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.

Drug-drug interactions of ritonavir-boosted SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients: experience from the initial use of lopinavir-ritonavir.

OBJECTIVES: To review the drug-drug interactions between tacrolimus and lopinavir/ritonavir in 23 patients who received solid organ transplant during the first wave of COVID-19 and to determine the efficacy as well as safety of prednisone monotherapy. METHODS: Observational study performed between March and June 2020 in solid organ transplant recipients admitted with an established diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection who received lopinavir/ritonavir (≥2 doses). Once lopinavir/ritonavir therapy was initiated, calcineurin inhibitor treatment was temporarily switched to prednisone monotherapy (15-20 mg/d) to avoid drug-drug interactions and toxicity. After lopinavir/ritonavir treatment completion, immunosuppressive treatment was restarted with reduced doses of prednisone-tacrolimus (target minimum blood concentration -C0- approximately 5 ng/mL). Patients were observed for 3 months to confirm the absence of rejection. RESULTS: The median time from discontinuation of tacrolimus to initiation of lopinavir/ritonavir was 14 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 12-15) and from discontinuation of lopinavir/ritonavir to resumption of tacrolimus 58 hours (IQR, 47-81). The duration of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment was 7 days (IQR, 5-7). Nine of the 21 (42.8%) patients on tacrolimus treatment had C0 above the cutoff point after lopinavir/ritonavir initiation, despite having been substituted with prednisone before lopinavir/ritonavir initiation. Three patients had very high concentrations (>40 ng/mL) and developed toxicity. No episodes of acute rejection were diagnosed. DISCUSSION: We did not observe toxicity in patients for whom tacrolimus was discontinued 24 hours before starting lopinavir/ritonavir and reintroduced at half dose 48 to 72 hours after lopinavir/ritonavir discontinuation. Prednisone monotherapy during lopinavir/ritonavir therapy was safe with no episodes of acute rejection. Experience with lopinavir/ritonavir may be applicable to the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, but larger multicentre studies are needed to confirm these findings.

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparative safety assessment of favipiravir interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is a coronavirus-based infectious illness that was first detected at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The novel virus induces severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and has spread globally, resulting in an ongoing pandemic. There is still a lack of evidence for direct comparison of favipiravir therapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA), may incorporate direct and indirect comparisons in a pooled computation while depending on strong assumptions and premises. This study provides evidence-based recommendations on the safety of currently used clinical pharmacological treatments compared to favipiravir for COVID-19 patients. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian NMA. We searched the primary databases and clinical trials center for reports of short-term, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of favipiravir for COVID-19 treatment. The primary endpoints here considered were any adverse events observed or reported during the treatment cycle with estimates of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), until November 6, 2021. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and July 2021, 908 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the seven active prescription medication regimens or placebo in this study, generating seven direct comparisons on 12 data points. The safety of favipiravir over the four clinically efficacious monotherapies or combinations including tocilizumab, arbidol, lopinavir + ritonavir, and chloroquine remained unknown due to the lack of a significant difference and the limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, comparative rankings could assist doctors and guideline developers in decision-making. We have also concluded that the safety of favipiravir requires further attention.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo. DISCUSSION: Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Repurposing of drugs for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for COVID-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 were included in this study. The interventions that have been considered were repurposed drugs and comparators that included standard of care treatment or placebo. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: From 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (P=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (P=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (P=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events.

Meta-analysis of arbidol versus lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a meta-analysis method. METHODS: The China Knowledge Network, VIP database, WanFang database PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane Library were searched for a collection of comparative studies on arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review indicated that Arbidol had a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid on Day 7 (p = 0.03), a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on Day 14 (p = 0.006), a higher improvement rate of chest computed tomography on Day 14 (p = 0.02), a lower incidence of adverse reactions (p = 0.002) and lower rate of mortality (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the rate of cough disappearance on Day 14 (p = 0.24) or the rate of severe/critical illness (p = 0.07) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arbidol may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. However, due to the small number of included studies and the number of patients, high-quality multicenter large-sample randomized double-blind controlled trials are still needed for verification.

Safety profile of COVID-19 drugs in a real clinical setting.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has affected millions all over the world and has been declared pandemic, as of 11 March 2020. In addition to the ongoing research and development of vaccines, there is still a dire need for safe and effective drugs for the control and treatment against the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Numerous repurposed drugs are under clinical investigations whose reported adverse events can raise worries about their safety. The aim of this review is to illuminate the associated adverse events related to the drugs used in a real COVID-19 setting along with their relevant mechanism(s). METHOD: Through a literature search conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar database, various adverse events suspected to be induced by eight drugs, including dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir, ivermectin, and tocilizumab, administered in COVID-19 patients in clinical practice and studies were identified in 30 case reports, 3 case series, and 10 randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: Mild, moderate, or severe adverse events of numerous repurposed and investigational drugs caused by various factors and mechanisms were observed. Gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting were the most frequently followed by cardiovascular, cutaneous, and hepatic adverse events. Few other rare adverse drug reactions were also observed. CONCLUSION: In light of their ineffectiveness against COVID-19 as evident in large clinical studies, drugs including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ivermectin should neither be used routinely nor in clinical studies. While lack of sufficient data, it creates doubt regarding the reliability of chloroquine and favipiravir use in COVID-19 patients. Hence, these two drugs can only be used in clinical studies. In contrast, ample well-conducted studies have approved the use of remdesivir, tocilizumab, and dexamethasone under certain conditions in COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is significant to establish a strong surveillance system in order to monitor the proper safety and toxicity profile of the potential anti-COVID-19 drugs with good clinical outcomes.

[The efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol in patients with coronavirus disease 2019].

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and arbidol in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the real world. Methods: The clinical data of 178 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to Guangzhou Eighth People's Hospital from January 20 to February 10, 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. According to patient's antiviral treatment regimens, 178 patients were divided into 4 groups including LPV/r group (59 patients), arbidol group (36 patients), LPV/r plus arbidol combination group (25 patients) and the supportive care group without any antiviral treatment (58 patients). The primary end point was the negative conversion time of nucleic acid of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by pharyngeal swab. Results: The baseline parameters of 4 groups before treatment was comparable. The negative conversion time of viral nucleic acid was (10.20±3.49), (10.11±4.68), (10.86±4.74), (8.44±3.51) days in LPV/r group, arbidol group, combination group, and supportive care group respectively (F=2.556, P=0.058). There was also no significant difference in negative conversion rate of 2019-nCoV nucleic acid, the improvement of clinical symptoms, and the improvement of pulmonary infections by CT scan (P>0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was found in the changing rates from mild/moderate to severe/critical type at day 7 (χ(2)=9.311, P=0.017), which were 24%(6/25) in combination group, 16.7%(6/36) in arbidol group, 5.4%(3/56) in LPV/r group and 5.2%(3/58) in supportive care group. Moreover, the incidence of adverse reactions in three antiviral groups was significantly higher than that in supportive care group (χ(2)=14.875, P=0.002). Conclusions: Antiviral treatment including LPV/r or arbidol or combination does not shorten the negative conversion time of 2019-nCoV nucleic acid nor improve clinical symptoms. Moreover, these antiviral drugs cause more adverse reactions which should be paid careful attention during the treatment.

A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of chloroquine phosphate, hydroxychloroquine sulphate and lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 in Lagos State: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019. It was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020. Outbreak forecasting and mathematical modelling suggest that these numbers will continue to rise. Early identification of effective remedies that can shorten the duration and severity of illness is critical for Lagos State, which is the epi-centre of the disease in Nigeria. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled superiority trial. The study investigates the efficacy of chloroquine phosphate, hydroxychloroquine sulphate and lopinavir/ritonavir added on to standard of care compared to standard of care only in patients with COVID-19 disease. The primary outcome is the clinical status of patients measured using a 7-point ordinal scale at day 15. Research participants and clinicians will be blinded to the allocated intervention. Outcome measures will be directly assessed by clinicians. Statistical analysis will be done by a team blinded to the identity and allocation of research participants. Data analysis will follow intention-to-treat methods, using R software. DISCUSSION: The current study is of strategic importance for Lagos State in potentially curbing the health, social and economic burden of COVID-19 disease. Should the current study demonstrate that either of the three intervention drugs is more efficacious than standard therapy alone, the State Ministry of Health will develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of COVID-19 in Lagos State. The findings will also be shared nationally and with other states which may lead to a standardized national guideline for the treatment of COVID-19 in Nigeria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Register PACTR202004801273802 . Registered prospectively on April 2, 2020.

Off-Label Use of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: Analysis of Reports of Suspected Adverse Reactions From the Italian National Network of Pharmacovigilance.

This study aimed to characterize adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to hydroxychloroquine in the setting of COVID-19, occurring in Italy in the period March to May 2020. The analysis of the combination therapy with azithromycin or/and lopinavir/ritonavir as well as a comparison with ADRs reported throughout 2019 was performed. ADRs collected by the Italian National Network of Pharmacovigilance were analyzed for their incidence, seriousness, outcome, coadministered drugs, and Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities classification. A total of 306 reports were gathered for the quarter of 2020: 54% nonserious and 46% serious, and half of the latter required either the hospitalization or its prolongation. However, most of them were either completely recovered (26%) or in the process of recovery (45%), except for 9 fatal cases. Throughout 2019, 38 reports were collected, 53% nonserious and 47% serious, but no deaths had been reported. Diarrhea, prolonged QT interval, and hypertransaminasemia were the most frequently ADRs reported in 2020, significantly higher than 2019 and specific for COVID-19 subjects treated with hydroxychloroquine. The logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the likelihood of serious ADRs, QT prolongation, and diarrhea significantly increased with hydroxychloroquine dosage. Coadministration of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine showed a positive correlation with diarrhea and hypertransaminasemia and a negative relationship with the ADR seriousness. The combination therapy with azithromycin was another independent predictor of a serious ADR. Off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, alone or in combination regimens, was associated with increased incidence and/or seriousness of specific ADRs in patients with additional risk factors caused by the infection.

Corrected QT interval in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: Focus on drugs therapy.

ABSTRACT: Corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation has been associated with poor patient prognosis. In this study, we assessed the effects of different drugs and cardiac injury on QTc interval prolongation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).The study cohort consisted of 395 confirmed COVID-19 cases from the Wuhan Union Hospital West Campus. All hospitalized patients were treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HCQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), quinolones, interferon, Arbidol, or Qingfei Paidu decoction (QPD) and received at least 1 electrocardiogram after drug administration.Fifty one (12.9%) patients exhibited QTc prolongation (QTc ≥ 470 ms). QTc interval prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality (both P < .001). Administration of CQ/HCQ (odds ratio [OR], 2.759; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.318-5.775; P = .007), LPV/r (OR, 2.342; 95% CI, 1.152-4.760; P = .019), and quinolones (OR, 2.268; 95% CI, 1.171-4.392; P = .015) increased the risk of QTc prolongation. In contrast, the administration of Arbidol, interferon, or QPD did not increase the risk of QTc prolongation. Notably, patients treated with QPD had a shorter QTc duration than those without QPD treatment (412.10 [384.39-433.77] vs 420.86 [388.19-459.58]; P = .042). The QTc interval was positively correlated with the levels of cardiac biomarkers (creatine kinase-MB fraction [rho = 0.14, P = .016], high-sensitivity troponin I [rho = .22, P < .001], and B-type natriuretic peptide [rho = 0.27, P < .001]).In conclusion, QTc prolongation was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. The risk of QTc prolongation was higher in patients receiving CQ/HCQ, LPV/r, and quinolones. QPD had less significant effects on QTc prolongation than other antiviral agents.

Potential interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients with Covid-19 are exposed to treatment combinations that can potentially result in interactions that adversely affect patient outcomes. This study aimed to identify potential drug-drug interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19. METHODS: We conducted a search for potential interactions between 201 antineoplastic agents and 26 medicines used to treat Covid-19 on the Lexicomp® and Micromedex® databases. The following data were extracted: interaction severity ("major" and "contraindicated") and interaction effects (pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic). We also sought to identify the therapeutic indication of the antineoplastic drugs involved in the potential drug-drug interactions. RESULTS: A total of 388 "major" or "contraindicated" drug-drug interactions were detected. Eight drugs or combinations (baricitinib, lopinavir/ritonavir, atazanavir, darunavir, azithromycin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and sirolimus) accounted for 91.5% of these interactions. The class of antineoplastic agents with the greatest potential for interaction was tyrosine kinase inhibitors (accounting for 46.4% of all interactions). The findings show that atazanavir, baricitinib, and lopinavir/ritonavir can affect the treatment of all common types of cancer. The most common pharmacokinetic effect of the potential drug-drug interactions was increased plasma concentration of the antineoplastic medicine (39.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 is a recent disease and pharmacological interventions are undergoing constant modification. This study identified a considerable number of potential drug-drug interactions. In view of the vulnerability of patients with cancer, it is vital that health professionals carefully assess the risks and benefits of drug combinations.

Urgent Guidance for Navigating and Circumventing the QTc-Prolonging and Torsadogenic Potential of Possible Pharmacotherapies for Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19).

As the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) global pandemic rages across the globe, the race to prevent and treat this deadly disease has led to the "off-label" repurposing of drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir, which have the potential for unwanted QT-interval prolongation and a risk of drug-induced sudden cardiac death. With the possibility that a considerable proportion of the world's population soon could receive COVID-19 pharmacotherapies with torsadogenic potential for therapy or postexposure prophylaxis, this document serves to help health care professionals mitigate the risk of drug-induced ventricular arrhythmias while minimizing risk of COVID-19 exposure to personnel and conserving the limited supply of personal protective equipment.

Review of Emerging Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved into an emergent global pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can manifest on a spectrum of illness from mild disease to severe respiratory failure requiring intensive care unit admission. As the incidence continues to rise at a rapid pace, critical care teams are faced with challenging treatment decisions. There is currently no widely accepted standard of care in the pharmacologic management of patients with COVID-19. Urgent identification of potential treatment strategies is a priority. Therapies include novel agents available in clinical trials or through compassionate use, and other drugs, repurposed antiviral and immunomodulating therapies. Many have demonstrated in vitro or in vivo potential against other viruses that are similar to SARS-CoV-2. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 have additional considerations related to adjustments for organ impairment and renal replacement therapies, complex lists of concurrent medications, limitations with drug administration and compatibility, and unique toxicities that should be evaluated when utilizing these therapies. The purpose of this review is to summarize practical considerations for pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID-19, with the intent of serving as a resource for health care providers at the forefront of clinical care during this pandemic.

Safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: We examined the safety and efficacy of a treatment protocol containing Favipiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a multicenter randomized open-labeled clinical trial on moderate to severe cases infections of SARS-CoV-2. Patients with typical ground glass appearance on chest computerized tomography scan (CT scan) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) of less than 93% were enrolled. They were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (1.6 gr loading, 1.8 gr daily) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (800/200 mg daily) treatment regimens in addition to standard care. In-hospital mortality, ICU admission, intubation, time to clinical recovery, changes in daily SpO2 after 5 min discontinuation of supplemental oxygen, and length of hospital stay were quantified and compared in the two groups. RESULTS: 380 patients were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (193) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (187) groups in 13 centers. The number of deaths, intubations, and ICU admissions were not significantly different (26, 27, 31 and 21, 17, 25 respectively). Mean hospital stay was also not different (7.9 days [SD = 6] in the Favipiravir and 8.1 [SD = 6.5] days in Lopinavir/Ritonavir groups) (p = 0.61). Time to clinical recovery in the Favipiravir group was similar to Lopinavir/Ritonavir group (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 - 1.17) and likewise the changes in the daily SpO2 after discontinuation of supplemental oxygen (p = 0.46) CONCLUSION: Adding Favipiravir to the treatment protocol did not reduce the number of ICU admissions or intubations or In-hospital mortality compared to Lopinavir/Ritonavir regimen. It also did not shorten time to clinical recovery and length of hospital stay.

Lopinavir-ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine for viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The efficacies of lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine remain to be determined in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To compare the virological and clinical responses to lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with COVID-19 treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine at a single center in Korea from February 17 to March 31, 2020. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine concurrently and those treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine for less than 7 days were excluded. Time to negative conversion of viral RNA, time to clinical improvement, and safety outcomes were assessed after 6 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 65 patients (mean age, 64.3 years; 25 men [38.5%]), 31 were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and 34 were treated with hydroxychloroquine. The median duration of symptoms before treatment was 7 days and 26 patients (40%) required oxygen support at baseline. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir had a significantly shorter time to negative conversion of viral RNA than those treated with hydroxychloroquine (median, 21 days vs. 28 days). Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 4.21) and younger age (aHR, 2.64; 95% CI 1.43 to 4.87) was associated with negative conversion of viral RNA. There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement between lopinavir-ritonavir- and hydroxychloroquine-treated patients (median, 18 days vs. 21 days). Lymphopenia and hyperbilirubinemia were more frequent in lopinavir-ritonavir-treated patients compared with hydroxychloroquine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Lopinavir-ritonavir was associated with more rapid viral clearance than hydroxychloroquine in mild to moderate COVID-19, despite comparable clinical responses. These findings should be confirmed in randomized, controlled trials.

Current evidence for the risk of PR prolongation, QRS widening, QT prolongation, from lopinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, and saquinavir: A systematic review.

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.

QT Interval Monitoring with Handheld Heart Rhythm ECG Device in COVID-19 Patients.

Background: QTc prolongation is an adverse effect of COVID-19 therapies. The use of a handheld device in this scenario has not been addressed. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of QTc monitoring with a smart device in COVID-19 patients receiving QTc-interfering therapies. Methods: Prospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin ± lopinavir-ritonavir. ECG monitoring was performed with 12-lead ECG or with KardiaMobile-6L. Both registries were also sequentially obtained in a cohort of healthy patients. We evaluated differences in QTc in COVID-19 patients between three different monitoring strategies: 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up (A), 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up with the smart device (B), and fully monitored with handheld 6-lead ECG (group C). Time needed to obtain an ECG registry was also documented. Results: One hundred and eighty-two COVID-19 patients were included (A: 119(65.4%); B: 50(27.5%); C: 13(7.1%). QTc peak during hospitalization did significantly increase in all groups. No differences were observed between the three monitoring strategies in QTc prolongation (p = 0.864). In the control group, all but one ECG registry with the smart device allowed QTc measurement and mean QTc did not differ between both techniques (p = 0.612), displaying a moderate reliability (ICC 0.56 [0.19-0.76]). Time of ECG registry was significantly longer for the 12-lead ECG than for handheld device in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusion: QTc monitoring with KardiaMobile-6L in COVID-19 patients was feasible. Time of ECG registration was significantly lower with the smart device, which may offer an important advantage for prevention of virus dissemination among healthcare providers.