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.

Impact of COVID-19 on diagnosis of tuberculosis, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and on mortality in 11 countries in Europe, Northern America, and Australia. A Global Tuberculosis Network study.

OBJECTIVES: Although evidence is growing on the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tuberculosis (TB) services, global studies based on national data are needed to better quantify the extent of the impact and the countries' preparedness to tackle the two diseases. The aim of this study was to compare the number of people with new diagnoses or recurrence of TB disease, the number of drug-resistant (DR)-TB, and the number of TB deaths in 2020 vs 2019 in 11 countries in Europe, Northern America, and Australia. METHODS: TB managers or directors of national reference centers of the selected countries provided the agreed-upon variables through a validated questionnaire on a monthly basis. A descriptive analysis compared the incidence of TB and DR-TB and mortality of the pre-COVID-19 year (2019) vs the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020). RESULTS: Comparing 2020 vs 2019, lower number of TB cases (new diagnosis or recurrence) was notified in all countries (except USA-Virginia and Australia), and fewer DR-TB notifications (apart from France, Portugal, and Spain). The deaths among TB cases were higher in 2020 compared to 2019 in most countries with three countries (France, The Netherlands, USA-Virginia) reporting minimal TB-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive evaluation of medium-term impact of COVID-19 on TB services would benefit from similar studies in multiple settings and from global availability of treatment outcome data from TB/COVID-19 co-infected patients.

Characterization of the immune impairment of patients with tuberculosis and COVID-19 coinfection.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the plasma immune profile of patients with tuberculosis (TB)-COVID-19 compared with COVID-19, TB, or healthy controls and to evaluate in vitro the specific responses to SARS-CoV-2 and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb)-antigens. METHODS: We enrolled 119 subjects: 14 TB-COVID-19, 47 COVID-19, 38 TB, and 20 controls. The plasmatic levels of 27 immune factors were measured at baseline using a multiplex assay. The specific response to SARS-CoV-2 and Mtb antigens was evaluated using a home-made whole blood platform and QuantiFERON-Plus tubes, respectively. RESULTS: We found an immune signature (tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α, macrophage inflammatory protein-1ß, and interleukin [IL]-9) associated with TB-COVID-19 coinfection compared with COVID-19 (P <0.05), and TNF-α showed the highest discriminant power. We also found another signature (TNF-α, IL-1ß, IL-17A, IL-5, fibroblast growth factor-basic, and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor [GM-CSF]) in coinfected patients compared with patients with TB (P <0.05), and among them, TNF-α and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor showed a non-negligible discriminating ability. Moreover, coinfected patients showed a significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2-specific response compared with COVID-19 for several pro-inflammatory cytokines/chemokines, anti-inflammatory cytokines, and growth factors (P ≤0.05). Furthermore, coinfection negatively affected the Mtb-specific response (P ≤0.05). CONCLUSION: We found immune signatures associated with TB-COVID-19 coinfection and observed a major impairment of SARS-CoV-2-specific and, to a lesser extent, the Mtb-specific immune responses. These findings further advance our knowledge of the immunopathology of TB-COVID-19 coinfection.

The efficacy of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in human saliva: A systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to evaluate existing randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies on the efficacy of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in human saliva. Searches with pertinent search terms were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant records published up to Oct 15, 2022. Google Scholar and ProQuest were searched for grey literature. Manual searches were conducted as well for any pertinent articles. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022324894). Eligible studies were critically appraised for risk of bias and quality of evidence to assess the efficacy of mouthwash in reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva. Eleven studies were included. The effect on viral load using various types of mouthwash was observed, including chlorhexidine (CHX), povidone-iodine (PI), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), hydrogen peroxide (HP), ß-cyclodextrin-citrox mouthwash (CDCM), and Hypochlorous acid (HCIO). Eight articles discussed CHX use. Five were found to be significant and three did not show any significant decrease in viral loads. Eight studies reviewed the use of PI, with five articles identifying a significant decrease in viral load, and three not showing a significant decrease in viral load. HP was reviewed in four studies, two studies identified significant viral load reductions, and two did not. CPC was reviewed in four studies, two of which identified significant viral load reductions, and two did not. CDCM was reviewed in one article which found a significant decrease in viral load reduction. Also, HCIO which was evaluated in one study indicated no significant difference in CT value. The current systematic review indicates that based on these eleven studies, mouthwashes are effective at reducing the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva. However, further studies should be performed on larger populations with different mouthwashes. The overall quality of evidence was high.

Delamanid-containing regimens and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is a life-threatening condition needing long poly-chemotherapy regimens. As no systematic reviews/meta-analysis is available to comprehensively evaluate the role of delamanid (DLM), we evaluated its effectiveness and safety. METHODS: We reviewed the relevant scientific literature published up to January 20, 2022. The pooled success treatment rate with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was assessed using a random-effect model. We assessed studies for quality and bias, and considered P<0.05 to be statistically significant. RESULTS: After reviewing 626 records, we identified 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 22 observational and 3 experimental, with 1276 and 411 patients, respectively. In observational studies the overall pooled treatment success rate of DLM-containing regimens was 80.9% (95% CI 72.6-87.2) with no evidence of publication bias (Begg's test; P >0.05). The overall pooled treatment success rate in DLM and bedaquiline-containing regimens was 75.2% (95% CI 68.1-81.1) with no evidence of publication bias (Begg's test; P >0.05). In experimental studies the pooled treatment success rate of DLM-containing regimens was 72.5 (95% CI 44.2-89.8, P <0.001, I2: 95.1%) with no evidence of publication bias (Begg's test; P >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In MDR-TB patients receiving DLM, culture conversion and treatment success rates were high despite extensive resistance with limited adverse events.

Breathing Back Better! A State of the Art on the Benefits of Functional Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Post-Tuberculosis and Post-COVID Lungs.

Currently, tuberculosis (TB) and COVID-19 account for substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide, not only during their acute phase, but also because of their sequelae. This scoping review aims to describe the specific aspects of post-TB and post-COVID (long-COVID-19) sequelae, and the implications for post-disease follow-up and rehabilitation. In particular, evidence on how to identify patients affected by sequelae is presented and discussed. A section of the review is dedicated to identifying patients eligible for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), as not all patients with sequelae are eligible for PR. Components of PR are presented and discussed, as well as their effectiveness. Other essential components to implement comprehensive rehabilitation programmes such as counselling and health education of enrolled patients, evaluation of cost-effectiveness of PR and its impact on health systems as well as research priorities for the future are included in this scoping review.

Post-tuberculosis lung disease: a comparison of Brazilian, Italian, and Mexican cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate lung function in a cohort of patients with a history of pulmonary tuberculosis in Brazil, as well as to evaluate the decline in lung function over time and compare it with that observed in similar cohorts in Mexico and Italy. METHODS: The three cohorts were compared in terms of age, smoking status, pulmonary function test results, six-minute walk test results, and arterial blood gas results. In the Brazilian cohort, pulmonary function test results, six-minute walk test results, and arterial blood gas results right after the end of tuberculosis treatment were compared with those obtained at the end of the follow-up period. RESULTS: The three cohorts were very different regarding pulmonary function test results. The most common ventilatory patterns in the Brazilian, Italian, and Mexican cohorts were an obstructive pattern, a mixed pattern, and a normal pattern (in 58 patients [50.9%], in 18 patients [41.9%], and in 26 patients [44.1%], respectively). Only 2 multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cases were included in the Brazilian cohort, whereas, in the Mexican cohort, 27 cases were included (45.8%). Mean PaO2 and mean SaO2 were lower in the Mexican cohort than in the Brazilian cohort (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.002 for PaO2 and SaO2, respectively). In the Brazilian cohort, almost all functional parameters deteriorated over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study reinforces the importance of early and effective treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis patients, because multidrug-resistant tuberculosis increases lung damage. When patients complete their tuberculosis treatment, they should be evaluated as early as possible, and, if post-tuberculosis lung disease is diagnosed, they should be managed and offered pulmonary rehabilitation because there is evidence that it is effective in these patients.

Country-specific lockdown measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on tuberculosis control: a global study.

The objective of this study was to describe country-specific lockdown measures and tuberculosis indicators collected during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on lockdown/social restrictions (compulsory face masks and hand hygiene; international and local travel restrictions; restrictions to family visits, and school closures) were collected from 24 countries spanning five continents. The majority of the countries implemented multiple lockdowns with partial or full reopening. There was an overall decrease in active tuberculosis, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and latent tuberculosis cases. Although national lockdowns were effective in containing COVID-19 cases, several indicators of tuberculosis were affected during the pandemic.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

Introduction: Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain). Results: After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68-70) and 99% (95% CI: 99-99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44-119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26-0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167-590) and 97%, respectively. Conclusion: The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

The WHO Global Tuberculosis 2021 Report - not so good news and turning the tide back to End TB.

OBJECTIVE: To review the data presented in the 2021 WHO global TB report and discuss the current constraints in the global response. INTRODUCTION AND METHODS: The WHO global TB reports, consolidate TB data from countries and provide up to date assessment of the global TB epidemic. We reviewed the data presented in the 2021 report. RESULTS: We noted that the 2021 WHO global TB report presents a rather grim picture on the trajectory of the global epidemic of TB including a stagnation in the annual decline in TB incidence, a decline in TB notifications and an increase in estimated TB deaths. All the targets set at the 2018 United Nations High Level Meeting on TB were off track. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: The sub-optimal global performance on achieving TB control targets in 2020 is attributed to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, however, TB programs were already off track well before the onset of the pandemic, suggesting that the pandemic amplified an already fragile global TB response. We emphasize that ending the global TB epidemic will require bold leadership, optimization of existing interventions, widespread coverage, addressing social determinants of TB and importantly mobilization of adequate funding required for TB care and prevention.

Accelerating development of new shorter TB treatment regimens in anticipation of a resurgence of multi-drug resistant TB due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The WHO 2020 global TB Report estimates that in 2019 there were an estimated 500,000 cases of multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) of which only 186,772 MDR-TB cases were diagnosed, and positive treatment outcomes were achieved in 57% of them. These data highlight the need for accelerating and improving MDR-TB screening, diagnostic, treatment and patient follow-up services. The last decade has seen three new TB drugs being licensed; bedaquiline, delamanid and pretomanid, and combinations these new, existing and repurposed drugs are leading to improved cure rates. The all oral six month WHO regimen for MDR-TB is more tolerable, has higher treatment success rates and lower mortality. However, the unprecedented ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is having major direct and indirect negative impacts on health services overall, including national TB programs and TB services. This adds further to longstanding challenges for tackling MDR-TB such as cost, rollout of diagnostics and drugs, and implementation of latest WHO guidelines for MDR-TB. In light of COVID-19 disruption of TB services, it is anticipated the numbers of MDR-TB cases will rise in 2021 and 2022 and will affect treatment outcomes further. Investing more in development of new TB drugs and shorter MDR-TB treatment regimens is required in anticipation of emerging drug resistance to new TB drug regimens. There is an urgent need for protecting current investments in TB services, sustaining gains being made in TB control and accelerating roll out of TB diagnostic and treatment services.

Coinfection of tuberculosis and COVID-19 limits the ability to in vitro respond to SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: The interaction of COVID-19 and tuberculosis (TB) are still poor characterized. Here we evaluated the immune response specific for Micobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) and SARS-CoV-2 using a whole-blood-based assay-platform in COVID-19 patients either with TB or latent TB infection (LTBI). METHODS: We evaluated IFN-γ level in plasma from whole-blood stimulated with Mtb antigens in the Quantiferon-Plus format or with peptides derived from SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, Wuhan-Hu-1 isolate (CD4-S). RESULTS: We consecutively enrolled 63 COVID-19, 10 TB-COVID-19 and 11 LTBI-COVID-19 patients. IFN-γ response to Mtb-antigens was significantly associated to TB status and therefore it was higher in TB-COVID-19 and LTBI-COVID-19 patients compared to COVID-19 patients (p ≤ 0.0007). Positive responses against CD4-S were found in 35/63 COVID-19 patients, 7/11 LTBI-COVID-19 and only 2/10 TB-COVID-19 patients. Interestingly, the responders in the TB-COVID-19 group were less compared to COVID-19 and LTBI-COVID-19 groups (p = 0.037 and 0.044, respectively). Moreover, TB-COVID-19 patients showed the lowest quantitative IFN-γ response to CD4-S compared to COVID-19-patients (p = 0.0336) and LTBI-COVID-19 patients (p = 0.0178). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that COVID-19 patients either TB or LTBI have a low ability to build an immune response to SARS-CoV-2 while retaining the ability to respond to Mtb-specific antigens.

Screening for Tuberculosis in Migrants: A Survey by the Global Tuberculosis Network.

Tuberculosis (TB) does not respect borders, and migration confounds global TB control and elimination. Systematic screening of immigrants from TB high burden settings and-to a lesser degree TB infection (TBI)-is recommended in most countries with a low incidence of TB. The aim of the study was to evaluate the views of a diverse group of international health professionals on TB management among migrants. Participants expressed their level of agreement using a six-point Likert scale with different statements in an online survey available in English, French, Mandarin, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. The survey consisted of eight sections, covering TB and TBI screening and treatment in migrants. A total of 1055 respondents from 80 countries and territories participated between November 2019 and April 2020. The largest professional groups were pulmonologists (16.8%), other clinicians (30.4%), and nurses (11.8%). Participants generally supported infection control and TB surveillance established practices (administrative interventions, personal protection, etc.), while they disagreed on how to diagnose and manage both TB and TBI, particularly on which TBI regimens to use and when patients should be hospitalised. The results of this first knowledge, attitude and practice study on TB screening and treatment in migrants will inform public health policy and educational resources.