METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry.
RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration.
CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).
AREAS COVERED: A literature search was performed using PubMed between December 1, 2019-June 23, 2020. This review highlights the current state of knowledge on the viral replication and pathogenicity, diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, and management of COVID-19. This review will be of interest to scientists and clinicians and make a significant contribution toward development of vaccines and targeted therapies to contain the pandemic.
EXPERT OPINION: The exit strategy for a path back to normal life is required, which should involve a multi-prong effort toward development of new treatment and a successful vaccine to protect public health worldwide and prevent future COVID-19 outbreaks. Therefore, the bench to bedside translational research as well as reverse translational works focusing bedside to bench is very important and would provide the foundation for the development of targeted drugs and vaccines for COVID-19 infections.
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.
METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 38 sites across China, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, and Malaysia, who were chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1-6, and were HCV treatment-naive or treatment-experienced, either without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis. Patients self-administered a combined sofosbuvir (400 mg) and velpatasvir (100 mg) tablet once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virological response, defined as HCV RNA less than 15 IU/mL at 12 weeks after completion of treatment (SVR12), assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of adverse events leading to premature discontinuation of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02671500, and is completed.
FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 375 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 374 completed the full treatment course and one discontinued treatment. Overall, 362 (97% [95% CI 94-98]) of 375 patients achieved SVR12. Among 42 patients with HCV genotype 3b, all of whom had baseline resistance-associated substitutions in NS5A, 25 (89% [95% CI 72-98]) of 28 patients without cirrhosis and seven (50% [23-77]) of 14 patients with cirrhosis achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (36 [10%] patients) and headache (18 [5%] patients). There were no discontinuations due to adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in three (1%) patients, none of which was judged to be related to sofosbuvir-velpatasvir treatment.
INTERPRETATION: Consistent with data from other phase 3 studies, single-tablet sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for 12 weeks is an efficacious and safe treatment for Asian patients with chronic HCV infection, but might have lower efficacy in those infected with HCV genotype 3b and with cirrhosis.
FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.
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.
METHODS: An extensive search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective case series studies that evaluated therapies COVID-19. The outcomes searched for were mortality, recovery rate, length of hospital stay and clinical improvement from January to May 15, 2020. Independent reviewers searched, identified, screened, and related studies were included.
RESULTS: Total of five RCTs on 439 patients and seventeen case series involving 1656 patients were found in the specified review period that reported the use of Lopinavir, Ritonavir, Remdesivir. Oseltamivir, Ribavirin in patients with COVID-19; but none of which showed efficacy of antiviral therapy. Such current findings impede researchers from recommending an appropriate and effective antiviral therapy against COVID-19, making it a serious concern for the global community.
DISCUSSION: In the present pandemic and any future epidemics, all the related authorities should pursue many more RCTs, cohort and case series for a prospective outcome in the management and treatment guidelines.
METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive HCV patients treated with PegIFN/RBV in 2004 to 2012.
RESULTS: A total of 273 patients received treatment. The mean age was 44.16 ± 10.5 years and 76% were male. The top 2 self-reported risks were blood or blood product transfusion before 1994 and injection drug use, found in 57.1% of patients. The predominant HCV genotype (GT) was 3 at 60.6%, second was GT1 at 36.1% and other GTs were uncommon at about 1% or less. About half of our patients have high baseline viral load (>800,000 iu/ml), 18.3% had liver cirrhosis and 22.3% had HIV co-infection. Co-morbid illness was found in 42.9%, hypertension and type 2 diabetes were the two most common. The overall sustained virological response (SVR) by intention-to-treat analysis were 54.9% (n=150/273), 41.2% (40/97) for GT1, 100% (5/5) for GT2 and 62% (101/163) for GT3. Subgroup analysis for HCV monoinfected, treatment naïve showed SVR of 49.2% (31/63) for GT1, 100% (5/5) for GT2 and 67% (69/103) for GT3. In HCV mono-infected and treatment experienced (n=29), the SVR was 28.6% (4/14) for GT1, 21.4% (69/103) for GT3. In the HIV/HCV co-infected, treatment naïve (n=56), the SVR was 28.6% (4/14) for GT1 and 64.3% (27/42) for GT3. Treatment naïve GT3 mono-infected patients had a statistically significant higher SVR compared to treatment experienced patients (P=0.001). In GT3 patients who achieved rapid virological response, the SVR was significantly higher at 85.2% (P< 0.001). The SVR for cirrhotics were low especially for GT1 at 21% (4/19) and 31% (4/13) based on all patients and treatment naïve HCV monoinfected respectively. In GT3 cirrhotics the corresponding SVR were 57.1% (16/28) and 60.9% (14/23). Premature discontinuation rate was 21.2% with the majority due to intolerable adverse events at 12.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: In our routine clinical practice, the HCV patients we treated were young, predominantly of GT3 and many had difficult-to-treat clinical characteristics. The SVR of our patients were below those reported in Asian clinical trials but in keeping with some "real world" data.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and medRxiv (preprint repository) databases (up to 7 January 2021). Pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence interval (CI) were generated using random-effects and inverse variance heterogeneity models. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was appraised using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included: two trials with an overall low risk of bias and four trials had some concerns regarding the overall risk of bias. Our meta-analysis did not find significant mortality benefits with the use of tocilizumab among patients with COVID-19 relative to non-use of tocilizumab (pooled hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% CI 0.66-1.05, n = 2,057). Interestingly, the estimated effect of tocilizumab on the composite endpoint of requirement for mechanical ventilation and/or all-cause mortality indicated clinical benefits, with some evidence against our model hypothesis of no significant effect at the current sample size (pooled hazard ratio = 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.91, n = 749).
CONCLUSION: Despite no clear mortality benefits in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, tocilizumab appears to reduce the likelihood of progression to mechanical ventilation.