Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

[Combination therapy at an early stage of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19). Case series and design of the clinical trial "BromhexIne and Spironolactone for CoronаvirUs Infection requiring hospiTalization (BISCUIT)"].

The article focuses on effective treatment of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) at early stages and substantiates the requirement for antiviral therapy and for decreasing the viral load to prevent the infection progression. The absence of a specific antiviral therapy for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is stated. The authors analyzed results of early randomized studies using lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, and favipiravir in COVID-19 and their potential for the treatment of novel coronavirus infection. Among the drugs blocking the virus entry into cells, the greatest attention was paid to the antimalaria drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. The article addresses in detail ineffectiveness and potential danger of hydroxychloroquine, which demonstrated neither a decrease in the time of clinical recovery nor any improvement of prognosis for patients with COVID-19. The major objective was substantiating a possible use of bromhexine, a mucolytic and anticough drug, which can inhibit transmembrane serin protease 2 required for entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into cells. Spironolactone may have a similar feature. Due to its antiandrogenic effects, spironolactone can inhibit X-chromosome-related synthesis of ACE-2 receptors and activation of transmembrane serin protease 2. In addition to slowing the virus entry into cells, spironolactone decreases severity of fibrosis in different organs, including the lungs. The major part of the article addresses clinical examples of managing patients with COVID-19 at the University Clinic of the Medical Research and Educational Centre of the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, including successful treatment with schemes containing bromhexine and spironolactone. In conclusion, the authors described the design of a randomized, prospective BISCUIT study performed at the University Clinic of the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University with an objective of evaluating the efficacy of this scheme.

Bromhexine Hydrochloride Tablets for the Treatment of Moderate COVID-19: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

This open-label randomized controlled pilot study aimed to test the study feasibility of bromhexine hydrochloride (BRH) tablets for the treatment of mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to explore its clinical efficacy and safety. Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 were randomly divided into the BRH group or the control group at a 2:1 ratio. Routine treatment according to China's Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Diagnosis and Treatment Plan was performed in both groups, whereas patients in the BRH group were additionally given oral BRH (32 mg t.i.d.) for 14 consecutive days. The efficacy and safety of BRH were evaluated. A total of 18 patients with moderate COVID-19 were randomized into the BRH group (n = 12) or the control group (n = 6). There were suggestions of BRH advantage over placebo in improved chest computed tomography, need for oxygen therapy, and discharge rate within 20 days. However, none of these findings were statistically significant. BRH tablets may potentially have a beneficial effect in patients with COVID-19, especially for those with lung or hepatic injury. A further definitive large-scale clinical trial is feasible and necessary.

Comprehensive analysis of drugs to treat SARS­CoV­2 infection: Mechanistic insights into current COVID­19 therapies (Review).

The major impact produced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2) focused many researchers attention to find treatments that can suppress transmission or ameliorate the disease. Despite the very fast and large flow of scientific data on possible treatment solutions, none have yet demonstrated unequivocal clinical utility against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19). This work represents an exhaustive and critical review of all available data on potential treatments for COVID­19, highlighting their mechanistic characteristics and the strategy development rationale. Drug repurposing, also known as drug repositioning, and target based methods are the most used strategies to advance therapeutic solutions into clinical practice. Current in silico, in vitro and in vivo evidence regarding proposed treatments are summarized providing strong support for future research efforts.

Pulmonary surfactant itself must be a strong defender against SARS-CoV-2.

Pulmonary surfactant is considered to be one of the soaps. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the other enveloped viruses become very weak against surfactant. The SARS virus binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE2) receptor and causes pneumonia. In the lung, the ACE2 receptor sits on the top of lung cells known as alveolar epithelial type II (AE2) cells. These cells play an important role in producing surfactant. Pulmonary surfactant is believed to regulate the alveolar surface tension in mammalian lungs. To our knowledge, AE2 cells are believed to act as immunoregulatory cells; however, pulmonary surfactant itself has not been believed to act as a defender against the enveloped viruses. This study hypothesises that pulmonary surfactant may be a strong defender of enveloped viruses. Therefore, old coronaviruses merely cause pneumonia. On the contrary, new SARS-CoV-2 can suppress the production of surfactant that binds to the ACE2 of AE2 cells. The coronavirus can survive in the lung tissue because of the exhaustion of pulmonary surfactant.

Potential new treatment strategies for COVID-19: is there a role for bromhexine as add-on therapy?

Of huge importance now is to provide a fast, cost-effective, safe, and immediately available pharmaceutical solution to curb the rapid global spread of SARS-CoV-2. Recent publications on SARS-CoV-2 have brought attention to the possible benefit of chloroquine in the treatment of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. Whether chloroquine can treat SARS-CoV-2 alone and also work as a prophylactic is doubtful. An effective prophylactic medication to prevent viral entry has to contain, at least, either a protease inhibitor or a competitive virus ACE2-binding inhibitor. Using bromhexine at a dosage that selectively inhibits TMPRSS2 and, in so doing, inhibits TMPRSS2-specific viral entry is likely to be effective against SARS-CoV-2. We propose the use of bromhexine as a prophylactic and treatment. We encourage the scientific community to assess bromhexine clinically as a prophylactic and curative treatment. If proven to be effective, this would allow a rapid, accessible, and cost-effective application worldwide.