A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

UPDATES: This is the twelfth version (eleventh update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? CONTEXT: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and under way. The emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants (such as omicron) and subvariants are also changing the role of therapeutics. This update provides updated recommendations for remdesivir, addresses the use of combination therapy with corticosteroids, interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers, and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in patients with severe or critical covid-19, and modifies previous recommendations for the neutralising monoclonal antibodies sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in patients with non-severe covid-19. NEW OR UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: • Remdesivir: a conditional recommendation for its use in patients with severe covid-19; and a conditional recommendation against its use in patients with critical covid-19. • Concomitant use of IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab) and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib: these drugs may now be combined, in addition to corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical covid-19. • Sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab: strong recommendations against their use in patients with covid-19, replacing the previous conditional recommendations for their use. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS: When moving from new evidence to updated recommendations, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) considered a combination of evidence assessing relative benefits and harms, values and preferences, and feasibility issues. For remdesivir, new trial data were added to a previous subgroup analysis and provided sufficiently trustworthy evidence to demonstrate benefits in patients with severe covid-19, but not critical covid-19. The GDG considered benefits of remdesivir to be modest and of moderate certainty for key outcomes such as mortality and mechanical ventilation, resulting in a conditional recommendation. For baricitinib, the GDG considered clinical trial evidence (RECOVERY) demonstrating reduced risk of death in patients already receiving corticosteroids and IL-6 receptor blockers. The GDG acknowledged that the clinical trials were not representative of the world population and that the risk-benefit balance may be less advantageous, particularly in patients who are immunosuppressed at higher risk of opportunistic infections (such as serious fungal, viral, or bacteria), those already deteriorating where less aggressive or stepwise addition of immunosuppressive medications may be preferred, and in areas where certain pathogens such as HIV or tuberculosis, are of concern. The panel anticipated that there would be situations where clinicians may opt for less aggressive immunosuppressive therapy or to combine medications in a stepwise fashion in patients who are deteriorating. The decision to combine the medications will depend on their availability, and the treating clinician's perception of the risk-benefit balance associated with combination immunosuppressive therapy, particularly in patient populations at risk of opportunistic infections who may have been under-represented in clinical trials. When making a strong recommendation against the use of monoclonal antibodies for patients with covid-19, the GDG considered in vitro neutralisation data demonstrating that sotrovimab and casirivimab-imdevimab evaluated in clinical trials have meaningfully reduced neutralisation activity of the currently circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 and their subvariants. There was consensus among the panel that the absence of in vitro neutralisation activity strongly suggests absence of clinical effectiveness of these monoclonal antibodies. However, there was also consensus regarding the need for clinical trial evidence in order to confirm clinical efficacy of new monoclonal antibodies that reliably neutralise the circulating strains in vitro. Whether emerging new variants and subvariants might be susceptible to sotrovimab, casirivimab-imdevimab, or other anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies cannot be predicted. PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS: • Recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­strong recommendations for systemic corticosteroids; IL-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab or sarilumab) in combination with corticosteroids; and baricitinib as an alternative to IL-6 receptor blockers, in combination with corticosteroids. • Recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19 at highest risk of hospitalisation­a strong recommendation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; conditional recommendations for molnupiravir and remdesivir. • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19­a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids; a strong recommendation against convalescent plasma; a recommendation against fluvoxamine, except in the context of a clinical trial; and a strong recommendation against colchicine. • Not recommended for patients with non-severe covid-19 at low risk of hospitalisation­a conditional recommendation against nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. • Not recommended for patients with severe or critical covid-19­a recommendation against convalescent plasma except in the context of a clinical trial; and a conditional recommendation against the JAK inhibitors ruxolitinib and tofacitinib. • Not recommended, regardless of covid-19 disease severity­a strong recommendations against hydroxychloroquine and against lopinavir/ritonavir; and a recommendation against ivermectin except in the context of a clinical trial. ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact. Future recommendations: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline.

Use of tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021). Review methods Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis. Results Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88;35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000;moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92;43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer;low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34;eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more;low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38;20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more;low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40;11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more;low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death. Conclusion These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.

Early experimental COVID-19 therapies: associations with length of hospital stay, mortality and related costs.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have been used as experimental therapies to treat COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Randomised controlled trials have recently shown that there are no meaningful benefits of these two therapies in hospitalised patients. Uncertainty remains regarding the potential harmful impact of these therapies as very early treatments and their burden to the health care system. The present study investigated the length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality, and costs of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir or their combination in comparison with standard of care among patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study took place in the Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland (n = 840) between 26 February and 31 May 2020. Demographics, treatment regimens, comorbidities, the modified National Early Warning Score (mNEWS) on admission, and contraindications to COVID-19 treatment options were assessed. Outcomes included LOS, in-hospital mortality, and drug and LOS costs. RESULTS: After successful propensity score matching, patients treated with (1) hydroxychloroquine, (2) lopinavir/ritonavir or (3) their combination had on average 3.75 additional hospitalisation days (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37–6.12, p = 0.002), 1.23 additional hospitalisation days (95% CI −1.24 – 3.51, p = 0.319), and 4.19 additional hospitalisation days (95% CI 1.52–5.31, p <0.001), respectively, compared with patients treated with the standard of care. Neither experimental therapy was significantly associated with mortality. These additional hospital days amounted to 1010.77 additional days for hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine combined with lopinavir/ritonavir, resulting in an additional cost of US$ 2,492,214 (95%CI US$ 916,839–3,450,619). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing experimental therapies for COVID-19 was not associated with a reduced LOS and might have increased the pressure put on healthcare systems.

[Advances in hospital based internal medicine]. / Nouveautés en médecine interne hospitalière.

Hospital based internal medicine has been strongly solicited for over two years with the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. This epidemic continues to evolve and represents a strain for public health. Numerous studies have addressed issues concerning this epidemic, and multiple novelties concerning other frequent pathologies have also been published. Management strategies of cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastro-intestinal and metabolic diseases are discussed.

La médecine interne hospitalière a été fortement sollicitée depuis 2 ans avec l'épidémie de SARS-CoV-2. Celle-ci continue d'évoluer et reste une épreuve pour la santé publique. Une pléthore d'études a tenté de résoudre les multiples défis que représente cette épidémie, mais de multiples nouveautés concernant d'autres pathologies fréquentes sont également apparues. La prise en charge des maladies cardiovasculaires, pulmonaires, gastro-intestinales et métaboliques est évoquée.

High-flow nasal oxygen in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A narrative review of the evidence before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is a type of non-invasive advanced respiratory support that allows the delivery of high-flow and humidified air through a nasal cannula. It can deliver a higher inspired oxygen fraction than conventional oxygen therapy (COT), improves secretion clearance, has a small positive end-expiratory pressure, and exhibits a washout effect on the upper air space that diminishes dead space ventilation. HFNO has been shown to reduce the work of breathing in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and has become an interesting option for non-invasive respiratory support. Evidence published before the COVID-19 pandemic suggested a possible reduction of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation compared to COT. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a substantial increase in AHRF worldwide, overwhelming both acute and intensive care unit capacity in most countries. This triggered new trials, adding to the body of evidence on HFNO in AHRF and its possible benefits compared to COT or non-invasive ventilation. We have summarized and discussed this recent evidence to inform the best supportive strategy in AHRF both related and unrelated to COVID-19.

The pandemic toll and post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at a Swiss University Hospital.

Healthcare workers have potentially been among the most exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the deleterious toll of the pandemic. This study has the objective to differentiate the pandemic toll from post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers compared to the general population. The study was conducted between April and July 2021 at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. Eligible participants were all tested staff, and outpatient individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 at the same hospital. The primary outcome was the prevalence of symptoms in healthcare workers compared to the general population, with measures of COVID-related symptoms and functional impairment, using prevalence estimates and multivariable logistic regression models. Healthcare workers (n = 3083) suffered mostly from fatigue (25.5 %), headache (10.0 %), difficulty concentrating (7.9 %), exhaustion/burnout (7.1 %), insomnia (6.2 %), myalgia (6.7 %) and arthralgia (6.3 %). Regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection, all symptoms were significantly higher in healthcare workers than the general population (n = 3556). SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers was associated with loss or change in smell, loss or change in taste, palpitations, dyspnea, difficulty concentrating, fatigue, and headache. Functional impairment was more significant in healthcare workers compared to the general population (aOR 2.28; 1.76-2.96), with a positive association with SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR 3.81; 2.59-5.60). Symptoms and functional impairment in healthcare workers were increased compared to the general population, and potentially related to the pandemic toll as well as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings are of concern, considering the essential role of healthcare workers in caring for all patients including and beyond COVID-19.

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.

One-year persistent symptoms and functional impairment in SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative individuals.

BACKGROUND: Persistent symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 are prevalent weeks to months following the infection. To date, it is difficult to disentangle the direct from the indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2, including lockdown, social, and economic factors. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to characterize the prevalence of symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life at 12 months in outpatient symptomatic individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to individuals tested negative. METHODS: From 23 April to 27 July 2021, outpatient symptomatic individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 at the Geneva University Hospitals were followed up 12 months after their test date. RESULTS: At 12 months, out of the 1447 participants (mean age 45.2 years, 61.2% women), 33.4% reported residual mild to moderate symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to 6.5% in the control group. Symptoms included fatigue (16% vs. 3.1%), dyspnea (8.9% vs. 1.1%), headache (9.8% vs. 1.7%), insomnia (8.9% vs. 2.7%), and difficulty concentrating (7.4% vs. 2.5%). When compared to the control group, 30.5% of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals reported functional impairment at 12 months versus 6.6%. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with the persistence of symptoms (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.1; 2.60-6.83) and functional impairment (aOR 3.54; 2.16-5.80) overall, and in subgroups of women, men, individuals younger than 40 years, those between 40-59 years, and in individuals with no past medical or psychiatric history. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to persistent symptoms over several months, including in young healthy individuals, in addition to the pandemic effects, and potentially more than other common respiratory infections. Symptoms impact functional capacity up to 12 months post infection.

Head-to-Head Evaluation of Five Automated SARS-CoV-2 Serology Immunoassays in Various Prevalence Settings.

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performances of five automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, Epitope (N), Diasorin (S1/S2), Euroimmun (S1), Roche N (N), and Roche S (S-RBD), and to provide a testing strategy based on pre-test probability. METHODS: We assessed the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) areas under the curve (AUC) values, along with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs), of each assay using a validation sample set of 172 COVID-19 sera and 185 negative controls against a validated S1-immunofluorescence as a reference method. The three assays displaying the highest AUCs were selected for further serodetection of 2033 sera of a large population-based cohort. RESULTS: In the validation analysis (pre-test probability: 48.1%), Roche N, Roche S and Euroimmun showed the highest discriminant accuracy (AUCs: 0.99, 0.98, and 0.98) with PPVs and NPVs above 96% and 94%, respectively. In the population-based cohort (pre-test probability: 6.2%) these three assays displayed AUCs above 0.97 and PPVs and NPVs above 90.5% and 99.4%, respectively. A sequential strategy using an anti-S assay as screening test and an anti-N as confirmatory assays resulted in a 96.7% PPV and 99.5% NPV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Euroimmun and both Roche assays performed equally well in high pre-test probability settings. At a lower prevalence, sequentially combining anti-S and anti-N assays resulted in the optimal trade-off between diagnostic performances and operational considerations.

Post-exposure Lopinavir-Ritonavir Prophylaxis versus Surveillance for Individuals Exposed to SARS-CoV-2: The COPEP Pragmatic Open-Label, Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, no direct antiviral treatment is effective as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) was repurposed as a potential PEP agent against COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic open-label, parallel, cluster-randomised superiority trial in four sites in Switzerland and Brazil between March 2020 to March 2021. Clusters were randomised to receive LPV/r PEP (400/100 mg) twice daily for 5 days or no PEP (surveillance). Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was defined as a close contact of >15 minutes in <2 metres distance or having shared a closed space for ≥2 hours with a person with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome is the occurrence of COVID-19 defined by a SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR and/or a seroconversion) and ≥1 compatible symptom within 21 days post-enrolment. ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04364022); Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal: SNCTP 000003732. FINDINGS: Of 318 participants, 157 (49.4%) were women; median age was 39 (interquartile range, 28-50) years. A total of 209 (179 clusters) participants were randomised to LPV/r PEP and 109 (95 clusters) to surveillance. Baseline characteristics were similar, with the exception of baseline SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity, which was 3-fold more frequent in the LPV/r arm (34/209 [16.3%] vs 6/109 [5.5%], respectively). During 21-day follow-up, 48/318 (15.1%) participants developed COVID-19: 35/209 (16.7%) in the LPV/r group and 13/109 (11.9%) in the surveillance group (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.44; 95% CI, 0.76-2.73). In the primary endpoint analysis, which was adjuted for baseline imbalance, the hazard ratio for developing COVID-19 in the LPV/r group vs surveillance was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.29-1.26; p =0.18). INTERPRETATION: The role of LPV/r as PEP for COVID-19 remains unanswered. Although LPV/r over 5 days did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 in exposed individuals, we observed a change in the directionality of the effect in favour of LPV/r after adjusting for baseline imbalance. LPV/r for this indication merits further testing against SARS-CoV-2 in clinical trials. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation (project no.: 33IC30_166819) and the Private Foundation of Geneva University Hospitals (Edmond Rothschild (Suisse) SA, Union Bancaire Privée and the Fondation pour la recherche et le traitement médical).

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.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Impact of peritraumatic dissociation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric impact of COVID-19 is still explored and previous data suggest potential risks of anxiety, depression and PTSD related to COVID-19. We aimed to explore the predictive value of risk factors during hospitalization (T0) for COVID-19 for anxiety, depression and PTSD and at three months (T1) because they could differ over these two time points. METHODS: We performed a screening of mental suffering in hospitalized patients for COVID-19, as well as specialized care and three months longitudinal follow-up. We evaluated at T0 and at T1 the prevalence of anxiety, depression and PTSD in survivors who benefited from early detection and treatment, and assessed possible risk factors in adults surviving COVID-19 between the 30th March and the 1st of July 2020. RESULTS: 109 patients were screened at T0 and 61 of these were reassessed at T1. At T0, we found 44.9% pathological score on peritraumatic dissociation experiences questionnaire (PDEQ), 85.4% of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSS), 14.6% of pathological rate of post-traumatic stress disorder scale 5 (PCL5) and at T1, 86.9% of PTSS, 10.6% of pathological rate of PCL5. Finally, PDEQ score at T0 during hospitalization was positively correlated to PCL-5 score at T1 (ß = 0.26, p = 0.01) and that was confirmed in multivariate analysis (ß = 0.04, p = 0.02 for the log of PCL-5 per point on the PDEQ). CONCLUSION: Screening of psychiatric symptoms during hospitalization for COVID-19 should be systematic, especially peritraumatic dissociation to offer an early treatment and prevent PTSD, which seemed frequent for hospitalized patients for COVID-19 at three months.

Role of Intermediate Care Unit Admission and Noninvasive Respiratory Support during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) capacity. We developed a triage strategy including noninvasive respiratory support and admission to the intermediate care unit (IMCU). ICU admission was restricted to patients requiring invasive ventilation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the IMCU. METHOD: Retrospective cohort including consecutive patients admitted between March 28 and April 27, 2020. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure avoiding ICU admission. Secondary outcomes included the rate of emergency intubation, 28-day mortality, and predictors of ICU admission. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven patients with COVID-19-associated pneumonia were admitted to the IMCU. Among the 85 patients admitted for worsening respiratory failure, 52/85 (61%) avoided ICU admission. In multivariate analysis, PaO2/FiO2 (OR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99) and BMI (OR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.78-0.98) were significantly associated with ICU admission. No death or emergency intubation occurred in the IMCU. CONCLUSIONS: IMCU admission including standardized triage criteria, self-proning, and noninvasive respiratory support prevents ICU admission for a large proportion of patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, IMCUs may play an important role in preserving ICU capacity by avoiding ICU admission for patients with worsening respiratory failure and allowing early discharge of ICU patients.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. READERS NOTE: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.