Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 31
Filter
1.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2022 May 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1850887

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements. DATA SOURCES: Beginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials; all languages. PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalized adults with COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: Remdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: We used the ROB-2 criteria. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important. RESULTS: We identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5-1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88-1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.

2.
Lancet (London, England) ; 399(10337):1775-1775, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1823186
3.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(4): e226269, 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1777508

ABSTRACT

Importance: Widely available and affordable options for the outpatient management of COVID-19 are needed, particularly for therapies that prevent hospitalization. Objective: To perform a meta-analysis of the available randomized clinical trial evidence for fluvoxamine in the outpatient management of COVID-19. Data Sources: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Selection: Studies with completed outpatient trials with available results that compared fluvoxamine with placebo were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed and study details in terms of inclusion criteria, trial demographics, and the prespecified outcome of all-cause hospitalization were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and a bayesian random effects meta-analysis with different estimates of prior probability was conducted: a weakly neutral prior (50% chance of efficacy with 95% CI for risk ratio [RR] between 0.5 and 2.0) and a moderately optimistic prior (85% chance of efficacy). A frequentist random-effects meta-analysis was conducted as a senstivity analysis, and the results were contextualized by estimating the probability of any association (RR ≤ 1) and moderate association (RR ≤ 0.9) with reduced hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause hospitalization. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials and included 2196 participants. The RRs for hospitalization were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.08) for the bayesian weakly neutral prior, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the bayesian moderately optimistic prior, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97) for the frequentist analysis. Depending on the scenario, the probability of any association with reduced hospitalization ranged from 94.1% to 98.6%, and the probability of moderate association ranged from 81.6% to 91.8%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 3 trials, under a variety of assumptions, fluvoxamine showed a high probability of being associated with reduced hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19. Ongoing randomized trials are important to evaluate alternative doses, explore the effectiveness in vaccinated patients, and provide further refinement to these estimates. Meanwhile, fluvoxamine could be recommended as a management option, particularly in resource-limited settings or for individuals without access to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy or direct antivirals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fluvoxamine , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Fluvoxamine/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Outpatients , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Canadian Medical Association. Journal ; 194(6):218, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1695685

ABSTRACT

McDonald and Lee present several facts about nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir is a Health Canada-approved oral antiviral medication with activity against SARS-CoV-2 Treatment is indicated for adult (≥ 18 yr) outpatients with nonhypoxic COVID-19 who are at high risk of severe disease progression.

7.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(3): ofac008, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1684769

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies have reduced hospitalization in randomized controlled trials. The choice of therapy may depend on drug efficacy, toxicity, pricing, availability, and available infrastructure. To facilitate comparative decision-making, we evaluated the efficacy of each treatment in clinical trials and estimated the cost per hospitalization prevented. METHODS: Wherever possible, we obtained relative risk for hospitalization from published randomized controlled trials. Otherwise, we extracted data from press releases, conference abstracts, government submissions, or preprints. If there was >1 study, the results were meta-analyzed. Using relative risk, we estimated the number needed to treat (NNT), assuming a baseline hospitalization risk of 5%, and compared the cost per hospitalization prevented with the estimate for an average Medicare COVID-19 hospitalization ($21 752). Drug pricing was estimated from GoodRx, from government purchases, or manufacturer estimates. Administrative and societal costs were not included. Results will be updated online as new studies emerge and/or final numbers become available. RESULTS: At a 5% risk of hospitalization, the estimated NNT was 80 for fluvoxamine, 91 for colchicine, 72 for inhaled corticosteroids, 24 for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 50 for molnupiravir, 28 for remdesivir, 25 for sotrovimab, 29 for casirivimab/imdevimab, and 29 for bamlanivimab/etesevimab. For drug cost per hospitalization prevented, colchicine, fluvoxamine, inhaled corticosteroids, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were below the Medicare estimated hospitalization cost. CONCLUSIONS: Many countries are fortunate to have access to several effective outpatient therapies to prevent COVID-19 hospitalization. Given differences in efficacy, toxicity, cost, and administration complexity, this assessment serves as one means to frame treatment selection.

9.
JAMMI: Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology & Infectious Disease Canada ; 6(4):241-244, 2021.
Article in English | CINAHL | ID: covidwho-1566625
10.
Ethics Hum Res ; 43(6): 19-27, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1530137

ABSTRACT

Excluding pregnant people from Covid-19 clinical trials may lead to unintended harmful consequences. For this study, an online questionnaire was sent to physicians belonging to Canadian professional medical associations in order to evaluate their perspectives on the participation of pregnant women in Covid-19 clinical trials. The majority of respondents expressed support for including pregnant women in Covid-19 trials (119/165; 72%), especially those investigating therapies with a prior safety record in pregnancy (139/164; 85%). The main perceived barriers to inclusion identified were unwillingness of pregnant patients to participate and of treating teams to offer participation, the burden of regulatory approval, and a general "culture of exclusion" of pregnant women from trials. We describe why some physicians may be reluctant to include pregnant individuals in trials, and we identify barriers to the appropriate participation of pregnant people in clinical research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Physicians , Canada , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , SARS-CoV-2
11.
BMJ ; 375: e068060, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1495140

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine if inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide are superior to placebo at decreasing respiratory symptoms in adult outpatients with covid-19. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. SETTING: Three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia). PARTICIPANTS: 203 adults aged 18 years and older with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19, presenting with fever, cough, or dyspnoea. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either inhaled ciclesonide (600 µg twice daily) and intranasal ciclesonide (200 µg daily) or metered dose inhaler and nasal saline placebos for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was symptom resolution at day 7. Analyses were conducted on the modified intention-to-treat population (participants who took at least one dose of study drug and completed one follow-up survey) and adjusted for stratified randomisation by sex. RESULTS: The modified intention-to-treat population included 203 participants: 105 were randomly assigned to ciclesonide (excluding two dropouts and one loss to follow-up) and 98 to placebo (excluding three dropouts and six losses to follow-up). The median age was 35 years (interquartile range 27-47 years) and 54% were women. The proportion of participants with resolution of symptoms by day 7 did not differ significantly between the intervention group (42/105, 40%) and control group (34/98, 35%); absolute adjusted risk difference 5.5% (95% confidence interval -7.8% to 18.8%). Results might be limited to the population studied, which mainly included younger adults without comorbidities. The trial was stopped early, therefore could have been underpowered. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, the combination of inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide did not show a statistically significant increase in resolution of symptoms among healthier young adults with covid-19 presenting with prominent respiratory symptoms. As evidence is insufficient to determine the benefit of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of covid-19, further research is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435795.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Ambulatory Care/methods , COVID-19/drug therapy , Pregnenediones/administration & dosage , Administration, Inhalation , Adolescent , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Pregnenediones/therapeutic use , Self Report , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
12.
Ethics Hum Res ; 43(6): 19-27, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482124

ABSTRACT

Excluding pregnant people from Covid-19 clinical trials may lead to unintended harmful consequences. For this study, an online questionnaire was sent to physicians belonging to Canadian professional medical associations in order to evaluate their perspectives on the participation of pregnant women in Covid-19 clinical trials. The majority of respondents expressed support for including pregnant women in Covid-19 trials (119/165; 72%), especially those investigating therapies with a prior safety record in pregnancy (139/164; 85%). The main perceived barriers to inclusion identified were unwillingness of pregnant patients to participate and of treating teams to offer participation, the burden of regulatory approval, and a general "culture of exclusion" of pregnant women from trials. We describe why some physicians may be reluctant to include pregnant individuals in trials, and we identify barriers to the appropriate participation of pregnant people in clinical research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Physicians , Canada , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e835-e843, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. RESULTS: We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Canada , Health Personnel , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Int J Infect Dis ; 104: 671-676, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The global death toll from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exceeded 2 million, and treatments to decrease mortality are needed urgently. OBJECTIVES: To examine the probabilities of a clinically meaningful reduction in mortality for remdesivir and systemic corticosteroids. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a probabilistic re-analysis of clinical trial data for corticosteroids and remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using a Bayesian random effects meta-analytic approach. Studies were identified from existing meta-analyses performed by the World Health Organization. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Posterior probabilities of an absolute decrease in mortality compared with control patients, by subgroups based on oxygen requirements, were calculated for corticosteroids and remdesivir. Probabilities of ≥1%, ≥2% and ≥5% absolute decrease in mortality were quantified. RESULTS: For patients needing mechanical ventilation, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 4% for remdesivir and 93% for corticosteroids. For patients needing supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 81% for remdesivir and 93% for dexamethasone. Finally, for patients who did not need oxygen support, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 29% for remdesivir and 4% for dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Using a Bayesian analytic approach, remdesivir had low probability of achieving a clinically meaningful reduction in mortality, except for patients needing supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Corticosteroids were more promising for patients needing oxygen support, especially mechanical ventilation. While awaiting more definitive studies, this probabilistic interpretation of the evidence will help to guide treatment decisions for clinicians, as well as guideline and policy makers.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Probability , Respiration, Artificial
18.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(2): ofaa602, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069290

ABSTRACT

As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic evolved, it was apparent that well designed and rapidly conducted randomized clinical trials were urgently needed. However, traditional clinical trial design presented several challenges. Notably, disease prevalence initially varied by time and region, and the pockets of outbreaks evolved geographically over time. Coupled with an occupational hazard from in-person study visits, timely recruitment would prove difficult in a traditional in-person clinical trial. Thus, our team opted to launch nationwide internet-based clinical trials using patient-reported outcome measures. In total, 2795 participants were recruited using traditional and social media, with screening and enrollment performed via an online data capture system. Follow-up surveys and survey reminders were similarly managed through this online system with manual participant outreach in the event of missing data. In this report, we present a narrative of our experience running internet-based clinical trials and provide recommendations for the design of future clinical trials during a world pandemic.

19.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(3): 353-360, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1032889

ABSTRACT

Importance: Nasopharyngeal swab nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the noninvasive criterion standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, it requires trained personnel, limiting its availability. Saliva NAAT represents an attractive alternative, but its diagnostic performance is unclear. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of saliva NAAT for COVID-19. Data Sources: In this systematic review, a search of the MEDLINE and medRxiv databases was conducted on August 29, 2020, to find studies of diagnostic test accuracy. The final meta-analysis was performed on November 17, 2020. Study Selection: Studies needed to provide enough data to measure salivary NAAT sensitivity and specificity compared with imperfect nasopharyngeal swab NAAT as a reference test. An imperfect reference test does not perfectly reflect the truth (ie, it can give false results). Studies were excluded if the sample contained fewer than 20 participants or was neither random nor consecutive. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was followed for the systematic review, with multiple authors involved at each stage of the review. To account for the imperfect reference test sensitivity, we used a bayesian latent class bivariate model for the meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pooled sensitivity and specificity. Two secondary analyses were performed: one restricted to peer-reviewed studies, and a post hoc analysis limited to ambulatory settings. Results: The search strategy yielded 385 references, and 16 unique studies were identified for quantitative synthesis. Eight peer-reviewed studies and 8 preprints were included in the meta-analyses (5922 unique patients). There was significant variability in patient selection, study design, and stage of illness at which patients were enrolled. Fifteen studies included ambulatory patients, and 9 exclusively enrolled from an outpatient population with mild or no symptoms. In the primary analysis, the saliva NAAT pooled sensitivity was 83.2% (95% credible interval [CrI], 74.7%-91.4%) and the pooled specificity was 99.2% (95% CrI, 98.2%-99.8%). The nasopharyngeal swab NAAT had a sensitivity of 84.8% (95% CrI, 76.8%-92.4%) and a specificity of 98.9% (95% CrI, 97.4%-99.8%). Results were similar in secondary analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that saliva NAAT diagnostic accuracy is similar to that of nasopharyngeal swab NAAT, especially in the ambulatory setting. These findings support larger-scale research on the use of saliva NAAT as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL