Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424). SETTING: 12 clinical sites in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected. LIMITATION: Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations. CONCLUSION: Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

The WE SENSE study protocol: A controlled, longitudinal clinical trial on the use of wearable sensors for early detection and tracking of viral respiratory tract infections

Background Viral respiratory tract infections (VRTI) are extremely common. Considering the profound social and economic impact of COVID-19, it is imperative to identify novel mechanisms for early detection and prevention of VRTIs, to prevent future pandemics. Wearable biosensor technology may facilitate this. Early asymptomatic detection of VRTIs could reduce stress on the healthcare system by reducing transmission and decreasing the overall number of cases. The aim of the current study is to define a sensitive set of physiological and immunological signature patterns of VRTI through machine learning (ML) to analyze physiological data collected continuously using wearable vital signs sensors. Methods A controlled, prospective longitudinal study with an induced low grade viral challenge, coupled with 12 days of continuous wearable biosensors monitoring surrounding viral induction. We aim to recruit and simulate a low grade VRTI in 60 healthy adults aged 18–59 years via administration of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). Continuous monitoring with wearable biosensors will include 7 days pre (baseline) and 5 days post LAIV administration, during which vital signs and activity-monitoring biosensors (embedded in a shirt, wristwatch and ring) will continuously monitor physiological and activity parameters. Novel infection detection techniques will be developed based on inflammatory biomarker mapping, PCR testing, and app-based VRTI symptom tracking. Subtle patterns of change will be assessed via ML algorithms developed to analyze large datasets and generate a predictive algorithm. Conclusion This study presents an infrastructure to test wearables for the detection of asymptomatic VRTI using multimodal biosensors, based on immune host response signature. CliniclTrials.govregistration:NCT05290792

Effect of tocilizumab, sarilumab, and baricitinib on mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) established the mortality reduction by tocilizumab (Actemra), baricitinib (Olumiant), and sarilumab (Kevzara) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, uncertainty remains about which treatment performs best in patients receiving corticosteroids. OBJECTIVES: To estimate probabilities of noninferiority between baricitinib and sarilumab compared to tocilizumab in patients treated with corticosteroids. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and MedRxiv. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible RCTs assigning hospitalized adults with COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids to tocilizumab or baricitinib or sarilumab versus standard of care or placebo (control). METHODS: Reviewers independently abstracted published data and assessed study quality with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. Unpublished data, if required, were requested from authors of included studies. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality at 28 days. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven RCTs with 13 549 patients were included. Overall, the risk of bias was low. Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses were used to aggregate results of each treatment versus control. The average odds ratio for mortality was 0.78 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.65, 0.94) for tocilizumab; 0.78 (95% CrI: 0.56, 1.03) for baricitinib; and 0.91 (95% CrI: 0.60, 1.40) for sarilumab. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) ranged from moderate to low. Bayesian meta-regressions with multiple priors were used to estimate probabilities of noninferiority (margin of 13% greater effect by tocilizumab). Compared to tocilizumab, there were ≤94% and 90% probabilities of noninferiority with baricitinib and sarilumab, respectively. RESULTS: All but two studies included data with only indirect evidence for the comparison of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids, there are high probabilities that both baricitinib and sarilumab are associated with similar mortality reductions in comparison to tocilizumab.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Isolating together during COVID-19: Results from the Telehealth Intervention Program for older adults.

Background: A pressing challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond is to provide accessible and scalable mental health support to isolated older adults in the community. The Telehealth Intervention Program for Older Adults (TIP-OA) is a large-scale, volunteer-based, friendly telephone support program designed to address this unmet need. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 112 TIP-OA participants aged ≥60 years old was conducted in Quebec, Canada (October 2020-June 2021). The intervention consisted of weekly friendly phone calls from trained volunteers. The primary outcome measures included changes in scores of stress, depression, anxiety, and fear surrounding COVID-19, assessed at baseline, 4 and 8-weeks. Additional subgroup analyses were performed with participants with higher baseline scores. Results: The subgroup of participants with higher baseline depression scores (PHQ9 ≥10) had significant improvements in depression scores over the 8-week period measured [mean change score = -2.27 (±4.76), 95%CI (-3.719, -0.827), p = 0.003]. Similarly, participants with higher baseline anxiety scores (GAD7 ≥10) had an improvement over the same period, which, approached significance (p = 0.06). Moreover, despite peaks in the pandemic and related stressors, our study found no significant (p ≥ 0.09) increase in stress, depression, anxiety or fear of COVID-19 scores. Discussion: This scalable, volunteer-based, friendly telephone intervention program was associated with decreased scores of depression and anxiety in older adults who reported higher scores at baseline (PHQ 9 ≥10 and GAD7 ≥10).

High Frequency of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Canadians Immunized for Influenza: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

We assessed the frequency and correlates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy before Canada's vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional vaccine hesitancy survey was completed by consecutive patients/family members/staff who received the influenza vaccine at McGill University affiliated hospitals. Based on the self-reported likelihood of receiving a future vaccine (scale 0-10), the following three groups were defined: non-hesitant (score 10), mildly hesitant (7.1-9.9), and significantly hesitant (0-7). Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were assessed with multivariate logistic regression analyses and binomial logistic regression machine learning modelling. The survey was completed by 1793 people. Thirty-seven percent of participants (n = 669) were hesitant (mildly: 315 (17.6%); significantly: 354 (19.7%)). Lower education levels, opposition and uncertainty about vaccines being mandatory, feelings of not receiving enough information about COVID-19 prevention, perceived social pressure to get a future vaccine, vaccine safety concerns, uncertainty regarding the vaccine risk-benefit ratio, and distrust towards pharmaceutical companies were factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine safety concerns and opposition to mandatory vaccinations were the strongest correlates of vaccine hesitancy in both the logistic regressions and the machine learning model. In conclusion, in this study, over a third of people immunized for influenza before the COVID-19 vaccine rollout expressed some degree of vaccine hesitancy. Effectively addressing COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns may enhance vaccine uptake.

Cardiovascular Complications of Pregnancy-Associated COVID-19 Infections.

Cardiovascular complications are frequently present in coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) infection. These include microvascular and macrovascular thrombotic complications such as arterial and venous thromboembolism, myocardial injury or inflammation resulting in infarction, heart failure, and arrhythmias. Data suggest increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnant compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19 infection, including need for intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization. Current statements addressing COVID-19-associated cardiac complications do not include pregnancy complications that may mimic COVID-19 complications such as peripartum cardiomyopathy, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, and preeclampsia. Unique to pregnancy, COVID-19 complications can result in preterm delivery and modify management of the pregnancy. Moreover, pregnancy has often been an exclusion criterion for enrollment in research studies. In this review, we summarize what is known about pregnancy-associated COVID-19 cardiovascular complications.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Fluvoxamine for Outpatient Management of COVID-19 to Prevent Hospitalization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for COVID-19: CMAJ

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

Outpatient Therapies for COVID-19: How Do We Choose?

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

Physician Perspectives on Including Pregnant Women in Covid-19 Clinical Trials: Time for a Paradigm Change.

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