OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of palivizumab in reducing the incidence of RSV hospitalization in children with CF who are younger than 2 years.
METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception until January 31, 2017, for clinical studies investigating the use of palivizumab in infants with CF aged less than 2 years. The primary outcome was hospitalization rate due to RSV infection. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization for respiratory illness, length of hospital stay, safety (adverse effects), and cost-effectiveness of palivizumab prophylaxis.
RESULTS: The review included a total of 10 studies (six cohort studies, two before-and-after studies, one cross-sectional study, and one randomized controlled trial) involving 3891 patients with CF. Seven studies reported that palivizumab prophylaxis had a positive impact on the rate of RSV hospitalization. Five studies (n=3404) reported that palivizumab prophylaxis significantly reduced the rate of hospitalization due to RSV infection compared to no prophylaxis. One study (n=5) demonstrated patients with CF who received palivizumab had no RSV hospitalization. Another study showed infants with CF receiving palivizumab (n=117) had a lower risk of hospitalization for RSV infection compared with premature infants (gestational age < 35 completed weeks) who received palivizumab (n=4880).
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the literature suggests that palivizumab may have a potential role in reducing RSV hospitalization in children aged less than 2 years with CF. Given the lack of overall data, additional research is warranted to better understand the efficacy and safety of prophylactic palivizumab in infants with CF.
SOURCES OF DATA: Recent published literature.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Corticosteroids and immunomodulators that antagonize the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor have been shown to play a critical role in modulating inflammation and improving clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. Inhaled budesonide reduces the time to recovery in older patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed in the community.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The clinical benefit of remdesivir remains controversial with conflicting evidence from different trials. Remdesivir led to a reduction in time to clinical recovery in the ACTT-1 trial. However, the World Health Organization SOLIDARITY and DISCOVERY trial did not find a significant benefit on 28-day mortality and clinical recovery.
GROWING POINTS: Other treatments currently being investigated include antidiabetic drug empagliflozin, antimalarial drug artesunate, tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, immunomodulatory drug infliximab, antiviral drug favipiravir, antiparasitic drug ivermectin and antidepressant drug fluvoxamine.
AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: The timing of therapeutic interventions based on postulated mechanisms of action and the selection of clinically meaningful primary end points remain important considerations in the design and implementation of COVID-19 therapeutic trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 16-April-2020 to 30-April- 2020, patients with suspected or confirmed for COVID-19 indicated for in-patient treatment with hydroxychloroquine with or without lopinavir-ritonavir to the Sarawak General Hospital were monitored with KardiaMobile smartphone electrocardiogram (AliveCor®, Mountain View, CA) or standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. The baseline and serial QTc intervals were monitored till the last dose of medications or until the normalization of the QTc interval.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine, and 20 (66.7%) patients received a combination of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir therapy. The maximum QTc interval was significantly prolonged compared to baseline (434.6±28.2msec vs. 458.6±47.1msec, p=0.001). The maximum QTc interval (456.1±45.7msec vs. 464.6±45.2msec, p=0.635) and the delta QTc (32.6±38.5msec vs. 26.3±35.8msec, p=0.658) were not significantly different between patients on hydroxychloroquine or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Five (16.7%) patients had QTc of 500msec or more. Four (13.3%) patients required discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine and 3 (10.0%) patients required discontinuation of lopinavirritonavir due to QTc prolongation. However, no torsade de pointes was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: QTc monitoring using smartphone electrocardiogram was feasible in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine with or without lopinavir-ritonavir. The usage of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir resulted in QTc prolongation, but no torsade de pointes or arrhythmogenic death was observed.