ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, and prophylaxis in individuals exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: We searched 5 engines and 3 registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19-related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized patients (n = 8253), 5 in non-hospitalized patients (n = 2922), and 2 in prophylaxis (n = 2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.9; I2 = 20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; I2 = 7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; I2 = 77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01; I2 = 33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (mean difference -0.8 log10; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data are needed to determine their efficacy and safety.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitalization , Respiration, ArtificialABSTRACT
In order to estimate the magnitude of Leishmania/HIV co-infection, patients with HIV/AIDS at the Brasilia University Hospital, DF, Brazil were used as subjects in a cross-sectional study. One hundred and sixty-three patients were enrolled, seven of whom had visceral leishmaniasis (VL). One hundred and twelve patients (68.7%) were men; 155 (95.1%) had been exposed to HIV infection through unprotected sex. The median age was 37 years (range: 20-74) and the median CD4+ lymphocyte count was 314 cells/microl (range: 2-1600). Symptomatic patients underwent bone marrow evaluations through direct examination of Giemsa-stained films, parasite culture and PCR assay. Blood samples were evaluated by means of an indirect immunofluorescent antibody test (IFAT), an ELISA using a soluble antigen of L. chagasi (ELISA), an ELISA with the rK39 antigen (ELISA-rK39) and a PCR targeted to the kDNA region and to the internal transcribed spacer 1 of the rDNA gene. The proportion of positive results was 2.4% for the IFAT, 12.3% for the ELISA and 4.9% for the rK39 tests. The estimated prevalence was 16%. The PCR in the blood was positive in three patients (1.8%). The prevalence of Leishmania spp. infection is high among HIV patients attending this Brazilian center suggesting that they should be routinely investigated for VL infection.
