Associations between psychological responses and quality of life at early and late time of quarantine among residents of a collective quarantine facility in central Taiwan.

OBJECTIVES: Few countries required people living in collective facilities to undergo quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could lead to more psychological effects than quarantine at home or hotels. This study assessed the changes in depression, anxiety, and quality of life (QOL) among residents of a collective quarantine facility in central Taiwan. METHODS: Between April and November 2020, 660 collective quarantine facility residents participated in the survey conducted on the first and last days of the 14-day quarantine period. Questionnaires of Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and WHO quality of life (WHOQOL)-BREF were used to measure depression and anxiety symptoms, and QOL, respectively. Linear regression model with generalization estimation equation method was for estimating the differences in depression, anxiety, and QOL between two surveys and to test the changes of associations between them over time. RESULTS: PHQ-9 and WHOQOL-BREF scores showed no significant changes, but GAD-7 score decreased during quarantine (p = 0.011, Cohen's d = -0.11). Both PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were negatively associated with overall and domain-specific WHOQOL-BREF scores on both the first and last days of quarantine. Such associations did not significantly vary with time, except for the association between PHQ-9 and environmental domain WHOQOL-BREF score, being stronger on the first day than on the last day of quarantine (p = 0.041, η2 = 0.0021). CONCLUSION: A significant decrease in anxiety among quarantined individuals over a 14-day quarantine period was found. While depression was negatively associated with overall QOL, the strength of association between depression and environmental domain QOL decreased over the period.

Curbing COVID-19 progression and mortality with traditional Chinese medicine among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Viral- and host-targeted traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulae NRICM101 and NRICM102 were administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the mid-2021 outbreak in Taiwan. We report the outcomes by measuring the risks of intubation or admission to intensive care unit (ICU) for patients requiring no oxygen support, and death for those requiring oxygen therapy. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study retrieved data of 840 patients admitted to 9 hospitals between May 1 and July 26, 2021. After propensity score matching, 302 patients (151 received NRICM101 and 151 did not) and 246 patients (123 received NRICM102 and 123 did not) were included in the analysis to assess relative risks. RESULTS: During the 30-day observation period, no endpoint occurred in the patients receiving NRICM101 plus usual care while 14 (9.27%) in the group receiving only usual care were intubated or admitted to ICU. The numbers of deceased patients were 7 (5.69%) in the group receiving NRICM102 plus usual care and 27 (21.95%) in the usual care group. No patients receiving NRICM101 transitioned to a more severe status; NRICM102 users were 74.07% less likely to die than non-users (relative risk= 25.93%, 95% confidence interval 11.73%-57.29%). CONCLUSION: NRICM101 and NRICM102 were significantly associated with a lower risk of intubation/ICU admission or death among patients with mild-to-severe COVID-19. This study provides real-world evidence of adopting broad-spectrum oral therapeutics and shortening the gap between outbreak and effective response. It offers a new vision in our preparation for future pandemics.

Clinical Experience with Ropeginterferon Alfa-2b in the Off-Label Use for the Treatment of COVID-19 Patients in Taiwan.

INTRODUCTION: This study, for the first time to our knowledge, evaluated the efficacy of ropeginterferon alfa-2b, a long-acting pegylated interferon (IFN)-alfa, in the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated ropeginterferon alfa-2b administered subcutaneously at a single dose of 250 µg for the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. Primary outcome was to compare the overall negative conversion time from the confirmed, last positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR to the first RT-PCR negative conversion between patients receiving ropeginterferon alfa-2b plus standard of care (SOC) and those receiving SOC alone. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with mild COVID-19 and 37 patients with moderate disease were included. Of them, 19 patients received SOC plus ropeginterferon alfa-2b and 53 patients received SOC alone. All patients with moderate disease in the ropeginterferon alfa-2b group showed RT-PCR negative conversion within 8 days, while a significant portion of patients in the SOC alone group failed to do so. For patients with moderate disease and age ≤ 65 years old, the ropeginterferon alfa-2b group had statistically significant shorter median RT-PCR conversion time than the SOC alone group (7 vs. 11.5 days, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ropeginterferon alfa-2b showed the potential for the treatment of moderate COVID-19 patients. A randomized, controlled Phase III study is planned to further assess the effectiveness of ropeginterferon alfa-2b in COVID-19 patients.

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.

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).

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a retrospective study. METHODS: Subjects admitted to 11 designated public hospitals in Taiwan between April 1 and May 31, 2020, with COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by pharyngeal real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, were randomized at a 2:1 ratio and stratified by mild or moderate illness. HCQ (400 mg twice for 1 d or HCQ 200 mg twice daily for 6 days) was administered. Both the study and control group received standard of care (SOC). Pharyngeal swabs and sputum were collected every other day. The proportion and time to negative viral PCR were assessed on day 14. In the retrospective study, medical records were reviewed for patients admitted before March 31, 2020. RESULTS: There were 33 and 37 cases in the RCT and retrospective study, respectively. In the RCT, the median times to negative rRT-PCR from randomization to hospital day 14 were 5 days (95% CI; 1, 9 days) and 10 days (95% CI; 2, 12 days) for the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively (p = 0.40). On day 14, 81.0% (17/21) and 75.0% (9/12) of the subjects in the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively, had undetected virus (p = 0.36). In the retrospective study, 12 (42.9%) in the HCQ group and 5 (55.6%) in the control group had negative rRT-PCR results on hospital day 14 (p = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Neither study demonstrated that HCQ shortened viral shedding in mild to moderate COVID-19 subjects.