Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 68
Filter
1.
J Evid Based Integr Med ; 26: 2515690X211020685, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1691167

ABSTRACT

The retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of Ayurveda treatment exposure as an add-on to conventional care in early stage COVID-19 patients admitted at Samaras COVID care center, Ahmedabad, India. Conventional care included Vitamin-c, Azithromycin, and Paracetamol. Ayurveda formulations used as add-on were Dashamula and Pathyadi decoctions along with Trikatu powder, Sanshamani tablet, AYUSH-64 tablet AND Yastimadhu Ghana tablet for oral administration. Considering Add-on Ayurveda medicines as exposure of interest, patients who received Add-on Ayurveda medicines at least for 7 days were included in the exposed group while those who received only conventional care in unexposed group. Data was collected through record review and telephonic interviews. The outcomes of interest were the development of symptoms, duration of symptomatic phase in those progressing to symptomatic stage and mortality. Total 762 participants were included-[541 (71%) in the exposed group and 221 (29%) in the unexposed. Progression to symptomatic phase did not differ significantly between groups [27.6% in exposed, 24.6% in unexposed, adjusted RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.6-1.2]. The total duration of symptomatic phase among those progressing to the symptomatic stage was significantly decreased in the exposed group (x¯ = 3.66 ± 1.55 days in exposed (n = 133); x¯ = 5.34 ± 3.35 days in unexposed (n = 61), p < 0.001). No mortality was observed in either of the groups. Ayurveda Treatment as adjunctive to conventional care reduced the duration of symptomatic phase in early stage COVID-19 as compared to standalone conventional care. Add-on Ayurveda treatment has promising potential for management of early stage COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Medicine, Ayurvedic/methods , Plant Extracts/therapeutic use , Plant Preparations/therapeutic use , Antipyretics/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Complementary Therapies/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , India/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Treatment Outcome
3.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261707, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1623660

ABSTRACT

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to describe pre-treatment characteristics, treatment patterns, health resource use, and clinical outcomes among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States (US) who initiated common treatments for COVID-19. The Optum® COVID-19 electronic health records database was used to identify patients >18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19, who were admitted to an inpatient setting and received treatments of interest for COVID-19 between September 2020 and January 2021. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on index treatment use. Patient demographics, medical history, care setting, medical procedures, subsequent treatment use, patient disposition, clinical improvement, and outcomes were summarized descriptively. Among a total of 26,192 patients identified, the most prevalent treatments initiated were dexamethasone (35.4%) and dexamethasone + remdesivir (14.9%), and dexamethasone was the most common subsequent treatment. At day 14 post-index, <10% of patients received any treatments of interest. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) patient age was 65.6 (15.6) years, and the most prevalent comorbidities included hypertension (44.8%), obesity (35.4%), and diabetes (25.7%). At the end of follow-up, patients had a mean (SD) 8.1 (6.6) inpatient days and 1.4 (4.1) days with ICU care. Oxygen supplementation, non-invasive, or invasive ventilation was required by 4.5%, 3.0%, and 3.1% of patients, respectively. At the end of follow-up, 84.2% of patients had evidence of clinical improvement, 3.1% remained hospitalized, 83.8% were discharged, 4% died in hospital, and 9.1% died after discharge. Although the majority of patients were discharged alive, no treatments appeared to alleviate the inpatient morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. This highlights an unmet need for effective treatment options for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Hypertension/epidemiology , Obesity/epidemiology , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Comorbidity , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/genetics , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
4.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248128, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575679

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined. RESULTS: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Administration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control , Data Management/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects
5.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6750-6759, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544329

ABSTRACT

Only a few treatments are approved for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infections, with continuous debate about their clinical impact. Repurposing antiviral treatments might prove the fastest way to identify effective therapy. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir (SOF) plus daclatasvir (DCV) or ravidasvir (RDV) added to standard care (SOC) for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection. Multicentre parallel randomized controlled open-label trial. One hundred and twenty eligible patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection were randomized to one of the study arms. Ten days of treatment with SOF plus DCV or RDV in addition to the standard of care compared to SOC. Follow up in 7 days. Sum of the counted symptoms at 7 and 10 days, mean change in oxygen saturation level, viral negativity, and rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Compared to SOC, the SOF-DCV group experienced a significantly lower sum of the counted symptoms (fever, headache, generalized aches, or respiratory distress) combined with no evidence of deterioration (ICU admission and mechanical ventilation) on Days 7 and 10 of treatment. Oxygen saturation also significantly improved among the SOF-DCV group compared to SOC starting from Day 4. The study also showed positive trends regarding the efficacy of SOF-DCV with a lower incidence of mortality. On the other hand, adding SOF-RDV to SOC did not show significant improvements in endpoints. The results support the efficacy and safety of SOF-DCV as an add-on to SOC for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 infections.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Benzimidazoles/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Carbamates/therapeutic use , Imidazoles/therapeutic use , Pyrrolidines/therapeutic use , Sofosbuvir/therapeutic use , Valine/analogs & derivatives , Adult , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Genotype , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Valine/therapeutic use
6.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(30): e26641, 2021 Jul 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475904

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This review aims to evaluate the supportive effects of frequently used traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Five databases were searched through July 7, 2020. Randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TCM for use in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and modified Jadad score were used for the evaluation of the methodological quality of the included studies. Weighted mean difference, odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for pooling out results. Data were extracted for conducting a meta-analysis using STATA version 12.0. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 750 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All included trial groups involved treatment with TCM and Western medicine, while the control groups were treated only with Western medicine. The intervention therapy significantly improved the overall effective rate (n = 346, OR = 2.5, 95% CIs = 1.46-4.29), fever symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 3.6; 95% CIs = 2.13-6.08), fatigue symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 3.04; 95% CIs = 1.76-5.26), cough symptom disappearance rate (n = 436; OR = 2.91; 95% CIs = 1.36-6.19), and sputum production reduction (n = 436; OR = 5.51; 95% CIs = 1.94-15.64). Based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment, 6 studies received a score of 4, and 1 study achieved a score of 5. One study was assessed using the modified Jadad score, achieving a score of 6. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of TCM with Western medicine has significantly improved the treatment for COVID-19 patients compared to Western medicine treatment alone. Combined therapy using TCM and Western medicine revealed the potential adjunctive role of TCM in treating COVID-19. However, high-quality clinical studies are still required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Medicine, Chinese Traditional , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Humans , Medicine, Chinese Traditional/methods , Treatment Outcome
7.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6750-6759, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1371342

ABSTRACT

Only a few treatments are approved for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infections, with continuous debate about their clinical impact. Repurposing antiviral treatments might prove the fastest way to identify effective therapy. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir (SOF) plus daclatasvir (DCV) or ravidasvir (RDV) added to standard care (SOC) for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection. Multicentre parallel randomized controlled open-label trial. One hundred and twenty eligible patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 infection were randomized to one of the study arms. Ten days of treatment with SOF plus DCV or RDV in addition to the standard of care compared to SOC. Follow up in 7 days. Sum of the counted symptoms at 7 and 10 days, mean change in oxygen saturation level, viral negativity, and rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Compared to SOC, the SOF-DCV group experienced a significantly lower sum of the counted symptoms (fever, headache, generalized aches, or respiratory distress) combined with no evidence of deterioration (ICU admission and mechanical ventilation) on Days 7 and 10 of treatment. Oxygen saturation also significantly improved among the SOF-DCV group compared to SOC starting from Day 4. The study also showed positive trends regarding the efficacy of SOF-DCV with a lower incidence of mortality. On the other hand, adding SOF-RDV to SOC did not show significant improvements in endpoints. The results support the efficacy and safety of SOF-DCV as an add-on to SOC for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 infections.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Benzimidazoles/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Carbamates/therapeutic use , Imidazoles/therapeutic use , Pyrrolidines/therapeutic use , Sofosbuvir/therapeutic use , Valine/analogs & derivatives , Adult , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Genotype , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Valine/therapeutic use
8.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(31): e26787, 2021 Aug 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1354339

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, and saquinavir had been reportedly used or suggested for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. They may cause electrocardiography changes. We aim to evaluate risk of PR prolongation, QRS widening, and QT prolongation from lopinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, and saquinavir. METHODS: In accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, our search was conducted in PubMed Central, PubMed, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest from inception to June 25, 2020. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 and Downs and Black criteria was used to evaluate quality of studies. RESULTS: We retrieved 9 articles. Most randomized controlled trials have low risk of biases while all quasi-experimental studies have a positive rating. Four studies reporting PR prolongation however only 2 studies with PR interval >200 ms. One of which, reported its association after treatment with ritonavir-boosted saquinavir treatment while another, during treatment with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. No study reported QRS widening >120 ms with treatment. Four studies reporting QT prolongation, with only one study reaching QT interval >450 ms after ritonavir-boosted saquinavir treatment on healthy patients. There is only one study on COVID-19 patients reporting QT prolongation in 1 out of 95 patients after ritonavir-boosted lopinavir treatment. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that lopinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, and saquinavir could cause PR prolongation, QRS widening, and QT prolongation. Further trials with closer monitoring and assessment of electrocardiography are needed to ascertain usage safety of antivirals in COVID-19 era.


Subject(s)
Atazanavir Sulfate/adverse effects , Long QT Syndrome/etiology , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Ritonavir/adverse effects , Saquinavir/adverse effects , Adult , Atazanavir Sulfate/therapeutic use , Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/standards , Electrocardiography/methods , Humans , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Saquinavir/therapeutic use
9.
Front Immunol ; 12: 695972, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1339498

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 ranges from asymptomatic in 35% of cases to severe in 20% of patients. Differences in the type and degree of inflammation appear to determine the severity of the disease. Recent reports show an increase in circulating monocytic-myeloid-derived suppressor cells (M-MDSC) in severe COVID 19 that deplete arginine but are not associated with respiratory complications. Our data shows that differences in the type, function and transcriptome of granulocytic-MDSC (G-MDSC) may in part explain the severity COVID-19, in particular the association with pulmonary complications. Large infiltrates by Arginase 1+ G-MDSC (Arg+G-MDSC), expressing NOX-1 and NOX-2 (important for production of reactive oxygen species) were found in the lungs of patients who died from COVID-19 complications. Increased circulating Arg+G-MDSC depleted arginine, which impaired T cell receptor and endothelial cell function. Transcriptomic signatures of G-MDSC from patients with different stages of COVID-19, revealed that asymptomatic patients had increased expression of pathways and genes associated with type I interferon (IFN), while patients with severe COVID-19 had increased expression of genes associated with arginase production, and granulocyte degranulation and function. These results suggest that asymptomatic patients develop a protective type I IFN response, while patients with severe COVID-19 have an increased inflammatory response that depletes arginine, impairs T cell and endothelial cell function, and causes extensive pulmonary damage. Therefore, inhibition of arginase-1 and/or replenishment of arginine may be important in preventing/treating severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/immunology , Granulocytes/immunology , Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Arginase/antagonists & inhibitors , Arginase/metabolism , Arginine/administration & dosage , Arginine/blood , Arginine/metabolism , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Case-Control Studies , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Enzyme Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Female , Granulocytes/metabolism , Healthy Volunteers , Humans , Interferon Type I/metabolism , Male , Middle Aged , Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells/metabolism , Severity of Illness Index , Signal Transduction/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/immunology
10.
Biomed Pharmacother ; 142: 111956, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1330661

ABSTRACT

Novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is a zoonosis that revised the global economic and societal progress since early 2020. The SARS-CoV-2 has been recognized as the responsible pathogen for COVID-19 with high infection and mortality rate potential. It has spread in 192 countries and infected about 1.5% of the world population, and still, a proper therapeutic approach is not unveiled. COVID-19 indication starts with fever to shortness of breathing, leading to ICU admission with the ventilation support in severe conditions. Besides the symptomatic mainstay clinical therapeutic approach, only Remdesivir has been approved by the FDA. Several pharmaceutical companies claimed different vaccines with exceptionally high efficacy (90-95%) against COVID-19; how long these vaccines can protect and long-term safety with the new variants are unpredictable. After the worldwide spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous clinical trials with different phases are being performed to find the most appropriate solution to this condition. Some of these trials with old FDA-approved drugs showed promising results. In this review, we have precisely compiled the efforts to curb the disease and discussed the clinical findings of Ivermectin, Doxycycline, Vitamin-D, Vitamin-C, Zinc, and cannabidiol and their combinations. Additionally, the correlation of these molecules on the prophylactic and diseased ministration against COVID-19 has been explored.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Cannabidiol/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2 , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Ascorbic Acid/pharmacology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Dietary Supplements , Doxycycline/pharmacology , Drug Repositioning/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Humans , Ivermectin , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Treatment Outcome , Vitamin D/pharmacology , Zinc/pharmacology
11.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 77(17): 1409-1416, 2020 08 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1317900

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created unprecedented strains on healthcare systems around the world. Challenges surrounding an overwhelming influx of patients with COVID-19 and changes in care dynamics prompt the need for care models and processes that optimize care in this medically complex patient population. The purpose of this report is to describe our institution's strategy to deploy pharmacy resources and standardize pharmacy processes to optimize the management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive report characterizes documented pharmacy interventions in the acute care of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the period April 1 to April 15, 2020. Patient monitoring, interprofessional communication, and intervention documentation by pharmacy staff was facilitated through the development of a COVID-19-specific care bundle integrated into the electronic medical record. RESULTS: A total of 1,572 pharmacist interventions were documented in 197 patients who received a total of 15,818 medication days of therapy during the study period. The average number of interventions per patient was 8. The most common interventions were regimen simplification (15.9%), timing and dosing adjustments (15.4%), and antimicrobial therapy and COVID-19 treatment adjustments (15.2%). Patients who were admitted to an intensive care unit care at any point during their hospital stay accounted for 66.7% of all interventions documented. CONCLUSION: A pharmacy department's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was optimized through standardized processes. Pharmacists intervened to address a wide scope of medication-related issues, likely contributing to improved management of COVID-19 patients. Results of our analysis demonstrate the vital role pharmacists play as members of multidisciplinary teams during times of crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Medication Therapy Management/organization & administration , Pharmacists/organization & administration , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/organization & administration , Drug Therapy, Combination/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Electrolytes/administration & dosage , Electrolytes/adverse effects , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Interdisciplinary Communication , Male , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/organization & administration , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Professional Role , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
12.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(25): e26446, 2021 Jun 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1279283

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Viruses are the most common pathogens that can cause infection-related non-recurrent death after transplantation, occurring mostly from the early stages of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) to within 1 year after transplantation. Human coronavirus (HCoV)-NL63 is a coronavirus that could cause mortality among patients with underlying disease complications. Serological tests are of limited diagnostic value in immunocompromised hosts and cases of latent infection reactivation. In contrast, macro-genomic high-throughput (DNA and RNA) sequencing allows for rapid and accurate diagnosis of infecting pathogens for targeted treatment. PATIENT CONCERNS: In this report, we describe a patient who exhibited acute B-lymphocytic leukemia and developed complicated pulmonary HCoV-NL63 infection after a second allogeneic HSCT (allo-HSCT). Six months after the second allo-HSCT, he developed sudden-onset hyperthermia and cough with decreased oxygen saturation. Chest computed tomography (CT) suggested bilateral multiple rounded ground-glass opacities with the pulmonary lobules as units. DIAGNOSES: HCoV-NL63 was detected by metagenomic next-generation sequencing (NGS), and HCoV-NL63 viral pneumonia was diagnosed. INTERVENTIONS: The treatment was mainly based on the use of antiviral therapy, hormone administration, and gamma-globulin. OUTCOMES: After the therapy, the body temperature returned to normal, the chest CT findings had improved on review, and the viral copy number eventually became negative. LESSONS: The latest NGS is an effective method for early infection diagnosis. The HCoV-NL63 virus can cause inflammatory factor storm and alter the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). This case suggests that the patient's NLR and cytokine levels could be monitored during the clinical treatment to assess the disease and its treatment outcome in a timely manner.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus NL63, Human/isolation & purification , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects , Leukemia, B-Cell/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Coronavirus NL63, Human/genetics , Coronavirus NL63, Human/immunology , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Leukemia, B-Cell/immunology , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Metagenomics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Transplantation, Homologous/adverse effects , Young Adult , gamma-Globulins/administration & dosage
13.
Open Heart ; 8(1)2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1261214

ABSTRACT

Although primarily affecting the respiratory system, COVID-19 causes multiple organ damage. One of its grave consequences is a prothrombotic state that manifests as thrombotic, microthrombotic and thromboembolic events. Therefore, understanding the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in the context of COVID-19 treatment is important. The aim of this rapid review was to highlight the role of thrombosis in COVID-19 and to provide new insights on the use of antithrombotic therapy in its management. A rapid systematic review was performed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews. Papers published in English on antithrombotic agent use and COVID-19 complications were eligible. Results showed that the use of anticoagulants increased survival and reduced thromboembolic events in patients. However, despite the use of anticoagulants, patients still suffered thrombotic events likely due to heparin resistance. Data on antiplatelet use in combination with anticoagulants in the setting of COVID-19 are quite scarce. Current side effects of anticoagulation therapy emphasise the need to update treatment guidelines. In this rapid review, we address a possible modulatory role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant combination against COVID-19 pathogenesis. This combination may be an effective form of adjuvant therapy against COVID-19 infection. However, further studies are needed to elucidate potential risks and benefits associated with this combination.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/pharmacology , COVID-19 , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/pharmacology , Thromboembolism , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Thromboembolism/etiology , Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Treatment Outcome
14.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 77(22): 1893-1898, 2020 10 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1254423

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the search for ways in which to provide the best available care have created unprecedented times in terms of rapidly evolving reports of available treatment options. The primary objective of our analysis was to categorize online, open-source guidance to determine how US institutions approached their recommendations for management of patients with COVID-19 in the early weeks of the pandemic. METHODS: A search for open-source, online institutional guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 was conducted using predefined criteria. The search was limited to the United States and conducted from April 12 through 14, 2020, and again on April 22, 2020. Searches were conducted at 2 points in time in order to identify changes in treatment recommendations due to evolving literature or institutional experience. Treatment recommendations, including guidance on antiviral therapy, corticosteroid and interleukin-6 inhibitor use, and nutritional supplementation were compared. RESULTS: Of the 105 institutions that met initial screening criteria, 14 institutions (13.3%) had online COVID-19 guidance available. Supportive care and clinical trial enrollment were the primary recommendations in all evaluated guidance. Recommendations to consider antimicrobial and adjunctive therapy varied. Eighty-six percent of guidelines contained recommendations for use, or consideration of use, of hydroxychloroquine. Guidance from 2 institutions mentioned use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in combination. Of the 13 institutions listing hydroxychloroquine dosing recommendations, 62% recommended maintenance dosing of 200 mg twice daily. Infectious diseases or other specialty consultation was required by 89% of institutions using interleukin-6 inhibitors for COVID-19 management. CONCLUSION: Overall, the analysis revealed variability in treatment or supplemental pharmacologic therapy for the management of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Therapy, Combination/standards , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/epidemiology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Pandemics/prevention & control
15.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(21): e26143, 2021 May 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242124

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging infectious respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Currently, more than 100 million cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed worldwide, with over 2.4 million mortalities. The pandemic affects people of all ages but older individuals and those with severe chronic illnesses, including cancer patients, are at higher risk. PATIENT CONCERNS: The impact of cancer treatment on the progression of COVID-19 is unclear. Therefore, we assessed the effects of chemotherapy on COVID-19 outcomes for 2 cancer patients. On January 24, 2020, a level I response to a major public health emergency was initiated in Hubei Province, China, which includes Enshi Autonomous Prefecture that has a population of 4.026 million people. As of April 30, 2020, 252 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 11 asymptomatic carriers were identified in Enshi. DIAGNOSIS: Among the confirmed cases and asymptomatic carriers, 2 patients were identified who were previously diagnosed with malignant tumors, including one with hepatocellular carcinoma and the other with cardia carcinoma. INTERVENTIONS: These 2 patients were receiving or just completed chemotherapy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis. OUTCOMES: Both patients were followed and presented favorable outcomes. The positive outcomes for these 2 patients could be partially explained by their recent chemotherapy that impacted their immune status. Also, their relatively younger ages and lack of comorbidities were likely factors in their successful recovery from COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Anticancer treatment might enhance a patient's ability to respond favorably to COVID-19 infection. However, anticancer treatment is likely to impact immune function differently in different individuals, which can influence disease outcomes.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , COVID-19/immunology , Liver Neoplasms/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Stomach Neoplasms/drug therapy , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Cyclobutanes/therapeutic use , Docetaxel/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Humans , Liver Neoplasms/complications , Liver Neoplasms/immunology , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Organoplatinum Compounds/therapeutic use , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sorafenib/therapeutic use , Stomach Neoplasms/complications , Stomach Neoplasms/immunology , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome
16.
Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst ; 38(3): 75-115, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1236628

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of novel coronavirus (nCoV) or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has posed an international public health emergency worldwide and forced people to be confined in their homes. This virus is of high-risk category and is declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). The worldwide researchers and various health professionals are working together to determine the best way to stop its spread or halt this virus's spread and circumvent this pandemic condition threatening millions of human lives. The absence of definitive treatment is possible to explore to reduce virus infection and enhance patient recovery. Along with off-label medicines, plasma therapy, vaccines, the researchers exploit the various plants/herbs and their constituents to effectively treat nCoV infection. The present study aimed to present brief and most informative salient features of the numerous facts regarding the SARS-CoV-2, including the structure, genomic sequence, recent mutation, targeting possibility, and various hurdles in research progress, and off-labeled drugs, convalescent plasma therapy, vaccine and plants/herbs for the treatment of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Results showed that off-labeled drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, tocilizumab, antiviral drug (remdesivir, favipiravir), etc., give positive results and approved for use or approved for restricted use in some countries like India. Future research should focus on these possibilities that may allow the development of an effective treatment for COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Plant Extracts/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/antagonists & inhibitors , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/metabolism , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Humans , Molecular Targeted Therapy/methods , Mutation , Off-Label Use , Pandemics/prevention & control , Plant Extracts/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Treatment Outcome , Viral Structural Proteins/antagonists & inhibitors , Viral Structural Proteins/genetics , Viral Structural Proteins/metabolism
17.
J Med Virol ; 93(1): 472-480, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1206789

ABSTRACT

During the early stages of the pandemic, some coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients were misdiagnosed as having influenza, which aroused the concern that some deaths attributed to influenza were actually COVID-19-related. However, little is known about whether coinfection with influenza contributes to severity of COVID-19 pneumonia, and the optimal therapeutic strategy for these patients. We retrospectively studied 128 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. All patients were positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive by nucleic acid detection. Sixty-four cases were coinfected with influenza A/B and the other 64 were influenza negative, matched by age, sex, and days from onset of symptoms. Among the 64 coinfected patients, 54 (84.4%) were coinfected with influenza A, and 10 (15.6%) with influenza B. The median duration of viral shedding time from admission was longer for patients with influenza coinfection (17.0 days) than for those without influenza coinfection (12.0 days) (P < .001). The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model showed that the hazards ratio of resolution in lung involvement was 1.878 (P = .020) for patients administered lopinavir/ritonavir, compared with those not administered lopinavir/ritonavir (95% confidence interval: 1.103-3.196). Among influenza coinfected patients, those treated with lopinavir/ritonavir exhibited faster pneumonia resolution within 2 weeks after symptom onset (37% vs 1%; P = .001). There was no difference in lung involvement between influenza coinfected and noninfected groups. Lopinavir/ritonavir eliminated the difference of lung involvement between influenza coinfected and noninfected groups, indicating that lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with pneumonia resolution in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Coinfection/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Pneumonia/drug therapy , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Aged , COVID-19/virology , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Influenza, Human/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia/virology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Virus Shedding/drug effects
18.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(4): e216842, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1198342

ABSTRACT

Importance: Critical illness, a marked inflammatory response, and viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 may prolong corrected QT interval (QTc). Objective: To evaluate baseline QTc interval on 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) and ensuing changes among patients with and without COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 3050 patients aged 18 years and older who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing and had ECGs at Columbia University Irving Medical Center from March 1 through May 1, 2020. Patients were analyzed by treatment group over 5 days, as follows: hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, and neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin. ECGs were manually analyzed by electrophysiologists masked to COVID-19 status. Multivariable modeling evaluated clinical associations with QTc prolongation from baseline. Exposures: COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean QTc prolongation, percentage of patients with QTc of 500 milliseconds or greater. Results: A total of 965 patients had more than 2 ECGs and were included in the study, with 561 (58.1%) men, 198 (26.2%) Black patients, and 191 (19.8%) aged 80 years and older. There were 733 patients (76.0%) with COVID-19 and 232 patients (24.0%) without COVID-19. COVID-19 infection was associated with significant mean QTc prolongation from baseline by both 5-day and 2-day multivariable models (5-day, patients with COVID-19: 20.81 [95% CI, 15.29 to 26.33] milliseconds; P < .001; patients without COVID-19: -2.01 [95% CI, -17.31 to 21.32] milliseconds; P = .93; 2-day, patients with COVID-19: 17.40 [95% CI, 12.65 to 22.16] milliseconds; P < .001; patients without COVID-19: 0.11 [95% CI, -12.60 to 12.81] milliseconds; P = .99). COVID-19 infection was independently associated with a modeled mean 27.32 (95% CI, 4.63-43.21) millisecond increase in QTc at 5 days compared with COVID-19-negative status (mean QTc, with COVID-19: 450.45 [95% CI, 441.6 to 459.3] milliseconds; without COVID-19: 423.13 [95% CI, 403.25 to 443.01] milliseconds; P = .01). More patients with COVID-19 not receiving hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had QTc of 500 milliseconds or greater compared with patients without COVID-19 (34 of 136 [25.0%] vs 17 of 158 [10.8%], P = .002). Multivariable analysis revealed that age 80 years and older compared with those younger than 50 years (mean difference in QTc, 11.91 [SE, 4.69; 95% CI, 2.73 to 21.09]; P = .01), severe chronic kidney disease compared with no chronic kidney disease (mean difference in QTc, 12.20 [SE, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.89 to 22.51; P = .02]), elevated high-sensitivity troponin levels (mean difference in QTc, 5.05 [SE, 1.19; 95% CI, 2.72 to 7.38]; P < .001), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels (mean difference in QTc, 5.31 [SE, 2.68; 95% CI, 0.06 to 10.57]; P = .04) were associated with QTc prolongation. Torsades de pointes occurred in 1 patient (0.1%) with COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, COVID-19 infection was independently associated with significant mean QTc prolongation at days 5 and 2 of hospitalization compared with day 0. More patients with COVID-19 had QTc of 500 milliseconds or greater compared with patients without COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Azithromycin , COVID-19 , Electrocardiography , Hydroxychloroquine , Long QT Syndrome , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Infective Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Infective Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/administration & dosage , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/statistics & numerical data , Electrocardiography/methods , Electrocardiography/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Long QT Syndrome/chemically induced , Long QT Syndrome/diagnosis , Long QT Syndrome/epidemiology , Long QT Syndrome/virology , Male , Middle Aged , New York/epidemiology , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
19.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(4): e216468, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196363

ABSTRACT

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events. Results: Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04403100.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Early Medical Intervention , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Lopinavir/administration & dosage , Ritonavir/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Drug Monitoring/methods , Drug Monitoring/statistics & numerical data , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Early Medical Intervention/methods , Early Medical Intervention/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , Risk Adjustment/methods , Symptom Assessment/methods , Treatment Outcome
20.
Drug Saf ; 44(6): 635-644, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1188213

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the evidence in the literature on the safety and efficacy of their use as monotherapy and combination therapy in COVID-19 management. METHODS: After prospectively registering the study protocol with the Open Science Framework, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, various pre-print servers and reference lists for relevant records published until 16 February, 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Baseline features and data pertaining to efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted separately for IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy, and IVM + DOXY combination therapy. Methodological quality was assessed based on the study design. RESULTS: Out of 200 articles screened, 19 studies (six retrospective cohort studies, seven randomised controlled trials, five non-randomised trials, one case series) with 8754 unique patients with multiple stages of COVID-19 were included; four were pre-prints and one was an unpublished clinicaltrials.gov document. The comparator was standard care and 'hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin' in seven and three studies respectively, and two studies were placebo controlled; six studies did not have a comparator. IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy and IVM + DOXY were explored in eight, five and five studies, respectively; one study compared IVM monotherapy and IVM + DOXY with placebo. While all studies described efficacy, the safety profile was described in only six studies. Efficacy outcomes were mixed with some studies concluding in favour of the intervention and some studies displaying no significant benefit; barring one study that described 9/183 patients with erosive esophagitis and non-ulcer dyspepsia with IVM + DOXY (without causality assessment details), there were no new safety signals of concern with any of the three interventions considered. The quality of studies varied widely, with five studies having a 'good' methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is not sufficiently strong to either promote or refute the efficacy of IVM, DOXY, or their combination in COVID-19 management. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/n7r2j .


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Doxycycline/pharmacology , Ivermectin/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , Drug Therapy, Combination/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Humans , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL