Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 29
Filter
1.
Dtsch Arztebl Int ; (Forthcoming)2022 05 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1933604

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: One of the purposes of outpatient treatment for COVID-19 patients is to prevent severe disease courses and hospitalization. There is a need for evidence-based recommendations to be applied in primary care and specialized outpatient settings. METHODS: This guideline was developed on the basis of publications that were retrieved by a systematic search for randomized controlled trials in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE, and structured consensus generation was carried out with MAGICapp. RESULTS: Unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for a severe disease course may be treated in the early phase of the disease with sotrovimab, remdesivir, or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Molnupiravir may also be used for such patients if no other clinically appropriate treatment options are available. Immunosuppressed persons with COVID-19 who are at high risk, and whose response to vaccination is expected to be reduced, ought to be treated with sotrovimab. It should be noted, however, that the clinical efficacy of sotrovimab against infections with the omicron subtype BA.2 is uncertain at the currently used dose, as the drug has displayed reduced activity against this subtype in vitro. COVID-19 patients at risk of a severe course may be offered budesonide inhalation, according to an off-label recommendation of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (other medical societies do not recommend either for or against this treatment). Thromboembolism prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin may be given to elderly patients or those with a pre-existing illness. No recommendation is made concerning fluvoxamine or colchicine. Acetylsalicylic acid, azithromycin, ivermectin, systemic steroids, and vitamin D should not be used for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Drug treatment is now available for outpatients with COVID-19 in the early phase. Nearly all of the relevant trials have been conducted in unvaccinated subjects; this needs to be kept in mind in patient selection.

2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD015017, 2022 06 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1898514

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Ivermectin/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD014945, 2022 06 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1898513

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID-19. We excluded studies of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs to treat COVID-19, as these are part of another review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, all-cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre-exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all-grade AEs, and SAEs (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low-certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all-grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all-cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), may increase all-grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS-CoV-2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (broad-term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low-certainty evidence), decreases all-grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS-CoV-2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all-grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS-CoV-2, development of clinical COVID-19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all-grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab.   Although there is high-to-moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID-19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological , COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Neutralizing , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD015209, 2022 06 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1888499

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Janus Kinase Inhibitors , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Janus Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Oxygen , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
5.
Campbell Systematic Reviews ; 18(2), 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1888662

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThere is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence‐based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health‐ and healthcare‐related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi‐Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series.ObjectivesThe objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi‐stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi‐stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist?Search MethodsA comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer‐reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological s. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline‐producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter.Selection CriteriaWe will include empirical qualitative and mixed‐method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates;Public;Providers of health care;Payers of health services;Payers of research;Policy makers;Program managers;Product makers;Purchasers;Principal investigators and their research teams;and Peer‐review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN‐McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development.Data Collection and AnalysisAll identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two‐part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and review and (2) full‐text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form.Main ResultsThe results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi‐stakeholder engagement in gu deline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines.

6.
Blood Cancer J ; 12(5): 86, 2022 05 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1873485

ABSTRACT

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) appears limited due to disease and treatment-associated immune impairment. We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies published from 10/12/2021 onwards in medical databases to assess clinical efficacy parameters, humoral and cellular immunogenicity and adverse events (AE) following two doses of COVID-19 approved vaccines. In 57 eligible studies reporting 7393 patients, clinical outcomes were rarely reported and rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 0-11.9%), symptomatic disease (0-2.7%), hospital admission (0-2.8%), or death (0-0.5%) were low. Seroconversion rates ranged from 38.1-99.1% across studies with the highest response rate in myeloproliferative diseases and the lowest in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients with B-cell depleting treatment had lower seroconversion rates as compared to other targeted treatments or chemotherapy. The vaccine-induced T-cell response was rarely and heterogeneously reported (26.5-85.9%). Similarly, AEs were rarely reported (0-50.9% ≥1 AE, 0-7.5% ≥1 serious AE). In conclusion, HM patients present impaired humoral and cellular immune response to COVID-19 vaccination with disease and treatment specific response patterns. In light of the ongoing pandemic with the easing of mitigation strategies, new approaches to avert severe infection are urgently needed for this vulnerable patient population that responds poorly to current COVID-19 vaccine regimens.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hematologic Neoplasms , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Hematologic Neoplasms/complications , Hematologic Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
7.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews ; 2021(5), 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1871055

ABSTRACT

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 causing COVID‐19;and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 8: CD015061, 2021 08 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1813447

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Palliative Care , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bias , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
9.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews ; 2021(4), 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1801610

ABSTRACT

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention (1) for prevention of an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (post‐exposure prophylaxis), and (2) for people with COVID‐19 receiving treatment as outpatients or inpatients.

10.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-331041

ABSTRACT

Neutralising antibodies are an important correlate of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multiple studies have investigated the effectiveness of passively administered antibodies (either monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin) in preventing acquisition of or improving the outcome of infection. Comparing the results between studies is challenging due to different study characteristics including disease stage, trial enrolment and outcome criteria, and different product factors, including administration of polyclonal or monoclonal antibody, and antibody targets and doses. Here we integrate data from 37 randomised controlled trials to investigate how the timing and dose of passive antibodies predicts protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We find that both prophylactic and early therapeutic administration (to symptomatic ambulant subjects) have significant efficacy in preventing infection or progression to hospitalisation respectively. However, we find that effectiveness of passive antibody therapy in preventing clinical progression is significantly reduced with administration at later clinical stages (p<0.0001). To compare the dose-response relationship between different treatments, we normalise the administered antibody dose to the predicted neutralisation titre (after dilution) compared to the mean titre observed in early convalescent subjects. We use a logistic model to analyse the dose-response curve of passive antibody administration in preventing progression from symptomatic infection to hospitalisation. We estimate a maximal protection from progression to hospitalisation of 70.2% (95% CI: 62.1 - 78.3%). The dose required to achieve 50% of the maximal effect (EC-50) for prevention of progression to hospitalisation was 0.19-fold (95% CI: 0.087 - 0.395) of the mean early convalescent titre. This suggests that for current monoclonal antibody regimes, doses between 7- and >1000-fold lower than currently used could still achieve around 90% of the current effectiveness (depending on the variant) and allow much more widespread use at lower cost. For convalescent plasma, most current doses are lower than required for high levels of protection. This work provides a framework for the rational design of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19.

11.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD015125, 2022 03 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1733830

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections. MAIN RESULTS: Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) - People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. - People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); - probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by -4.00 days, 95% CI -6.22 to -1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence); - the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cause of Death , Female , Humans , Male , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Infection ; 50(1): 93-106, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1661756

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. RESULTS: The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD015045, 2021 10 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1620089

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colchicine , Cause of Death , Colchicine/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Dtsch Arztebl Int ; 118(50): 865-871, 2021 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1594909

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The mortality of COVID-19 patients who are admitted to a hospital because of the disease remains high. The implementation of evidence-based treatments can improve the quality of care. METHODS: The new clinical practice guideline is based on publications retrieved by a systematic search in the Medline databases via PubMed and in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, followed by a structured consensus process leading to the adoption of graded recommendations. RESULTS: Therapeutic anticoagulation can be considered in patients who do not require intensive care and have an elevated risk of thromboembolism (for example, those with D-dimer levels ≥ 2 mg/L). For patients in intensive care, therapeutic anticoagulation has no benefit. For patients with hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency, prone positioning and an early therapy attempt with CPAP/noninvasive ventilation (CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure) or high-flow oxygen therapy is recommended. Patients with IgG-seronegativity and, at most, low-flow oxygen should be treated with SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibodies (at present, casirivimab and imdevimab). Patients needing no more than low-flow oxygen should additionally be treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. All patients who need oxygen (low-flow, high-flow, noninvasive ventilation/CPAP, invasive ventilation) should be given systemic corticosteroids. Tocilizumab should be given to patients with a high oxygen requirement and progressively severe COVID-19 disease, but not in combination with JAK inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, prone positioning, and invasive ventilation are important elements of the treatment of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. A reduction of mortality has been demonstrated for the administration of monoclonal antibodies, JAK inhibitors, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, and therapeutic anticoagulation to specific groups of patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Hospitals , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013825, 2021 09 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1490675

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Cause of Death , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD015025, 2021 10 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482091

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Cause of Death , Humans , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
18.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 141: 82-89, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401588

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging review type that makes use of continual updating. In the COVID-19 pandemic, we were confronted with a shifting epidemiological landscape, clinical uncertainties and evolving evidence. These unexpected challenges compelled us to amend standard LSR methodology. OBJECTIVE AND OUTLINE: Our primary objective is to discuss some challenges faced when conducting LSRs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide methodological guidance for others doing similar work. Based on our experience and lessons learned from two Cochrane LSRs and challenges identified in several non-Cochrane LSRs, we highlight methodological considerations, particularly with regards to the study design, interventions and comparators, changes in outcome measure, and the search strategy. We discuss when to update, or rather when not to update the review, and the importance of transparency when reporting changes. LESSONS LEARNED AND CONCLUSION: We learned that a LSR is a very suitable review type for the pandemic context, even in the face of new methodological and clinical challenges. Our experience showed that the decision for updating a LSR depends not only on the evolving disease or emerging evidence, but also on the individual review question and the review teams' resources.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL