", and a weak recommendation was written as "is suggested."

RESULTS

A total of 48 recommendations and 30 suggestions were issued, covering the following topics: diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, coinfection and superinfection; criteria for admission, cure and suspension of isolation; organization of services; personal protective equipment; and respiratory support and other specific therapies (antivirals, immunomodulators and anticoagulation).

CONCLUSION

These recommendations, specifically oriented to the Portuguese reality but that may also apply to Portuguese-speaking African countries and East Timor, aim to support health professionals in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. They will be continuously reviewed to reflect the progress of our understanding and the treatment of this pathology.

Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19: updated guidelines (September 2021)

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCG.

METHODS

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on September 9, 2020, and this document is the revised edition (version 4.0; released on September 9, 2021). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following seven drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), anticoagulants (CQ7), baricitinib (CQ8), and casirivimab/imdevimab (CQ9). Two CQs (hydroxychloroquine [CQ3] and ciclesonide [CQ6]) were retrieved in this updated version.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Favipiravir is not suggested for all patients with COVID-19 (GRADE 2C). Remdesivir is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Corticosteroids are recommended for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 1B) and for patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation/intensive care (GRADE 1A); however, their administration is not recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Anticoagulant administration is recommended for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization and patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation/intensive care (good practice statement). Baricitinib is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2C). Casirivimab/imdevimab is recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). We hope that these updated clinical practice guidelines will help medical professionals involved in the care of patients with COVID-19.

Systematic Review on the Therapeutic Options for COVID-19: Clinical Evidence of Drug Efficacy and Implications

A novel coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in Wuhan, China, and quickly spread globally. Several treatments have been proposed, many of which have proven ineffective. Consequently, there is a need to review the published evidence of drug clinical trials to guide future prescribing. A systematic review of published clinical trials and retrospective observational studies was carried out. The search was made using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. Articles published between January 2020 and October 2020 and written in the English language were retrieved and included in the study. Researches that used traditional medicine, in-vitro and in-vivo animal studies, as well as reviews were excluded. Seventy-three relevant articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were finally selected and reviewed. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin produced no clinical evidence of efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT). However, retrospective observational studies reported the efficacy of remdesivir and lopinavir/ritonavir in reducing viral load, although there have been concerns with lopinavir/ritonavir and, more recently, remdesivir. Recently, tocilizumab, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone significantly relieved lung inflammation and decreased mortality in patients with severe COVID-19. In addition, convalescent plasma was effective in boosting strong immunity among patients with mild COVID-19. There is currently no single worldwide approved therapeutic option for patients with COVID-19 despite the initial hype with medicines, including hydroxychloroquine. Nonetheless, dexamethasone has shown promise in symptomatic treatment and convalescent plasma in boosting immunity. New treatments are currently being researched, and the findings will be reported accordingly to provide evidence-based guidance for prescribers and policymakers.