METHODS: A systematic search of articles was conducted in scientific databases, with the latest update in May 2021. This paper systematically reviewed the clinical evidence available (randomized controlled trials, compassionate use studies, and case reports) on the use of remdesivir for patients with moderate or severe COVID-19.

RESULTS: A total of eleven studies were included: four studies based on compassionate use of remdesivir, three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials, three randomized, open-label, phase III trials, and one case report. Clinical improvement and mortality rates in patients who used remdesivir varied across studies.

METHODS: A convenience sampling method was adopted to invite pharmacists (N = 450) working in various sectors such as hospitals, the drug approval authority, and academia to participate in this online survey. A 36-item questionnaire was administered, and data were summarized and presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: The response rate to this survey was 49.8% (n = 224). Overall, 213 respondents (95.1%) were active HHCs users in their daily clinical practice. About 194 respondents (86.6%) disclosed that they often use HHCs for searching DI. Dosage recommendations (n = 198; 88.4%), adverse drug reactions (n = 153; 68.3%), and drug interactions (n = 146; 65.2%) were the most common DI retrieved. Meanwhile, general dosage recommendation, pediatric dosage recommendations and dosage recommendations for renal failure were ranked as the most important DI in mobile medical applications. Gaining access to the latest information on drugs and clinical practice were regarded as the most important functions of the mobile medical app.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials.

RESULTS: Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions.