Search

Introduction: No early treatment intervention for COVID-19 has proven effective to date. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment for COVID-19.Material and methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of COVID-19 were searched in five engines and preprint websites until September 14, 2021. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 symptom resolution, viral clearance, and adverse events. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed and quality of evidence (QoE) per outcome was assessed with GRADE methods.Results: Five RCTs (n = 1848) were included. The comparator was placebo in four RCTs and usual care in one RCT. The RCTs used hydroxychloroquine total doses between 1,600 and 4,400 mg and had follow-up times between 14 and 90 days. Compared to the controls, early treatment with hydroxychloroquine did not reduce hospitalizations (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47-1.36, I2 = 2%, 5 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.16-3.68, I2 = 0%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE), symptom resolution (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.77-1.16, I2 = 71%, 3 RCTs, low QoE) or viral clearance at 14 days (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.27, I2 = 65%, 2 RCTs, low QoE). There was a larger non-significant increase of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine vs. controls (RR = 2.17, 95% CI: 0.86-5.45, I2 = 92%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE).Conclusions: Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as early treatment for COVID-19 infections in RCTs with low to very low quality of evidence for all outcomes. More RCTs are needed to elucidate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Results Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval,.12–1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, −.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM. Conclusions Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Material and Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events.Results: Five RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33-1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09-3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47-1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48-1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes.Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Tropical Medicine & International Health is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: No early treatment intervention for COVID-19 has proven effective to date. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment for COVID-19., Material and Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of COVID-19 were searched in five engines and preprint websites until September 14, 2021. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 symptom resolution, viral clearance, and adverse events. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed and quality of evidence (QoE) per outcome was assessed with GRADE methods., Results: Five RCTs ( n = 1848) were included. The comparator was placebo in four RCTs and usual care in one RCT. The RCTs used hydroxychloroquine total doses between 1,600 and 4,400 mg and had follow-up times between 14 and 90 days. Compared to the controls, early treatment with hydroxychloroquine did not reduce hospitalizations (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47-1.36, I 2 = 2%, 5 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.16-3.68, I 2 = 0%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE), symptom resolution (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.77-1.16, I 2 = 71%, 3 RCTs, low QoE) or viral clearance at 14 days (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.27, I 2 = 65%, 2 RCTs, low QoE). There was a larger non-significant increase of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine vs. controls (RR = 2.17, 95% CI: 0.86-5.45, I 2 = 92%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE)., Conclusions: Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as early treatment for COVID-19 infections in RCTs with low to very low quality of evidence for all outcomes. More RCTs are needed to elucidate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment intervention., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2022 Termedia & Banach.)

Aims: Vascular calcification is common in diabetic patients. Warfarin has been associated with renovascular calcification and worsening renal function; rivaroxaban may provide renopreservation by decreasing vascular inflammation. We compared the impact of rivaroxaban and warfarin on renal outcomes in diabetic patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF)., Methods and Results: Using United States IBM MarketScan data from January 2011 to December 2017, we identified adults with both NVAF and diabetes, newly-initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥12-month insurance coverage prior to anticoagulation initiation. Patients with Stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or undergoing haemodialysis at baseline were excluded. Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were adjusted using inverse probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores (absolute standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all after adjustment). Outcomes included incidence rates of emergency department/hospital admissions for acute kidney injury (AKI) and the composite of the development of Stage 5 CKD or need for haemodialysis. Patients were followed until an event, index anticoagulant discontinuation/switch, insurance disenrollment, or end-of-data availability. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression. We assessed 10 017 rivaroxaban (22.6% received a reduced dose) and 11 665 warfarin users. In comparison to warfarin, rivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of AKI (HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74-0.92) and development of Stage 5 CKD or need for haemodialysis (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70-0.96). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses had similar effects as the base-case analysis., Conclusion: Rivaroxaban appears to be associated with lower risks of undesirable renal outcomes vs. warfarin in diabetic NVAF patients., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)