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.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m2980.full.pdf

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

Efficacy and Safety of Favipiravir, an Oral RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase Inhibitor, in Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized, Comparative, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

Favipiravir is an oral broad-spectrum inhibitor of viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that is approved for treatment of influenza in Japan. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial of favipiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 at 25 hospitals across Japan. Eligible patients were adolescents and adults admitted with COVID-19 who were asymptomatic or mildly ill and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to early or late favipiravir therapy (in the latter case, the same regimen starting on day 6 instead of day 1). The primary endpoint was viral clearance by day 6. The secondary endpoint was change in viral load by day 6. Exploratory endpoints included time to defervescence and resolution of symptoms. Eighty-nine patients were enrolled, of whom 69 were virologically evaluable. Viral clearance occurred within 6 days in 66.7% and 56.1% of the early and late treatment groups (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.76 to 2.62). Of 30 patients who had a fever (≥37.5°C) on day 1, times to defervescence were 2.1 days and 3.2 days in the early and late treatment groups (aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 4.35). During therapy, 84.1% developed transient hyperuricemia. Favipiravir did not significantly improve viral clearance as measured by reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) by day 6 but was associated with numerical reduction in time to defervescence. Neither disease progression nor death occurred in any of the patients in either treatment group during the 28-day participation. (This study has been registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials under number jRCTs041190120.).

A Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label Trial of Early versus Late Favipiravir Therapy in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09–1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98–1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67–1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/02/17/2021.02.14.21251693.full.pdf

The efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

The entry of SARS-CoV-2 into target cells requires the activation of its surface spike protein, S, by host proteases. The host serine protease TMPRSS2 and cysteine proteases Cathepsin B/L can activate S, making two independent entry pathways accessible to SARS-CoV-2. Blocking the proteases prevents SARS-CoV-2 entry in vitro. This blockade may be achieved in vivo through 'repurposing' drugs, a potential treatment option for COVID-19 that is now in clinical trials. Here, we found, surprisingly, that drugs targeting the two pathways, although independent, could display strong synergy in blocking virus entry. We predicted this synergy first using a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 entry and dynamics in vitro. The model considered the two pathways explicitly, let the entry efficiency through a pathway depend on the corresponding protease expression level, which varied across cells, and let inhibitors compromise the efficiency in a dose-dependent manner. The synergy predicted was novel and arose from effects of the drugs at both the single cell and the cell population levels. Validating our predictions, available in vitro data on SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV entry displayed this synergy. Further, analysing the data using our model, we estimated the relative usage of the two pathways and found it to vary widely across cell lines, suggesting that targeting both pathways in vivo may be important and synergistic given the broad tissue tropism of SARS-CoV-2. Our findings provide insights into SARS-CoV-2 entry into target cells and may help improve the deployability of drug combinations targeting host proteases required for the entry.

/pdf/targeting-tmprss2-and-cathepsin-b-l-together-may-be-43racbo3vo.pdf

Targeting TMPRSS2 and Cathepsin B/L Together May Be Synergistic Against SARS-CoV-2 Infection

In May 2020 the Russian Ministry of Health granted fast-track marketing authorization to RNA polymerase inhibitor AVIFAVIR (favipiravir) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. In the pilot stage of Phase II/III clinical trial, AVIFAVIR enabled SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in 62.5% of patients within 4 days, and was safe and well-tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04434248.

AVIFAVIR for Treatment of Patients With Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Results of a Phase II/III Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

In May 2020 the Russian Ministry of Health granted fast-track marketing authorization to RNA polymerase inhibitor AVIFAVIR (favipiravir) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. In the pilot stage of Phase II/III clinical trial, AVIFAVIR enabled SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in 62.5% of patients within 4 days, and was safe and well-tolerated.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/05/2020.07.26.20154724.full.pdf

Elena G. Tikhomolova

Papers

AVIFAVIR for Treatment of Patients With Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Results of a Phase II/III Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

AVIFAVIR for Treatment of Patients with Moderate COVID-19: Interim Results of a Phase II/III Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial