Andrea Alemany

Bio: Andrea Alemany is an academic researcher from University of Barcelona. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 11 publications receiving 544 citations.

Transmission of COVID-19 in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain: a cohort study.

Abstract: Summary Background Scarce data are available on what variables affect the risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the development of symptomatic COVID-19, and, particularly, the relationship with viral load We aimed to analyse data from linked index cases of COVID-19 and their contacts to explore factors associated with transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Methods In this cohort study, patients were recruited as part of a randomised controlled trial done between March 17 and April 28, 2020, that aimed to assess if hydroxychloroquine reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Patients with COVID-19 and their contacts were identified by use of the electronic registry of the Epidemiological Surveillance Emergency Service of Catalonia (Spain) Patients with COVID-19 included in our analysis were aged 18 years or older, not hospitalised, had quantitative PCR results available at baseline, had mild symptom onset within 5 days before enrolment, and had no reported symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infections in their accommodation or workplace within the 14 days before enrolment Contacts included were adults with a recent history of exposure and absence of COVID-19-like symptoms within the 7 days preceding enrolment Viral load of contacts, measured by quantitative PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab, was assessed at enrolment, at day 14, and whenever the participant reported COVID-19-like symptoms We assessed risk of transmission and developing symptomatic disease and incubation dynamics using regression analysis We assessed the relationship of viral load and characteristics of cases (age, sex, number of days from reported symptom onset, and presence or absence of fever, cough, dyspnoea, rhinitis, and anosmia) and associations between risk of transmission and characteristics of the index case and contacts Findings We identified 314 patients with COVID-19, with 282 (90%) having at least one contact (753 contacts in total), resulting in 282 clusters 90 (32%) of 282 clusters had at least one transmission event The secondary attack rate was 17% (125 of 753 contacts), with a variation from 12% when the index case had a viral load lower than 1 × 106 copies per mL to 24% when the index case had a viral load of 1 × 1010 copies per mL or higher (adjusted odds ratio per log10 increase in viral load 1·3, 95% CI 1·1–1·5) Increased risk of transmission was also associated with household contact (3·0, 1·59–5·65) and age of the contact (per year: 1·02, 1·01–1·04) 449 contacts had a positive PCR result at baseline 28 (6%) of 449 contacts had symptoms at the first visit Of 421 contacts who were asymptomatic at the first visit, 181 (43%) developed symptomatic COVID-19, with a variation from approximately 38% in contacts with an initial viral load lower than 1 × 107 copies per mL to greater than 66% for those with an initial viral load of 1 × 1010 copies per mL or higher (hazard ratio per log10 increase in viral load 1·12, 95% CI 1·05–1·20; p=0·0006) Time to onset of symptomatic disease decreased from a median of 7 days (IQR 5–10) for individuals with an initial viral load lower than 1 × 107 copies per mL to 6 days (4–8) for those with an initial viral load between 1 × 107 and 1 × 109 copies per mL, and 5 days (3–8) for those with an initial viral load higher than 1 × 109 copies per mL Interpretation In our study, the viral load of index cases was a leading driver of SARS-CoV-2 transmission The risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was strongly associated with the viral load of contacts at baseline and shortened the incubation time of COVID-19 in a dose-dependent manner Funding YoMeCorono, Generalitat de Catalunya Translations For the Catalan translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial.

Abstract: Background No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of mild-illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to determine whether early treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would be more efficacious than no-treatment for outpatients with mild Covid-19. Methods We conducted a multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial in Catalonia (Spain) between March 17, and May 26, 2020. Eligible Covid-19 cases were non-hospitalized adult patients with recently confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and less than five days of symptoms. Patients were assigned to receive HCQ (800 mg on day 1, followed by 400 mg once daily for 6 days) or no antiviral treatment (not-placebo controlled). Study outcomes were the reduction of viral RNA load in nasopharyngeal swabs up to 7 days after treatment start, patient disease progression using the WHO scale up to 28 days, and time to complete resolution of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed up to 28 days. Results A total of 293 patients were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 157 in the control arm and 136 in the intervention arm. The mean age was 41.6 years (SD 12.6), mean viral load at baseline was 7.90 (SD 1.82) Log10 copies/mL, and median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3 days. No significant differences were found in the mean reduction of viral load at day 3 (-1.41 vs. -1.41 Log10 copies/mL in the control and intervention arm, respectively; difference 0.01 [95% CI -0.28;0.29]) or at day 7 (-3.37 vs. -3.44; d -0.07 [-0.44;0.29]). This treatment regimen did not reduce risk of hospitalization (7.1%, control vs. 5.9%, intervention; RR 0.75 [0.32;1.77]) nor shortened the time to complete resolution of symptoms (12 days, control vs. 10 days, intervention; p = 0.38). No relevant treatment-related AEs were reported. Conclusions In patients with mild Covid-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care.

A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine for Prevention of Covid-19.

Abstract: Background Current strategies for preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are limited to nonpharmacologic interventions. Hydroxychloroquine has been proposed as a postexposure therapy to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but definitive evidence is lacking. Methods We conducted an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving asymptomatic contacts of patients with polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR)-confirmed Covid-19 in Catalonia, Spain. We randomly assigned clusters of contacts to the hydroxychloroquine group (which received the drug at a dose of 800 mg once, followed by 400 mg daily for 6 days) or to the usual-care group (which received no specific therapy). The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 within 14 days. The secondary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined by symptoms compatible with Covid-19 or a positive PCR test regardless of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed for up to 28 days. Results The analysis included 2314 healthy contacts of 672 index case patients with Covid-19 who were identified between March 17 and April 28, 2020. A total of 1116 contacts were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine and 1198 to receive usual care. Results were similar in the hydroxychloroquine and usual-care groups with respect to the incidence of PCR-confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 (5.7% and 6.2%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.86 [95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.42]). In addition, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission than usual care (18.7% and 17.8%, respectively). The incidence of adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than in the usual-care group (56.1% vs. 5.9%), but no treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions Postexposure therapy with hydroxychloroquine did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or symptomatic Covid-19 in healthy persons exposed to a PCR-positive case patient. (Funded by the crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono and others; BCN-PEP-CoV2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04304053.).

Transmission of COVID-19 in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain: a cohort study

Abstract: Background There remains limited data on what variables affect risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and developing symptomatic Covid-19 and in particular the relationship to viral load (VL). We analysed data from linked index cases and their contacts to explore factors associated with transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Methods Patients were recruited as part of a randomized control trial, conducted between March to April 2020, that aimed to assess if hydroxychloroquine reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Non-hospitalised Covid-19 cases and their contacts were identified through the local surveillance system. VL, measured by quantitative PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab, was assessed at enrollment, at day 14, and whenever the participant reported Covid-19-like symptoms. Risk of transmission, developing symptomatic disease and incubation dynamics were evaluated using regression analysis. Findings We identified 314 cases, 282 of which had at least one contact (753 contacts in total). Ninety (33%) of 282 clusters had at least one transmission event. The secondary attack rate was 16% (125/753), with a variation from 12% to 24% for VL of the index case of 109 copies/mL, respectively (OR per log10 increase in VL 1.3 95%CI 1.1–1.6). Increased risk of transmission was also associated with household contact (OR 2.7; 1.4–5.06) and age of the contact (OR 1.02 per year; 1.01–1.04). The proportion of PCR positive contacts who developed symptomatic Covid-19 was 40.3% (181/449), with a variation from 25% to 60% for VL of the contact 109 copies/mL (HR log10 increase in VL 1.12; 95% CI 1.05 – 1.2). Time to onset of symptomatic disease decreased from a median of 7 days (IQR 5–10) for individuals with an initial viral load 109, respectively. Interpretation Viral load of index cases is a leading driver of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The risk of symptomatic Covid-19 is strongly associated with viral load of contacts at baseline and shortens the incubation time in a dose-dependent manner. Funding Crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono (http://www.yomecorono.com/), and Generalitat de Catalunya. Support for laboratory equipment from Foundation Dormeur. Research in context Evidence before this study In September 2020, we searched PubMed database for articles reporting on factors influencing transmission and the risk of developing symptomatic disease. Search terms included “Covid-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “transmission”, “incubation time”, and “risk”, with no language restrictions. By 20th September, various authors had reported on retrospective analyses of clusters of index cases and their corresponding contacts, as well as series of patients who developed symptomatic Covid-19 disease after PCR positive result. Besides describing the secondary attack rate, various authors identified risk factors for transmission associated with the place and duration of exposure and the lack of use of personal protective equipment. A single study suggested that symptomatic individuals might be more likely to transmit than asymptomatic cases but we found no clear evidence regarding the influence of viral load of the index case on transmission risk. Similarly, although various retrospective series of patients with positive PCR results had reported incubation times elsewhere, the characteristics of index case and contacts that may influence the risk of developing symptomatic Covid-19 and the time to this event had been barely addressed. Added value of this study We analyzed data from a large cluster-randomized clinical trial on post-exposure therapy for Covid-19 that provide new information on SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. Several design components add value to this dataset. Notably, quantitative PCR was available for the index cases to estimate risk of transmission. Furthermore, quantitative PCR was also performed on asymptomatic contacts at the time of enrollment allowing to investigate the dynamics of symptomatic disease onset among them. We found that the viral load of the index case was the leading determinant of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity among contacts. Among contacts who were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive at baseline, viral load significantly influenced the risk of developing the symptomatic disease in a dose-dependent manner. This influence also became apparent in the incubation time, which shortened with increasing baseline viral loads. Implication of all the available evidence Our results provide important insights into the knowledge regarding the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and Covid-19 development. The fact that the transmission risk is primarily driven by the viral load of index cases, more than other factors such as their symptoms or age, suggests that all cases should be considered potential transmitters irrespective of their presentation and encourages assessing viral load in cases with a larger number of close contacts. Similarly, our results regarding the risk and expected time to developing symptomatic Covid-19 encourage risk stratification of newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections based on the initial viral load.

Features, Evaluation and Treatment Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Abstract: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), viral diseases continue to emerge and represent a serious issue to public health In the last twenty years, several viral epidemics such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2002 to 2003, and H1N1 influenza in 2009, have been recorded Most recently, the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012 In a timeline that reaches the present day, an epidemic of cases with unexplained low respiratory infections detected in Wuhan, the largest metropolitan area in China's Hubei province, was first reported to the WHO Country Office in China, on December 31, 2019 Published literature can trace the beginning of symptomatic individuals back to the beginning of December 2019 As they were unable to identify the causative agent, these first cases were classified as "pneumonia of unknown etiology " The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local CDCs organized an intensive outbreak investigation program The etiology of this illness is now attributed to a novel virus belonging to the coronavirus (CoV) family, COVID-19 On February 11, 2020, the WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced that the disease caused by this new CoV was a "COVID-19," which is the acronym of "coronavirus disease 2019" In the past twenty years, two additional coronavirus epidemics have occurred SARS-CoV provoked a large-scale epidemic beginning in China and involving two dozen countries with approximately 8000 cases and 800 deaths, and the MERS-CoV that began in Saudi Arabia and has approximately 2,500 cases and 800 deaths and still causes as sporadic cases This new virus seems to be very contagious and has quickly spread globally In a meeting on January 30, 2020, per the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005), the outbreak was declared by the WHO a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) as it had spread to 18 countries with four countries reporting human-to-human transmission An additional landmark occurred on February 26, 2020, as the first case of the disease, not imported from China, was recorded in the United States Initially, the new virus was called 2019-nCoV Subsequently, the task of experts of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) termed it the SARS-CoV-2 virus as it is very similar to the one that caused the SARS outbreak (SARS-CoVs) The CoVs have become the major pathogens of emerging respiratory disease outbreaks They are a large family of single-stranded RNA viruses (+ssRNA) that can be isolated in different animal species For reasons yet to be explained, these viruses can cross species barriers and can cause, in humans, illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as MERS and SARS Interestingly, these latter viruses have probably originated from bats and then moving into other mammalian hosts — the Himalayan palm civet for SARS-CoV, and the dromedary camel for MERS-CoV — before jumping to humans The dynamics of SARS-Cov-2 are currently unknown, but there is speculation that it also has an animal origin The potential for these viruses to grow to become a pandemic worldwide seems to be a serious public health risk Concerning COVID-19, the WHO raised the threat to the CoV epidemic to the "very high" level, on February 28, 2020 Probably, the effects of the epidemic caused by the new CoV has yet to emerge as the situation is quickly evolving World governments are at work to establish countermeasures to stem possible devastating effects Health organizations coordinate information flows and issues directives and guidelines to best mitigate the impact of the threat At the same time, scientists around the world work tirelessly, and information about the transmission mechanisms, the clinical spectrum of disease, new diagnostics, and prevention and therapeutic strategies are rapidly developing Many uncertainties remain with regard to both the virus-host interac ion and the evolution of the epidemic, with specific reference to the times when the epidemic will reach its peak At the moment, the therapeutic strategies to deal with the infection are only supportive, and prevention aimed at reducing transmission in the community is our best weapon Aggressive isolation measures in China have led to a progressive reduction of cases in the last few days In Italy, in geographic regions of the north of the peninsula, political and health authorities are making incredible efforts to contain a shock wave that is severely testing the health system In the midst of the crisis, the authors have chosen to use the "Statpearls" platform because, within the PubMed scenario, it represents a unique tool that may allow them to make updates in real-time The aim, therefore, is to collect information and scientific evidence and to provide an overview of the topic that will be continuously updated

Genomics and epidemiology of the P.1 SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus, Brazil.

Abstract: Cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Manaus, Brazil, resurged in late 2020 despite previously high levels of infection. Genome sequencing of viruses sampled in Manaus between November 2020 and January 2021 revealed the emergence and circulation of a novel SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern. Lineage P.1 acquired 17 mutations, including a trio in the spike protein (K417T, E484K, and N501Y) associated with increased binding to the human ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) receptor. Molecular clock analysis shows that P.1 emergence occurred around mid-November 2020 and was preceded by a period of faster molecular evolution. Using a two-category dynamical model that integrates genomic and mortality data, we estimate that P.1 may be 1.7- to 2.4-fold more transmissible and that previous (non-P.1) infection provides 54 to 79% of the protection against infection with P.1 that it provides against non-P.1 lineages. Enhanced global genomic surveillance of variants of concern, which may exhibit increased transmissibility and/or immune evasion, is critical to accelerate pandemic responsiveness.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract: Background Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Search methods Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. Main results Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19. Antigen tests Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. Authors' conclusions Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.