Search

Scope: Despite the large availability of vaccines, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, continues to be a major threat for health-care providers and fragile people. A number of options are now available for outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at the risk of disease progression for the prevention of deaths or hospitalization., Methods: A European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair and the remaining selected based on an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each population, intervention, comparison, outcome, two panel members performed a literature search, with a third panelist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Recommendations: In this update, we focus on anti-viral agents, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and other treatment options proposed for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who are at the risk of hospitalization or death. Although the use of anti-virals is recommended, especially nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir or, alternatively, molnupirarvir, the administration of mAbs against the spike protein strictly depends on circulating variants or the ability to test timely for variants and sub-variants. At the time of writing (April-June 2022), the only active mAb was tixagevimab/cilgavimab given the predominance of the Omicron BA.2, BA.3, BA.4 and BA.5 sub-lineages in Europe. However, considering that the epidemiological scenario is extremely dynamic, constant monitoring of variants of concern is mandatory., (Copyright © 2022 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Scope: In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19., Methods: An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach., Questions Addressed by the Guideline and Recommendations: A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19., Scope: The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised., (Copyright © 2021 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Data suggests that favipiravir (FVP) could be used against SARS-CoV-2. Our aim was to investigate the role of FVP in COVID-19 treatment. A prospective sequential cohort study was performed among adults hospitalized at our center between March and August 2020 with moderate-to-severe, PCR-confirmed COVID-19. For diagnosis and severity, ECDC and WHO definitions were utilized. Patients were screened for inclusion by a priori criteria and included in the FVP cohort if standard-of-care (SOC) + FVP or the non-FVP cohort if SOC ± other antivirals without FVP were administered for > 48 h from diagnosis. Treatment allocation was done per national guidelines, based on severity and drug availability. Primary endpoint was disease progression, a composite of 14-day all-cause death, need for mechanical ventilation, or immunomodulatory therapy. The impact of FVP exposure on disease progression was analyzed by binomial logistic regression. In all, 150 patients were included, 75 in each cohort. Disease progression (17/75, 22.7% vs. 10/75, 13.3%, p = 0.13), 14-day all-cause death (9/75, 12.0% vs. 10/75, 13.3%, p = 0.8), and need for mechanical ventilation (8/75, 10.7% vs. 4/75, 5.3%, p = 0.22) were similar, while immunomodulatory therapies were required more frequently among patients receiving FVP (10/75, 13.3% vs. 1/75, 1.3%, p < 0.01). The use of favipiravir was not retained as a protective factor against disease progression in multivatiate analysis. Time to antiviral therapy from PCR positivity, disease severity, need for oxygen supportation, and ICU admittance rates did not differ statistically between cohorts. In this study, favipiravir did not seem to positively affect disease progression., (© 2021. The Author(s).)