Efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in COVID-19 management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment of acute COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients. INTERVENTIONS: SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis were compared against a placebo or standard of care. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of bias was rated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials version 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events. RCT data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Six RCTs (N = 4197) and five observational studies (N = 1156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99) on the basis of moderate quality of evidence. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, but low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice a day) was not. Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased serious adverse events. Observational studies support the use of fluvoxamine and highlight fluoxetine as a possible alternative to SSRIs for the treatment of COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 in outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.

Pathological Findings Associated With SARS-CoV-2 on Postmortem Core Biopsies: Correlation With Clinical Presentation and Disease Course.

Background: Autopsies can shed light on the pathogenesis of new and emerging diseases. Aim: To describe needle core necropsy findings of the lung, heart, and liver in decedents with COVID-19. Material: Cross-sectional study of needle core necropsies in patients who died with virologically confirmed COVID-19. Histopathological analyses were performed, and clinical data and patient course evaluated. Results: Chest core necropsies were performed in 71 decedents with a median age of 81 years (range 52-97); 47 (65.3%) were men. The median interval from symptoms onset to death was 17.5 days (range 1-84). Samples of lung (n = 62, 87.3%), heart (n = 48, 67.6%) and liver (n = 39, 54.9%) were obtained. Fifty-one lung samples (82.3%) were abnormal: 19 (30.6%) showed proliferative diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), 12 (19.4%) presented exudative DAD, and 10 (16.1%) exhibited proliferative plus exudative DAD. Of the 46 lung samples tested for SARS-CoV-19 by RT-PCR, 39 (84.8%) were positive. DAD was associated with premortem values of lactate dehydrogenase of 400 U/L or higher [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 21.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.22-146] and treatment with tocilizumab (AOR 6.91; 95% CI 1.14-41.7). Proliferative DAD was associated with an onset-to-death interval of over 15 days (AOR 7.85, 95% CI 1.29-47.80). Twenty-three of the 48 (47.9%) heart samples were abnormal: all showed fiber hypertrophy, while 9 (18.8%) presented fibrosis. Of the liver samples, 29/39 (74.4%) were abnormal, due to steatosis (n = 12, 30.8%), cholestasis (n = 6, 15.4%) and lobular central necrosis (n = 5, 12.8%). Conclusion: Proliferative DAD was the main finding on lung core needle necropsy in people who died from COVID-19; this finding was related to a longer disease course. Changes in the liver and heart were common.

Post-COVID-19 Necrotizing Pneumonia in Patients on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

(1) Background: Few reports of necrotizing pneumonia in patients with COVID-19 have been published. We have observed an elevated incidence at two hospitals in our city, suggesting this complication is not uncommon, and may have been overlooked. (2) Methods: This article presents a retrospective, descriptive cohort study that was undertaken from 22 March 2020 to 15 June 2021 in two tertiary care hospitals in Medellín, Colombia. All adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory failure related to confirmed COVID-19, on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), with imaging or surgical findings documenting necrotizing pneumonia (NP) were included. (3) Results: Of 936 patients with COVID-19 that required IMV, 42 (4.5%) developed NP. Overall mortality was 57% and in-hospital mortality was 71%, occurring 15-79 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. NP was diagnosed at a median of 27 days after COVID-19 symptom onset and 15.5 days after initiation of IMV. Infections were polymicrobial in 52.4% of patients. Klebsiella pneumoniae (57%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (33%) were the most common etiologic agents. Pulmonary embolism (PE) was documented in 13 patients overall (31%), and in 50% of patients who underwent an angioCT. Drainage and/or surgical procedures were performed on 19 patients (45.2%) with a 75% mortality rate. (4) Conclusions: In our experience, NP is a relatively common, albeit neglected, complication in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, possibly originating in poorly vascularized areas of lung parenchyma. Associated mortality is high. Although drainage procedures did not seem to favorably impact patient outcomes, diagnosis and treatment were late events in the overall disease course, suggesting that early recognition and timely treatment could have a positive impact on prognosis.

Clinical Frailty Score vs Hospital Frailty Risk Score for predicting mortality and other adverse outcome in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: Spanish case series.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty can be used as a predictor of adverse outcomes in people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of the study was to analyse the prognostic value of two different frailty scores in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult (≥18 years) inpatients with COVID-19 and took place from 3 March to 2 May 2020. Patients were categorised by Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) and Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were tocilizumab treatment, length of hospital stay, admission in intensive care unit (ICU) and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Results were analysed by multivariable logistic regression and expressed as odds ratios (ORs), adjusting for age, sex, kidney function and comorbidity. RESULTS: Of the 290 included patients, 54 were frail according to the CFS (≥5 points; prevalence 18.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4-23.7) vs 65 by HFRS (≥5 points; prevalence: 22.4%, 95% CI 17.8-27.7). Prevalence of frailty increased with age according to both measures: 50-64 years, CFS 1.9% vs HFRS 12.3%; 65-79 years, CFS 31.5% vs HFRS 40.0%; and ≥80 years, CFS 66.7% vs HFRS 40.0% (P < .001). CFS-defined frailty was independently associated with risk of death (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.49-9.04) and less treatment with tocilizumab (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.93). HFRS-defined frailty was independently associated with length of hospital stay over 10 days (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.53-5.44), ICU admission (OR 4.18, 95% CI 1.84-9.52) and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 5.93, 95% CI 2.33-15.10). CONCLUSION: In the spring 2020 wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, CFS-defined frailty was an independent predictor for death, while frailty as measured by the HFRS was associated with length of hospital stay over 10 days, ICU admission and use of invasive mechanical ventilation.