Presentation and outcomes of chronic kidney disease patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is currently a global health issue and an important cause of mortality. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the risk factors for infection, morbidity and mortality by SARS-CoV-2. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical presentation and outcomes of CKD patients with COVID-19, as well as identify predictors of mortality. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of CKD patients admitted in a tertiary-care Portuguese hospital between March and August of 2020. Variables were submitted to univariate and multivariate analysis to determine factors predictive of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 130 CKD patients were analyzed (median age 73.9 years, male 60.0%). Hypertension (81.5%), cardiovascular disease (36.2%), and diabetes (54.6%) were frequent conditions. Cough, dyspnea, fever and respiratory failure were also common. Almost 60% had anemia, 50% hypoalbuminemia, 13.8% hyperlactacidemia and 17% acidemia. Mean serum ferritin was 1531 µg/L, mean CRP 8.3 mg/dL and mean LDH 336.9 U/L. Most patients were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine or corticosteroids and only 2 with remdesivir. Eighty percent had acute kidney injury and 16.2% required intensive care unit admission. The 34 patients who died were older and more likely to have heart failure. They had higher neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio, ferritin, lactate, and LDH levels. Multivariate analysis identified an association between older age [OR 1.1 (CI 1.01-1.24), p=0.027], higher ferritin [OR 1.0 (CI 1.00-1.00), p=0.009] and higher LDH levels [OR 1.0 (CI 1.00-1.01), p=0.014] and mortality. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of CKD patients with COVID-19, older age, higher ferritin, and higher LDH levels were independent risk factors for mortality.

Early experimental COVID-19 therapies: associations with length of hospital stay, mortality and related costs.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have been used as experimental therapies to treat COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Randomised controlled trials have recently shown that there are no meaningful benefits of these two therapies in hospitalised patients. Uncertainty remains regarding the potential harmful impact of these therapies as very early treatments and their burden to the health care system. The present study investigated the length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality, and costs of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir or their combination in comparison with standard of care among patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study took place in the Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland (n = 840) between 26 February and 31 May 2020. Demographics, treatment regimens, comorbidities, the modified National Early Warning Score (mNEWS) on admission, and contraindications to COVID-19 treatment options were assessed. Outcomes included LOS, in-hospital mortality, and drug and LOS costs. RESULTS: After successful propensity score matching, patients treated with (1) hydroxychloroquine, (2) lopinavir/ritonavir or (3) their combination had on average 3.75 additional hospitalisation days (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37–6.12, p = 0.002), 1.23 additional hospitalisation days (95% CI −1.24 – 3.51, p = 0.319), and 4.19 additional hospitalisation days (95% CI 1.52–5.31, p <0.001), respectively, compared with patients treated with the standard of care. Neither experimental therapy was significantly associated with mortality. These additional hospital days amounted to 1010.77 additional days for hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine combined with lopinavir/ritonavir, resulting in an additional cost of US$ 2,492,214 (95%CI US$ 916,839–3,450,619). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing experimental therapies for COVID-19 was not associated with a reduced LOS and might have increased the pressure put on healthcare systems.

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Concerted and multidisciplinary management of COVID-19 drug therapies during the first two epidemic waves in a tertiary hospital in Marseille, France: Results of the PHARMA-COVID study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of local therapeutic recommendation updates made by the COVID multidisciplinary consultation meeting (RCP) at the Hôpital Européen Marseille (HEM) through the description of the drug prescriptions for COVID-19 during the first two waves of the epidemic. METHODS: This retrospective observational study analysed data from the hospital's pharmaceutical file. We included all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between February 1, 2020 and January 21, 2021 and extracted specific anti-COVID-19 therapies (ST) from computerized patient record, as well as patients' demographic characteristics, comorbidities and outcome. The evolution of ST prescriptions during the study period was described and put into perspective with the updates of local recommendations made during the first (V1, from 2/24/2020 to 7/27/2020), and second (V2, from 7/28/2020 to 1/21/2021) epidemic waves. RESULTS: A total of 607 COVID-19 hospitalized patients, 197 during V1 and 410 during V2. Their mean age was 65 years-old, and they presented frequent comorbidities. In total, 93% of hospitalized patients received ST: anticoagulants (90%), glucocorticoids (39%) mainly during V2 (49% vs 17%, P<0.001), and azithromycin (30%) mainly during V1 (71% vs 10%, P<0.001). Lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine were prescribed to 17 and 7 inpatients, respectively, and only during V1. Remdesivir was never administered. A total of 22 inpatients were enrolled into clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The effective dissemination of evidence-based and concerted recommendations seems to have allowed an optimized management of COVID-19 drug therapies in the context of this emerging infection with rapidly evolving therapeutic questions.

Type I interferon autoantibodies in hospitalized patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome and association with outcomes and treatment effect of interferon beta-1b in MIRACLE clinical trial.

Background: Type I interferons (IFNs) are essential antiviral cytokines induced upon respiratory exposure to coronaviruses. Defects in type I IFN signaling can result in severe disease upon exposure to respiratory viral infection and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Neutralizing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) to type I IFNs were reported as a risk factor for life-threatening COVID-19, but their presence has not been evaluated in patients with severe Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Methods: We evaluated the prevalence of type I IFN auto-Abs in a cohort of hospitalized patients with MERS who were enrolled in a placebo-controlled clinical trial for treatment with IFN-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir (MIRACLE trial). Samples were tested for type I IFN auto-Abs using a multiplex particle-based assay. Results: Among the 62 enrolled patients, 15 (24.2%) were positive for immunoglobulin G auto-Abs for at least one subtype of type I IFNs. Auto-Abs positive patients were not different from auto-Abs negative patients in age, sex, or comorbidities. However, the majority (93.3%) of patients who were auto-Abs positive were critically ill and admitted to the ICU at the time of enrollment compared to 66% in the auto-Abs negative patients. The effect of treatment with IFN-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir did not significantly differ between the two groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the presence of type I IFN auto-Abs in hospitalized patients with MERS.

Remdesivir and three other drugs for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results of the WHO Solidarity randomised trial and updated meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The Solidarity trial among COVID-19 inpatients has previously reported interim mortality analyses for four repurposed antiviral drugs. Lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon (IFN)-ß1a were discontinued for futility but randomisation to remdesivir continued. Here, we report the final results of Solidarity and meta-analyses of mortality in all relevant trials to date. METHODS: Solidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-ß1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76-0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77-1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75-0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both). FUNDING: WHO.

Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of early COVID-19 patients in Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, China, January to March 2020.

BACKGROUND: Imported Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients pose a huge challenge to the prevention and control of the epidemic in prefecture-level cities in China. However, the treatment strategies at that time were mainly empirical and far from perfect. Hence, this study aims to summarize the clinical characteristics, diagnosis and treatment of all COVID-19 patients in Jiaxing City in 2020. METHODS: The clinical data of 42 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province from January 23, 2020 to March 4, 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Epidemiological history and sociodemographic data were collected. Laboratory parameters, imaging and disease progression, treatment methods, efficacy and adverse reactions of COVID-19 cases were recorded. Then, the clinical characteristics as well as diagnosis and treatment were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The median age of 42 patients was 47 years old, including 24 males (57.1%) and 18 females (42.9%). There were 21 first-generation cases, 29 cases (69%) of clustering onset related to first-generation cases, and 28 cases without any underlying diseases. Radiographic progression was reported in 17 patients (40.5%) (progression duration, 2-11 days; median progression duration, 3.8 days; average progression duration, 4.59-2.48 days). The main clinical symptoms include fever (78.6%) and cough (64.3%). A total of 37 patients (88.10%) received arbidol combined with lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/cobicistat. Of these, 22 patients (52.4%) took a combination with moxifloxacin tablets, and 20 patients (47.6%) took combined hormone therapy. Seventeen patients (40.48%) reported diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, rash, and other adverse drug reactions. A total of 38 patients improved (90.5%). The hospital stays of 36 patients ranged from 7 to 33 days, with a median of 19 days (19.00-7.33 days on average). The virus nucleic acid test result return time was 1 to 32 days, with a median of 15.5 days (14.41-8.61 days on average). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the imported COVID-19 patients in Jiaxing City were of the first generation, mainly cluster onset, and the epidemiological characteristics were relatively simple. Arbidol combined with lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/cobicistat was the main treatment strategy for the initial treatment of COVID-19.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome by cytokine levels.

Animal and human data indicate variable effects of interferons in treating coronavirus infections according to inflammatory status and timing of therapy. In this sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (MERS-CoV Infection Treated with a Combination of Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Interferon ß-1b), we evaluated the heterogeneity of treatment effect of interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir versus placebo among hospitalized patients with MERS on 90-day mortality, according to cytokine levels and timing of therapy. We measured plasma levels of 17 cytokines at enrollment and tested the treatment effect on 90-day mortality according to cytokine levels (higher versus lower levels using the upper tertile (67%) as a cutoff point) and time to treatment (≤ 7 days versus > 7 days of symptom onset) using interaction tests. Among 70 included patients, 32 received interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir and 38 received placebo. Interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduced mortality in patients with lower IL-2, IL-8 and IL-13 plasma concentrations but not in patients with higher levels (p-value for interaction = 0.09, 0.07, and 0.05, respectively) and with early but not late therapy (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect according to other cytokine levels. Further work is needed to evaluate whether the assessment of inflammatory status can help in identifying patients with MERS who may benefit from interferon-ß1b and lopinavir-ritonavir. Trial registration: This is a sub-study of the MIRACLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02845843).

Favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or combination therapy (FLARE): A randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial placebo-controlled trial of early antiviral therapy in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Early antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: At the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for severe COVID-19 patients: An updated network meta-analysis of 48 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To date, there has been little agreement on what drug is the "best" drug for treating severe COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe COVID-19. METHODS: We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 28, 2022, with no language restrictions, of medications recommended for patients (aged 16 years or older) with severe COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on trials and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (ACM), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: We identified 4021 abstracts and of these included 48 RCTs comprising 9147 participants through database searches and other sources. For decrease in ACM, we found that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG (i.e., a hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenous immunoglobulin), methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/standard-of-care (SOC), interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, high dosage sarilumab (HS), auxora, and imatinib were effective when compared with placebo or SOC group. We found that colchicine and interferon-beta/SOC were only associated with the TEAEs of severe COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG, methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/SOC, interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma (CP), remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, HS, auxora, and imatinib were efficacious for treating severe COVID-19 patients. We found that most medications were safe in treating severe COVID-19. More large-scale RCTs are still needed to confirm the results of this study.

Short-term Pregnancy Outcomes After Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

This is a descriptive study of pregnant patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir therapy from April 16, 2022, through May 18, 2022. Patients were eligible to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir if they were diagnosed with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with symptom onset within 5 days, did not require oxygen therapy or hospital admission, and had no contraindications to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. During the study time frame, 11 patients were identified as candidates for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment. All patients agreed to nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment after a telehealth consultation; seven patients completed the treatment. All patients who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir experienced symptom resolution without the need for additional care. All but one patient tolerated nirmatrelvir-ritonavir without immediate adverse effects, and no adverse fetal or neonatal effects were observed.

Effects of Drugs Formerly Suggested for COVID-19 Repurposing on Pannexin1 Channels.

Although many efforts have been made to elucidate the pathogenesis of COVID-19, the underlying mechanisms are yet to be fully uncovered. However, it is known that a dysfunctional immune response and the accompanying uncontrollable inflammation lead to troublesome outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Pannexin1 channels are put forward as interesting drug targets for the treatment of COVID-19 due to their key role in inflammation and their link to other viral infections. In the present study, we selected a panel of drugs previously tested in clinical trials as potential candidates for the treatment of COVID-19 early on in the pandemic, including hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, dexamethasone, ribavirin, remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir, and ritonavir. The effect of the drugs on pannexin1 channels was assessed at a functional level by means of measurement of extracellular ATP release. Immunoblot analysis and real-time quantitative reversetranscription polymerase chain reaction analysis were used to study the potential of the drugs to alter pannexin1 protein and mRNA expression levels, respectively. Favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and the combination of lopinavir with ritonavir were found to inhibit pannexin1 channel activity without affecting pannexin1 protein or mRNA levels. Thusthree new inhibitors of pannexin1 channels were identified that, though currently not being used anymore for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, could be potential drug candidates for other pannexin1-related diseases.

Darunavir-cobicistat versus lopinavir-ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19 infection (DOLCI): A multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an evolving pandemic that urged the need to investigate various antiviral therapies. This study was conducted to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of darunavir-cobicistat versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treating patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This retrospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted on adult patients hospitalized in one of the COVID-19 facilities in Qatar. Patients were included if they received darunavir-cobicistat or lopinavir-ritonavir for at least three days as part of their COVID-19 treatments. Data were collected from patients' electronic medical records. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used at alpha level of 0.05. A total of 400 patients was analyzed, of whom 100 received darunavir-cobicistat and 300 received lopinavir-ritonavir. Majority of patients were male (92.5%), with a mean (SD) time from symptoms onset to start of therapy of 7.57 days (4.89). Patients received lopinavir-ritonavir had significantly faster time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance than patients received darunavir-cobicistat (4 days [IQR 3-7] vs. 6.5 days [IQR 4-12]; HR 1.345 [95%CI: 1.070-1.691], P = 0.011). Patients received lopinavir-ritonavir had significantly faster time to clinical improvement (5 days [IQR 3-8] vs. 8 days [IQR 4-13]; HR 1.520 (95%CI: 1.2-1.925), P = 0.000), and slower time to virological clearance than darunavir-cobicistat (25 days [IQR 15-33] vs. 21 days [IQR 12.8-30]; HR 0.772 (95%CI: 0.607-0.982), P = 0.035). No significant difference in the incidence or severity of adverse events between groups. The study was limited to its retrospective nature and the possibility of covariates, which was accounted for by multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, early treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was associated with faster time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance than darunavir-cobicistat. Future trials are warranted to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425382.

Use of combined treatment of 3rd-generation cephalosporin, azithromycin and antiviral agents on moderate SARs-CoV-2 patients in South Korea: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and safety of the combined treatment of antibiotics (3rd-generation cephalosporin and azithromycin) and antiviral agents (lopinavir/ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine) on moderate COVID-19 patients in South Korea. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of the 358 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) patients was conducted. 299 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression method were used to control and adjust for confounding factors. Mild to moderate COVID-19 patients were managed with either CA/LoP (cephalosporin, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir) (n = 57), CA/HQ (cephalosporin, azithromycin, and hydroxychloroquine) (n = 25) or standard supportive care (n = 217). We analyzed the association between treatment group and standard supportive group in terms of three endpoints: time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, and hospital stay duration. Using propensity-score matching analysis, three rounds of propensity-matching analysis were performed to balance baseline characteristics among three cohorts. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier curves fitted using propensity score-matched data revealed no significant differences on time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, hospital stay duration among the three treatment arms (CA/LoP vs Standard, log-rank p-value = 0.2, 0.58, and 0.74 respectively for the three endpoints) (CA/HQ vs Standard, log-rank p-value = 0.46, 0.99, and 0.75 respectively). Similarly, Cox regression analysis on matched cohorts of CA/LoP and standard supportive group showed that hazard ratios of time to symptom resolution (HR: 1.447 [95%-CI: 0.813-2.577]), time to viral clearance(HR: 0.861, [95%-CI: 0.485-1.527]), and hospital stay duration (HR: 0.902, [95%-CI: 0.510-1.595]) were not significant. For CA/HQ and standard supportive group, hazard ratios of the three endpoints all showed no statistical significance (HR: 1.331 [95%-CI:0.631-2.809], 1.005 [95%-CI:0.480-2.105], and 0.887, [95%-CI:0.422-1.862] respectively). No severe adverse event or death was observed in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment of 3rd cephalosporin, azithromycin and either low-dose lopinavir/ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine was not associated with better clinical outcomes in terms of time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, and hospital stay duration compared to standard supportive treatment alone. Microbiological evidence should be closely monitored when treating SARS-CoV-2 patients with antibiotics to prevent indiscreet administration of empirical antimicrobial treatments.

Molnupiravir in COVID-19: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, first detected in Wuhan, China, has evolved into a lifethreatening pandemic spread across six continents, with the global case count being more than 243 million, and mortality over 4.95 million, along with causing significant morbidity. It has initiated an era of research on repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, remedesivir, ivermectin, alongside selective antivirals to treat or prevent COVID- 19. Molnupiravir is an orally available emerging antiviral drug considered highly promising for COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: We have performed a scoping review for the use of molnupiravir against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. It acts by inhibiting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), and exhibits broad-spectrum antiviral activity. Preclinical studies have evaluated the therapeutic efficacy as well as prophylactic activity of molnupiravir against SARS CoV-2 in various animal models that include ferrets, hamsters, mice, immunodeficient mice implanted with human lung tissue and cell cultures, in various doses ranging from 5-300 mg/kg, and results have been encouraging. Initial evidence of safety and efficacy from early phase clinical studies has been encouraging too, and recent results from a large phase 3 global trial have shown significant benefits among symptomatic outpatients. Other late-phase clinical trials are still underway with the aim of establishing molnulpiravir as a therapeutic option for COVID-19, particularly for non-hospitalized patients. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: On the basis of the limited evidence available as of now, molnupiravir could prove to be a promising oral therapy, worthy of further exploration of its utility for both treatment and prevention of COVID-19 in humans. Elaborate clinical evaluation is further warranted to confirm whether the results are replicable to the clinical scenario among outpatients to reduce the chance of progression to more severe disease.

Agreement of treatment effects from observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone for covid-19: meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify, match, and compare treatment effects and study demographics from individual or meta-analysed observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the same covid-19 treatments, comparators, and outcomes. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: National Institutes of Health Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines, a living review and network meta-analysis published in The BMJ, a living systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis in PLOS Medicine (The LIVING Project), and the Epistemonikos "Living OVerview of Evidence" (L·OVE) evidence database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDIES: RCTs in The BMJ's living review that directly compared any of the three most frequently studied therapeutic interventions for covid-19 across all data sources (that is, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone) for any safety and efficacy outcomes. Observational studies that evaluated the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes that were reported in The BMJ's living review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Safety and efficacy outcomes from observational studies were identified and treatment effects for dichotomous (odds ratios) or continuous (mean differences or ratios of means) outcomes were calculated and, when possible, meta-analyzed to match the treatment effects from individual RCTs or meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review with the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (that is, matched pairs). The analysis compared the distribution of study demographics and the agreement between treatment effects from matched pairs. Matched pairs were in agreement if both observational and RCT treatment effects were significantly increasing or decreasing (P<0.05) or if both treatment effects were not significant (P≥0.05). RESULTS: 17 new, independent meta-analyses of observational studies were conducted that compared hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone with an active or placebo comparator for any safety or efficacy outcomes in covid-19 treatment. These studies were matched and compared with 17 meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review. 10 additional matched pairs with only one observational study and/or one RCT were identified. Across all 27 matched pairs, 22 had adequate reporting of demographical and clinical data for all individual studies. All 22 matched pairs had studies with overlapping distributions of sex, age, and disease severity. Overall, 21 (78%) of the 27 matched pairs had treatment effects that were in agreement. Among the 17 matched pairs consisting of meta-analyses of observational studies and meta-analyses of RCTs, 14 (82%) were in agreement; seven (70%) of the 10 matched pairs consisting of at least one observational study or one RCT were in agreement. The 18 matched pairs with treatment effects for dichotomous outcomes had a higher proportion of agreement (n=16, 89%) than did the nine matched pairs with treatment effects for continuous outcomes (n=5, 56%). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs evaluating treatments for covid-19 have summary treatment effects that are generally in agreement. Although our evaluation is limited to three covid-19 treatments, these findings suggest that meta-analyzed evidence from observational studies might complement, but should not replace, evidence collected from RCTs.

Predictive factors of six-week mortality in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2: A multicenter prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to identify the risk factors associated with mortality at six weeks, especially by analyzing the role of antivirals and munomodulators. DESIGN: Prospective descriptive multicenter cohort study. SETTING: 26 Intensive care units (ICU) from Andalusian region in Spain. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive critically ill patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included from March 8 to May 30. INTERVENTIONS: None. VARIABLES: Variables analyzed were demographic, severity scores and clinical condition. Support therapy, drug and mortality were analyzed. An univariate followed by multivariate Cox regression with propensity score analysis was applied. RESULTS: 495 patients were enrolled, but 73 of them were excluded for incomplete data. Thus, 422 patients were included in the final analysis. Median age was 63 years and 305 (72.3%) were men. ICU mortality: 144/422 34%; 14 days mortality: 81/422 (19.2%); 28 days mortality: 121/422 (28.7%); 6-week mortality 152/422 36.5%. By multivariable Cox proportional analysis, factors independently associated with 42-day mortality were age, APACHE II score, SOFA score at ICU admission >6, Lactate dehydrogenase at ICU admission >470U/L, Use of vasopressors, extrarenal depuration, %lymphocytes 72h post-ICU admission <6.5%, and thrombocytopenia whereas the use of lopinavir/ritonavir was a protective factor. CONCLUSION: Age, APACHE II, SOFA>value of 6 points, along with vasopressor requirements or renal replacement therapy have been identified as predictor factors of mortality at six weeks. Administration of corticosteroids showed no benefits in mortality, as did treatment with tocilizumab. Lopinavir/ritonavir administration is identified as a protective factor.