Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers and the Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection or Hospitalization With COVID-19 Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infects its target cells via angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor, a membrane-bound protein found on the surface of many human cells. Treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptors blockers (ARB) has been shown to increase angiotensin converting enzyme 2 expression by up to 5-fold. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: These findings coupled with observations of the high prevalence and mortality among SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with underlying cardiovascular disease have led to a speculation that ACEIs/ARBs may predispose to higher risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed a meta-analysis of the association between prior use of ACEIs and ARBs and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, and Medrxiv.org preprint server until June 18, 2020. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Ten studies (6 cohorts and 4 case control) that enrolled a total of 23,892 patients and 853,369 controls were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. One study was excluded from the analysis because of high risk of bias. Prior use of ACEIs was not associated with an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease, odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval (0.91-1.05), I2 = 15%. Similarly, prior use of ARBs was not associated with an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2, odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval (0.98-1.10), I2 = 0%. CONCLUSION: Cumulative evidence suggests that prior use of ACEIs or ARBs is not associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 or hospitalization due to COVID-19 disease. Our results provide a reassurance to the public not to discontinue prescribed ACEIs/ARBs because of fear of COVID-19.

A systematic review of trials currently investigating therapeutic modalities for post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and registered on WHO International Clinical Trials Platform.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is a well-recognized, complex, systemic disease which is associated with substantial morbidity. There is a paucity of established interventions for the treatment of patients with this syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review registered trials currently investigating therapeutic modalities for PACS. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted up to the 16 September, 2022, using the COVID-19 section of the WHO Internal Clinical Trials Registry Platform. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Interventional clinical trials of any sample size examining any therapeutic modality targeting persistent symptoms among individuals after diagnosis with COVID-19. METHODS: Data on trial characteristics and intervention characteristics were collected and summarized. RESULTS: After screening 17 125 trials, 388 trials, from 42 countries, were eligible. In total, we had 406 interventions, of which 368 were mono-therapeutic strategies, whereas 38 were intervention combinations. Among 824 primary outcomes identified, there were >300 different outcomes. Rehabilitation was the most employed class of intervention in 169 trials. We encountered 76 trials examining the pharmacological agents of various classes, with the most common agent being colchicine. Complementary and alternative medicine encompassed 64 trials exploring traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, homeopathic medications, naturopathic medications, vitamins, dietary supplements, and botanicals. Psychotherapeutic and educational interventions were also employed in 12 and 4 trials, respectively. Other interventions, including transcranial direct current stimulation, transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation, general electrical stimulation, cranial electrotherapy stimulation, various stem cell interventions, and oxygen therapy interventions, were also employed. CONCLUSION: We identified 388 registered trials, with a high degree of heterogeneity, exploring 144 unique mono-therapeutic interventions for PACS. Most studies target general alleviation of symptoms. There is a need for further high-quality and methodologically robust PACS treatment trials to be conducted with standardization of outcomes while following WHO's recommendation for uniform evaluation and treatment.

COVID-19-Associated cardiac pathology at the postmortem evaluation: a collaborative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many postmortem studies address the cardiovascular effects of COVID-19 and provide valuable information, but are limited by their small sample size. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review is to better understand the various aspects of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 by pooling data from a large number of autopsy studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched the online databases Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for concepts of autopsy or histopathology combined with COVID-19, published between database inception and February 2021. We also searched for unpublished manuscripts using the medRxiv services operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported human postmortem cardiovascular findings among individuals with a confirmed SARS coronavirus type 2 (CoV-2) infection. PARTICIPANTS: Confirmed COVID-19 patients with post-mortem cardiovascular findings. INTERVENTIONS: None. METHODS: Studies were individually assessed for risk of selection, detection, and reporting biases. The median prevalence of different autopsy findings with associated interquartile ranges (IQRs). RESULTS: This review cohort contained 50 studies including 548 hearts. The median age of the deceased was 69 years. The most prevalent acute cardiovascular findings were myocardial necrosis (median: 100.0%; IQR, 20%-100%; number of studies = 9; number of patients = 64) and myocardial oedema (median: 55.5%; IQR, 19.5%-92.5%; number of studies = 4; number of patients = 46). The median reported prevalence of extensive, focal active, and multifocal myocarditis were all 0.0%. The most prevalent chronic changes were myocyte hypertrophy (median: 69.0%; IQR, 46.8%-92.1%) and fibrosis (median: 35.0%; IQR, 35.0%-90.5%). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the myocardium with median prevalence of 60.8% (IQR 40.4-95.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review confirmed the high prevalence of acute and chronic cardiac pathologies in COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 cardiac tropism, as well as the low prevalence of myocarditis in COVID-19.

Persistent COVID-19 symptoms at least one month after diagnosis: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an important healthcare burden. We examined persistent symptoms in COVID-19 patients at least four weeks after the onset of infection, participants' return to pre-COVID-19 health status and associated risk factors. METHODS: Cross-sectional study was conducted (December 2020 to January 2021). A validated online questionnaire was sent to randomly selected individuals aged more than 14 years from a total of 1397,386 people confirmed to have COVID-19 at least 4 weeks prior to the start of this survey. This sample was drawn from the Saudi ministry of health COVID-19 testing registry system. RESULTS: Out of the 9507 COVID-19 patients who responded to the survey, 5946 (62.5%) of them adequately completed it. 2895 patients (48.7%) were aged 35-44 years, 64.4% were males, and 91.5% were Middle Eastern or North African. 79.4% experienced unresolved symptoms for at least 4 weeks after the disease onset. 9.3% were hospitalized with 42.7% visiting healthcare facility after discharge and 14.3% requiring readmission. The rates of main reported persistent symptoms in descending order were fatigue 53.5%, muscle and body ache 38.2%, loss of smell 35.0%, joint pain 30.5%, and loss of taste 29.1%. There was moderate correlation between the number of symptoms at the onset and post-four weeks of COVID-19 infection. Female sex, pre-existing comorbidities, increased number of baseline symptoms, longer hospital-stay, and hospital readmission were predictors of delayed return to baseline health state (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The symptoms of PACS are prevalent after contracting COVID-19 disease. Several risk factors could predict delayed return to baseline health state.

Prevalence of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome symptoms at different follow-up periods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome is now recognized as a complex systemic disease that is associated with substantial morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of persistent symptoms and signs at least 12 weeks after acute COVID-19 at different follow-up periods. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted up to October 2021 in Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Articles in English that reported the prevalence of persistent symptoms among individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and included at least 50 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks after acute illness. METHODS: Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to produce a pooled prevalence for each symptom at four different follow-up time intervals. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic and was explored via meta-regression, considering several a priori study-level variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for prevalence studies and comparative studies, respectively. RESULTS: After screening 3209 studies, a total of 63 studies were eligible, with a total COVID-19 population of 257 348. The most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and difficulty concentrating (32%, 25%, 24%, and 22%, respectively, at 3- to <6-month follow-up); effort intolerance, fatigue, sleep disorder, and dyspnea (45%, 36%, 29%, and 25%, respectively, at 6- to <9-month follow-up); fatigue (37%) and dyspnea (21%) at 9 to <12 months; and fatigue, dyspnea, sleep disorder, and myalgia (41%, 31%, 30%, and 22%, respectively, at >12-month follow-up). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity for all reported symptom prevalences. Meta-regressions identified statistically significant effect modifiers: world region, male sex, diabetes mellitus, disease severity, and overall study quality score. Five of six studies including a comparator group consisting of COVID-19-negative cases observed significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and several long-term symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that a large proportion of patients experience post-acute COVID-19 syndrome 3 to 12 months after recovery from the acute phase of COVID-19. However, available studies of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome are highly heterogeneous. Future studies need to have appropriate comparator groups, standardized symptom definitions and measurements, and longer follow-up.

Prevalence and predictors of Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome (PACS) after hospital discharge: A cohort study with 4 months median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an emerging healthcare burden. The risk factors associated with PACS remain largely unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of new or persistent symptoms in COVID-19 patients post hospital discharge and identify associated risk factors. METHODS: Our prospective cohort comprised of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between May and July 2020. The patients were interviewed through phone calls by trained physicians from 6 weeks up to 6 months post hospital discharge. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models were used to examine for predictors associated with persistence of symptoms and non-return to baseline health. RESULTS: 222 COVID-19 patients responded to follow-up phone interviews after a median of 122 days post discharge. The majority of patients were men (77%) with mean age of 52.47 (± 13.95) years. 56.3% of patients complained of persistent symptoms; 66 (29.7%) experiencing them for >21 days and 64 (28.8%) reporting not having returned to their baseline health. Furthermore, 39 patients (17.6%) reported visiting an emergency room post discharge for COVID-19-related symptoms while 16 (7.2%) had required re-hospitalization. Shortness of breath (40.1%), cough (27.5%) and fatigue (29.7%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at follow-up. After multivariable adjustments, female gender, pre-existing hypertension and length of hospital stay were associated with an increased risk of new or persistent symptoms. Age, pre-existing lung disease and emergency room visits increased the likelihood of not fully recovering from acute COVID-19. Patients who were treated with interferon ß-1b based triple antiviral therapy during hospital stay were less likely to experience new or persistent symptoms and more likely to return to their baseline health. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 survivors continued to suffer from dyspnea, cough and fatigue at 4 months post hospital discharge. Several risk factors could predict which patients are more likely to experience PACS and may benefit from individualized follow-up and rehabilitation programs.

Long term predictors of breathlessness, exercise intolerance, chronic fatigue and well-being in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A cohort study with 4 months median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an emerging healthcare burden. We therefore aimed to determine predictors of different functional outcomes after hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: An ambidirectional cohort study was conducted between May and July 2020, in which PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients underwent a standardized telephone assessment between 6 weeks and 6 months post discharge. We excluded patients who died, had a mental illness or failed to respond to two follow-up phone calls. The medical research council (MRC) dyspnea scale, metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score for exercise tolerance, chronic fatigability syndrome (CFS) scale and World Health Organization-five well-being index (WHO-5) for mental health were used to evaluate symptoms at follow-up. RESULTS: 375 patients were contacted and 153 failed to respond. The median timing for the follow-up assessment was 122 days (IQR, 109-158). On multivariate analyses, female gender, pre-existing lung disease, headache at presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, critical COVID-19 and post-discharge ER visit were predictors of higher MRC scores at follow-up. Female gender, older age >67 years, arterial hypertension and emergency room (ER) visit were associated with lower MET exercise tolerance scores. Female gender, pre-existing lung disease, and ER visit were associated with higher risk of CFS. Age, dyslipidemia, hypertension, pre-existing lung disease and duration of symptoms were negatively associated with WHO-5 score. CONCLUSIONS: Several risk factors were associated with an increased risk of PACS. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are at risk for PACS may benefit from a targeted pre-emptive follow-up and rehabilitation programs.

Escalating incidence of infective endocarditis in Europe in the 21st century.

AIM: To provide a contemporary analysis of incidence trends of infective endocarditis (IE) with its changing epidemiology over the past two decades in Europe. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 November 2020. All studies were independently reviewed by four referees and those that included a population-based incidence of IE in patients, irrespective of age, in Europe were included. Least squares regression was used to estimate pooled temporal trends in IE incidence. RESULTS: Of 9138 articles screened, 18 studies were included in the review. Elderly men predominated in all studies. IE incidence increased 4.1% per year (95% CI 1.8% to 6.4%) in the pooled regression analysis of eight studies that included comprehensive and consistent trends data. When trends data were weighted according to population size of individual countries, an increase in yearly incidence of 0.27 cases per 100 000 people was observed. Staphylococci and streptococci were the most common pathogens identified. The rate of surgical intervention ranged from 10.2% to 60.0%, and the rate of inpatient mortality ranged from 14.3% to 17.5%. In six studies that examined the rate of injection drug use, five of them reported a rate of less than 10%. CONCLUSION: Based on findings from our systematic review, IE incidence in Europe has doubled over the past two decades in Europe. Multiple factors are likely responsible for this striking increase. TRIAL REGISTERATION NUMBER: CRD42020191196.

Overlooked Shortcomings of Observational Studies of Interventions in Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Illustrated Review for the Clinician.

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection across the globe triggered an unprecedented increase in research activities that resulted in an astronomical publication output of observational studies. However, most studies failed to apply fully the necessary methodological techniques that systematically deal with different biases and confounding, which not only limits their scientific merit but may result in harm through misleading information. In this article, we address a few important biases that can seriously threaten the validity of observational studies of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We focus on treatment selection bias due to patients' preference on goals of care, medical futility and disability bias, survivor bias, competing risks, and the misuse of propensity score analysis. We attempt to raise awareness and to help readers assess shortcomings of observational studies of interventions in COVID-19.

Unraveling the Mystery Surrounding Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19.

More than one year since its emergence, corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still looming large with a paucity of treatment options. To add to this burden, a sizeable subset of patients who have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection have reported lingering symptoms, leading to significant disability and impairment of their daily life activities. These patients are considered to suffer from what has been termed as "chronic" or "long" COVID-19 or a form of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, and patients experiencing this syndrome have been termed COVID-19 long-haulers. Despite recovery from infection, the persistence of atypical chronic symptoms, including extreme fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pains, brain fogs, anxiety and depression, that could last for months implies an underlying disease pathology that persist beyond the acute presentation of the disease. As opposed to the direct effects of the virus itself, the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is believed to be largely responsible for the appearance of these lasting symptoms, possibly through facilitating an ongoing inflammatory process. In this review, we hypothesize potential immunological mechanisms underlying these persistent and prolonged effects, and describe the multi-organ long-term manifestations of COVID-19.

Prior Statin Use and Risk of Mortality and Severe Disease From Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Statins up-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while also exhibiting pleiotropic antiviral, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Uncertainties exist about their effect on the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to examine the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and the preprint server medRxiv from inception to December 2020. We assessed the quality of eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. We pooled adjusted relative risk (aRRs) of the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I 2 index. RESULTS: Overall, 19 (16 cohorts and 3 case-control) studies were eligible, with a total of 395 513 patients. Sixteen of 19 studies had low or moderate risk of bias. Among 109 080 patients enrolled in 13 separate studies, prior statin use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (pooled aRR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .56-.77], I 2 = 84.1%) and a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 was also observed in 48 110 patients enrolled in 9 studies (pooled aRR, 0.73 [95% CI, .57-.94], I 2 = 82.8%), with no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative evidence suggests that prior statin use is associated with lower risks of mortality or severe disease in patients with COVID-19. These data support the continued use of statins medications in patients with an indication for lipid-lowering therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Combination of (interferon beta-1b, lopinavir/ritonavir and ribavirin) versus favipiravir in hospitalized patients with non-critical COVID-19: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of IFN-based therapy (lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, and interferon ß-1b) vs. favipiravir (FPV) in a cohort of hospitalized patients with non-critical COVID-19. METHODS: Single center observational study comparing IFN-based therapy (interferon ß-1b, ribavirin, and lopinavir/ritonavir) vs. FPV in non-critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Allocation to either treatment group was non-random but based on changes to national treatment protocols rather than physicians' selection (quasi-experimental). We examined the association between IFN-based therapy and 28-day mortality using Cox regression model with treatment as a time-dependent covariate. RESULTS: The study cohort included 222 patients, of whom 68 (28%) received IFN-based therapy. Antiviral therapy was started at a median of 5 days (3-6 days) from symptoms onset in the IFN group vs. 6 days (4-7 days) for the FPV group, P <0.0001. IFN-based therapy was associated with a lower 28-day mortality as compared to FPV (6 (9%) vs. 18 (12%)), adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] (95% Cl) = 0.27 (0.08-0.88)). No difference in hospitalization duration between the 2 groups, 9 (7-14) days vs. 9 (7-13) days, P = 0.732 was found. IFN treated group required less use of systemic corticosteroids (57%) as compared to FPV (77%), P = 0.005 after adjusting for disease severity and other confounders. Patients in the IFN treated group were more likely to have nausea and diarrhea as compared to FPV group (13%) vs. (3%), P = 0.013 and (18%) vs. (3%), P<0.0001, respectively. CONCLUSION: Early IFN-based triple therapy was associated with lower 28-days mortality as compared to FPV.

Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients: a living systematic review and meta-analysis, first update.

OBJECTIVES: Cytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to update the data in a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Data sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google from 8th October 2020 till 24th February 2021. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. The participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and intervention was tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs with a random effects model and evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 1600 citations, eight RCTs and 28 cohorts were eligible. The eight RCTs had low risk of bias, and with 6311 patients they examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 0.91 (95%CI 0.78-1.07, I2 25%). Only the REMAP-CAP and RECOVERY trials, with the majority of their patients on concomitant corticosteroids, showed lower 30-day mortality with tocilizumab use: RR 0.74 (95%CI 0.59-0.93) and 0.89 (95%CI 0.81-0.97), respectively. Seven RCTs, with 5391 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.84 (95%CI 0.76-0.93), I2 0%, with a corresponding number needed to treat of 20 (95%CI 14.3-33.3). Eight RCTs, with 5340 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on a composite of poor outcome; pooled RR was 0.82 (95%CI 0.76-0.90, I2 3%). Data from the RCTs showed a lower risk of infections and no higher risk of serious adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.67 (95%CI 0.45-0.99, eight RCTs) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.63-1.16, seven RCTs), respectively. Among 28 cohorts with 15 484 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.53 (95%CI 0.43-0.67, I2 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative high-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of poor outcome and the risk of secondary infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.

Mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Many meta-analyses have been published about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Most of them included observational studies, and few have assessed HCQ as a prophylaxis or evaluated its safety profile. We searched multiple databases and preprint servers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed HCQ for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. We summarized the effect of HCQ on mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes. Out of 768 papers screened, 21 RCTs with a total of 14,138 patients were included. A total of 9 inpatient and 3 outpatient RCTs assessed mortality in 8596 patients with a pooled risk difference of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.03, I2  = 1%, p = 0.07). Six studies assessed viral clearance at 7 days with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.11 (95% CI 0.86-1.42, I2  = 61%, p = 0.44) and 5 studies at 14 days with a pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.89-1.04, I2  = 0%, p = 0.34). Several trials showed no significant effect of HCQ on other clinical outcomes and. Five prevention RCTs with 5012 patients found no effect of HCQ on the risk of acquiring COVID-19. Thirteen trials showed that HCQ was associated with increased risk of adverse events. We observed, with high level of certainty of evidence, that HCQ is not effective in reducing mortality in patients with COVID-19. Lower certainty evidence also suggests that HCQ neither improves viral clearance and other clinical outcomes, nor prevents COVID-19 infection in patients with high-risk exposure. HCQ is associated with an increased rate of adverse events.

Statins as an adjunctive therapy for COVID-19: the biological and clinical plausibility.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected millions of individuals and has claimed hundreds of thousands of human lives worldwide. Patients with underlying cardiovascular conditions are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 patients have high incidence of cardiovascular complications such as acute cardiac injury, arrhythmias, heart failure, and thromboembolism. The disease has no approved proven effective therapy and hence repurposing of existing approved drugs has been considered as the fastest treatment approach. Statins have been shown to exhibit lipid lowering dependent and independent cardiovascular protective effects as well as favorable effects in various other pathophysiological states. These beneficial properties of statins are a result of their multiple pleotropic effects that include, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antithrombotic and antimicrobial properties. In this review, we provide a comprehensive description of the mechanisms of the pleotropic effects of statins, the relevant pre-clinical and clinical data pertinent to their role in infections and acute lung injury, the possible cardiovascular benefits of statins in COVID-19, and the implications of the therapeutic potential of statins in COVID-19 disease. We conclude with the rationale for conducting randomized controlled trials of statins in COVID-19 disease.

Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Cytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to perform a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Data sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google up to October 8, 2020. Study eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs and adjusted RRs from cohorts, separately. We evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 1156 citations, 24 studies were eligible (five RCTs and 19 cohorts). Five RCTs at low risk of bias, with 1325 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI 0.80-1.49, I2 = 0%). Four RCTs with 771 patients examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.71 (95%CI 0.52-0.96, I2 = 0%), with a corresponding number needed to treat of 17 (95%CI 9-100). Among 18 cohorts at moderate risk of bias with 9850 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.58 (95%CI 0.51-0.66, I2 = 2.5%). This association was observed over all degrees of COVID-19 severity. Data from the RCTs did not show a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.63 (95%CI 0.38-1.06, five RCTs) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55-1.24, five RCTs), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While RCTs showed that tocilizumab did not reduce short-term mortality, low-certainty evidence from cohort studies suggests an association between tocilizumab and lower mortality. We did not observe a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab use. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.