ABSTRACT
Background: Up to 15% of survivors of COVID-19 infection experience long-term health effects, including fatigue, myalgia, and impaired cognitive function, termed post COVID-19 condition or long COVID. Several trials that study the benefits and harms of various interventions to manage long COVID have been published and hundreds more are planned or are ongoing. Trustworthy systematic reviews that clarify the benefits and harms of interventions are critical to promote evidence-based practice. Objective To create and maintain a living systematic review and network meta-analysis addressing the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. Methods Eligible trials will randomize adults with long COVID, to pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions, placebo, sham, or usual care. We will identify eligible studies by searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, AMED, and CENTRAL, from inception, without language restrictions. Reviewers will work independently and in duplicate to screen search records, collect data from eligible trials, including trial and patient characteristics and outcomes of interest, and assess risk of bias. Our outcomes of interest will include fatigue, pain, post-exertional malaise, changes in education or employment status, cognitive function, mental health, dyspnea, quality of life, patient-reported physical function, recovery, and serious adverse events. For each outcome, when possible, we will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. When there are compelling reasons to suspect that certain interventions are only applicable or effective for a subtype of long COVID, we will perform separate network meta-analyses. The GRADE approach will guide our assessment of the certainty of evidence. We will update our living review biannually, upon the publication of a seminal trial, or when new evidence emerges that may change clinical practice. Conclusion This living systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide comprehensive, trustworthy, and up-to-date summaries of the evidence addressing the benefits and harms of interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. We will make our findings available publicly and work with guideline producing organizations to inform their recommendations.
Subject(s)
Pain , Dyspnea , Myalgia , COVID-19 , Fatigue , Cognition DisordersABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the effects of interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with COVID-19. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis Data sources: WHO COVID-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses Study selection: Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed COVID-19 were randomized to IL-6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. Results: We assessed the risk of bias of included trials using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a Bayesian fixed effect network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We identified 45 eligible trials (20,650 patients), 36 (19,350 patients) of which could be included in the network meta-analysis. 27 of 36 trials were rated at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab (20 more per 1000, 15 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty) alone may not reduce the risk of death. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces the risk of death compared to corticosteroids alone (35 fewer per 1000, 52 fewer to 18 more; moderate certainty) and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, may reduce the risk of death compared to corticosteroids alone (43 fewer, 73 fewer to 12 more; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, both in combination with corticosteroids, may have similar effects (8 more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). Conclusion: IL-6 receptor blockers, when added to standard care that includes corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, probably reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab may have similar effectiveness.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , DeathABSTRACT
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-randomized superiority trial in four sites in Switzerland and Brazil. Clusters were randomized to receive LPV/r PEP (400/100 mg) twice daily for 5 days or no PEP (surveillance). The primary outcome is the occurrence of COVID-19 within 21 days post-enrollment.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 randomized 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 to 2.73). In the primary endpoint analysis adjusted for propensity score to receive LPV/r, the hazard ratio for developing COVID-19 in the LPV/r group vs surveillance was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.23 to 1.23, respectively; P =.14).Interpretation: LPV/r role as PEP for COVID-19 remains unanswered. In this trial, LPV/r over 5 days did not significantly reduce incidence of COVID-19 in exposed individuals. We observed a change in directionality of the effect in favor of LPV/r after adjusting for baseline SARS-CoV-2 PCR results, indicating a potential role of antivirals in COVID-19 prevention.Clinical Trial Registration Details: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04364022); Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal: SNCTP 000003732.Funding Information: Fondation privée des HUG and Swiss National Fund (project number: 33IC30_166819).Declaration of Interests: None reported.Ethics Approval Statement: The protocol and amendments were approved by Swissmedic and local ethics committees in Switzerland and Brazil. Participants provided written informed consent before study entry.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension, Portal , White Coat HypertensionABSTRACT
Objective To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 19 January 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 January 2021. Study selection Randomized trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomized trials: six addressing hydroxychloroquine (6,059 participants), one addressing ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (234 participants) and two addressing ivermectin alone (540 participants), all compared to standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine has no important effect on admission to hospital (risk difference (RD) 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3 fewer to 4 more, high certainty) or mortality (RD 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 2 fewer to 3 more, high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably has no important effect on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 2 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 18 fewer to 28 more, moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (RD 19 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 1 fewer to 70 more, moderate certainty) and may have no important effect on suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 15 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 64 fewer to 41 more, low certainty). Due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 52 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 58 fewer to 37 fewer), and ivermectin alone on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 50 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 159 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain uncertain. Conclusion Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not have an important effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not have an important effect on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, we are 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. Funding This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321). Reader 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.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Laboratory Infection , COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic has produced a large number of clinical trial reports with unprecedented rapidity, raising concerns about methodological quality and potential for research waste. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating prophylaxis or treatment of Covid-19 infection and examine the effect of trial characteristics on whether the study reported a statistically significant effect on the primary outcome(s). Study Design: Meta-epidemiological study of Covid-19 treatment and prophylaxis RCTs. Eligibility criteria: English-language RCTs (peer-reviewed or preprint) that evaluated pharmacologic agents or blood products compared to standard care, placebo, or an active comparator among participants with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 or at risk for Covid-19. We excluded trials of vaccines or traditional herbal medicines. Information sources: We searched 25 databases in the US Centre for Disease Control Downloadable Database from January 1 to October 21, 2020. Trial appraisal and synthesis methods: We extracted trial characteristics including number of centres, funding sources (industry versus non-industry), and sample size. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 Tool. We used descriptive statistics to summarize trial characteristics and logistic regression to evaluate the association between RoB due to the randomization process, centre status (single vs. multicentre), funding source, and sample size, and statistically significant effect in the primary outcome. Results: We included 91 RCTs (46,802 participants) evaluating Covid-19 therapeutic drugs (n = 76), blood products (n = 9) or prophylactic drugs (n = 6). Of these, 40 (44%) were single-centre, 23 (25.3%) enrolled < 50 patients, and 28 (30.8%) received industry funding. RoB varied across trials, with high or probably high overall RoB in 75 (82.4%) trials, most frequently due to deviations from the intended protocol (including blinding) and randomization processes. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) found a statistically significant effect in the primary outcome. RoB due randomization (odds ratio [OR] 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47 to 9.72) and single centre trials (OR 3.15, 95% CI, 1.25 to 7.97) were associated with higher likelihood of finding a statistically significant effect. Conclusions: There was high variability in RoB amongst Covid-19 trials. RoB attributed to the randomization process and single centre status were associated with a three-fold increase in the odds of finding a statistically significant effect. Researchers, funders, and knowledge users should remain cognizant of the impact of study characteristics, including RoB, on trial results when designing, conducting, and appraising Covid-19 trials. Registration number: CRD42020192095
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus InfectionsABSTRACT
IntroductionIn an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), several drugs, such as remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin), and lopinavir/ritonavir, have been evaluated for treatment. While much attention focuses on potential benefits of these drugs, this must be weighed against their adverse effects. MethodsWe searched 32 databases in multiple languages from 1 December 2019 to 27 October 2020. We included randomized trials if they compared any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. A related world health organization (WHO) guideline panel selected the interventions to address and identified possible adverse effects that might be important to patients. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analyzed data using a fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. ResultsWe included 16 randomized trials which enrolled 8226 patients. Compared to 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% confidence interval (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 serious 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 to 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 to standard care or placebo. ConclusionHydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Remdesivir may have no effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus InfectionsABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to shortage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity. We developed a triage strategy including non-invasive respiratory support and admission to the intermediate care unit (IMCU). ICU admission was restricted to patients requiring invasive ventilation. ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intermediate care unit. MethodRetrospective cohort including consecutive patients admitted between March 28th and April 27th 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-days mortality and predictors of ICU admission. ResultsOne 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 to 0.99) and Body Mass Index (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98) were significantly associated with ICU admission. No death or emergency intubation occurred in the intermediate care unit. Among the 72 patients transferred from the ICU, 60/72 (83%) presented neurological complications. ConclusionsNon-invasive respiratory support including High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and continuous positive airway pressure prevents ICU admission for a large proportion of patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure. In the context of the COVID pandemic, intermediate care units 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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Aims: To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19 disease. Methods: In this unmatched (1:1) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 176 negative controls collected before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay. Results: COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% of them were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had a high diagnostic accuracy with AUCs of 0.992 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.986-0.996) and 0.977 (95%CI: 0.963-0.990), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.008). Considering optimized cut-offs taking the 15% inter-assay imprecision assessed into account, an IgG ratio cut-off > 1.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 98-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 97-100). A 0.5 cut-off displayed a 97% sensitivity (95%CI: 93-99) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 93-99). Adopting these thresholds, rather than those of the manufacturer, improved assay performance, leaving 12% of IgG ratios ranging between 0.5-1.5 as indeterminate. Conclusions: The Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in a samples of patients, without any obvious gains from considering IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not in our study population. They should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.