-
Infection Prevention in Practice Sep 2020Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which was declared a global pandemic by the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020. The treatment guidelines for COVID-19 vary between countries, yet there is no approved treatment to date.
AIM
To report any evidence of therapeutics used for the management of patients with COVID-19 in clinical practice since emergence of the virus.
METHODS
A systematic review protocol was developed based on the PRISMA statement. Articles for review were selected from Embase, Medline and Google Scholar. Readily accessible peer-reviewed, full articles in English published from 1 December 2019 to 26 March 2020 were included. The search terms included combinations of: COVID, SARS-COV-2, glucocorticoids, convalescent plasma, antiviral and antibacterial. There were no restrictions on the types of study eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
Four hundred and forty-nine articles were identified in the literature search; of these, 41 studies were included in this review. These were clinical trials (=3), case reports (=7), case series (=10), and retrospective (=11) and prospective (=10) observational studies. Thirty-six studies were conducted in China (88%). Corticosteroid treatment was reported most frequently (=25), followed by lopinavir (=21) and oseltamivir (=16).
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first systematic review to date related to medication used to treat patients with COVID-19. Only 41 studies were eligible for inclusion, most of which were conducted in China. Corticosteroid treatment was reported most frequently in the literature.
PubMed: 34316558
DOI: 10.1016/j.infpip.2020.100061 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Co-infection of COVID-19 with other respiratory pathogens which may complicate the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19 emerge new concern. The overlap of...
Co-infection of COVID-19 with other respiratory pathogens which may complicate the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19 emerge new concern. The overlap of COVID-19 and influenza, as two epidemics at the same time can occur in the cold months of the year. The aim of current study was to evaluate the rate of such co-infection as a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed on September 28, 2019 for original research articles published in Medline, Web of Science, and Embase databases from December 2019 to September 2020 using relevant keywords. Patients of all ages with simultaneous COVID-19 and influenza were included. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 14 software. Eleven prevalence studies with total of 3,070 patients with COVID-19, and 79 patients with concurrent COVID-19 and influenza were selected for final evaluation. The prevalence of influenza infection was 0.8% in patients with confirmed COVID-19. The frequency of influenza virus co-infection among patients with COVID-19 was 4.5% in Asia and 0.4% in the America. Four prevalence studies reported the sex of patients, which were 30 men and 31 women. Prevalence of co-infection with influenza in men and women with COVID-19 was 5.3 and 9.1%, respectively. Eight case reports and 7 case series with a total of 123 patients with COVID-19 were selected, 29 of them (16 men, 13 women) with mean age of 48 years had concurrent infection with influenza viruses A/B. Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common clinical manifestations. Two of 29 patients died (6.9%), and 17 out of 29 patients recovered (58.6%). Oseltamivir and hydroxychloroquine were the most widely used drugs used for 41.4, and 31% of patients, respectively. Although a low proportion of COVID-19 patients have influenza co-infection, however, the importance of such co-infection, especially in high-risk individuals and the elderly, cannot be ignored. We were unable to report the exact rate of simultaneous influenza in COVID-19 patients worldwide due to a lack of data from several countries. Obviously, more studies are needed to evaluate the exact effect of the COVID-19 and influenza co-infection in clinical outcomes.
PubMed: 34249971
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.681469 -
Journal of Microbiology, Immunology,... Oct 2021The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of baloxavir with other anti-influenza agents or placebo in the treatment of influenza. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of baloxavir with other anti-influenza agents or placebo in the treatment of influenza.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane databases and clinical registration were searched from inception until February 15 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only phase 3 RCTs evaluating the usefulness of baloxavir in the treatment of influenza were included.
RESULTS
Three RCTs enrolling 3771 patients (baloxavir group, n = 1451; oseltamivir group, n = 1288; placebo group, n = 1032) were included. Compared with oseltamivir, baloxavir had an insignificantly shorter time to the alleviation of symptoms (mean difference [MD], -1.29 h; 95% CI, -6.80 to 4.21; I = 0%). In contrast, baloxavir had a significantly shorter time to the alleviation of symptoms than placebo (MD, -26.32 h; 95% CI, -33.78 to -18.86; I = 0%). Baloxavir was associated with a significant decline in influenza virus titers and viral RNA load compared to oseltamivir and placebo. Baloxavir was associated with a lower risk of any adverse events than oseltamivir (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; I = 0%) and placebo (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this meta-analysis suggested that baloxavir is superior to placebo in the treatment of influenza in both clinical outcome and virological response. Moreover, baloxavir was found to have a better virological response than oseltamivir and to be as effective as oseltamivir clinically. Compared with oseltamivir and placebo, baloxavir appears to be a relatively safe anti-influenza agent.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Dibenzothiepins; Female; Humans; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Oseltamivir; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Triazines; Viral Load; Young Adult
PubMed: 34020891
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmii.2021.04.002 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology Jul 2021Scarce evidence verifying the clinical impact of baloxavir on influenza complications is found. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Scarce evidence verifying the clinical impact of baloxavir on influenza complications is found.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched through December 2020. Randomized-controlled trials (RCT) that enrolled patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza receiving neuraminidase inhibitors (NAI) or baloxavir comparing to placebo were assessed. PROSPERO Registration-number: CRD42021226854.
RESULTS
Twenty-one RCTs (11,697 patients) were included. Antiviral administration significantly reduced time to clinical resolution (mean difference: -21.3 hours) and total influenza-related complications (OR:0.55, 95%CI: 0.42-0.73). Specifically, antivirals significantly decreased bronchitis (OR:0.54, 95%CI: 0.38-0.75), sinusitis (OR:0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.78), acute otitis media (OR:0.48, 95%CI: 0.30-0.77), and antibiotic prescription (OR:0.62; 95%CI: 0.48-0.80). A positive trend favored antivirals administration to reduce pneumonia (OR:0.47, 95%CI: 0.16-1.33), or hospitalization rates (OR:0.65; 95%CI: 0.34-1.24) compared to placebo, but did not reach statistical significance. Adverse events (AE) were reported in 11%, 8.9%, and 5.1% of NAIs, placebo and baloxavir recipients, respectively. Compared with NAIs, administration of baloxavir showed non-significantly reduced AEs (OR:0.74, 95%CI: 0.53-1.04).
CONCLUSIONS
Single-dose baloxavir and NAIs were superior to placebo to reduce complications in uncomplicated influenza, with 40% significant reduction in antibiotic prescription. Safety and efficacy of single-dose baloxavir were non-inferior to NAIs.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Dibenzothiepins; Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Influenza, Human; Morpholines; Neuraminidase; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triazines
PubMed: 33861168
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2021.1917378 -
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies Apr 2021Elderberry has traditionally been used to prevent and treat respiratory problems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been interest in elderberry supplements to...
BACKGROUND
Elderberry has traditionally been used to prevent and treat respiratory problems. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been interest in elderberry supplements to treat or prevent illness, but also concern that elderberry might overstimulate the immune system and increase the risk of 'cytokine storm'. We aimed to determine benefits and harms of elderberry for the prevention and treatment of viral respiratory infections, and to assess the relationship between elderberry supplements and negative health impacts associated with overproduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and searched six databases, four research registers, and two preprint sites for studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from studies, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tools, and evaluated certainty of estimates using GRADE. Outcomes included new illnesses and the severity and duration of illness.
RESULTS
We screened 1187 records and included five randomized trials on elderberry for the treatment or prevention of viral respiratory illness. We did not find any studies linking elderberry to clinical inflammatory outcomes. However, we found three studies measuring production of cytokines ex vivo after ingestion of elderberry. Elderberry may not reduce the risk of developing the common cold; it may reduce the duration and severity of colds, but the evidence is uncertain. Elderberry may reduce the duration of influenza but the evidence is uncertain. Compared to oseltamivir, an elderberry-containing product may be associated with a lower risk of influenza complications and adverse events. We did not find evidence on elderberry and clinical outcomes related to inflammation. However, we found evidence that elderberry has some effect on inflammatory markers, although this effect may decline with ongoing supplementation. One small study compared elderberry to diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) and provided some evidence that elderberry is as effective or less effective than diclofenac in cytokine reduction over time.
CONCLUSIONS
Elderberry may be a safe option for treating viral respiratory illness, and there is no evidence that it overstimulates the immune system. However, the evidence on both benefits and harms is uncertain and information from recent and ongoing studies is necessary to make firm conclusions.
Topics: COVID-19; Common Cold; Cytokines; Humans; Inflammation; Influenza, Human; Pandemics; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; SARS-CoV-2; Sambucus; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33827515
DOI: 10.1186/s12906-021-03283-5 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020The emergence of COVID-19 as a pandemic has resulted in the need for urgent development of vaccines and drugs and the conduction of clinical trials to fight the...
The emergence of COVID-19 as a pandemic has resulted in the need for urgent development of vaccines and drugs and the conduction of clinical trials to fight the outbreak. Because of the time constraints associated with the development of vaccines and effective drugs, drug repurposing and other alternative treatment methods have been used to treat patients that have been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and have acquired COVID-19. The objective of this systematic scoping review is to provide an overview of the molecular mechanism of action of repurposed drugs or alternative treatment medicines used to attenuate COVID-19 disease. The research articles or gray literature, including theses, government reports, and official news online, were identified from four databases and one search engine. The full content of a total of 160 articles that fulfilled our inclusion criteria was analyzed and information about six drugs (ritonavir, lopinavir, oseltamivir, remdesivir, favipiravir, and chloroquine) and four Traditional Chinese Medicines (, TCM combination of and , and ) was extracted. All of the repurposed drugs and complementary medicine that have been used for the treatment of COVID-19 depend on the ability of the drug to inhibit the proliferation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by binding to enzyme active sites, viral chain termination, or triggering of the molecular pathway, whereas Traditional Chinese Medicine plays a pivotal role in triggering the inflammation pathway, such as the neuraminidase blocker, to fight the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
PubMed: 33746739
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.585331 -
Terapevticheskii Arkhiv Dec 2020Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is the first cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor being studied for the treatment of influenza in single oral dosing regimen. This network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
Baloxavir marboxil (baloxavir) is the first cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor being studied for the treatment of influenza in single oral dosing regimen. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the efficacy and safety of baloxavir compared to other antivirals for influenza in otherwise healthy patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed on 14 November 2016 in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and ICHUSHI to identify randomized controlled trials assessing antivirals for influenza. A NMA including 22 trials was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of baloxavir with other antivirals.
RESULTS
The time to alleviation of all symptoms was significantly shorter for baloxavir compared to zanamivir (difference in median time 19.96 h; 95% CrI [3.23, 39.07]). The time to cessation of viral shedding was significantly shorter for baloxavir than zanamivir and oseltamivir (47.00 h; 95% CrI [28.18, 73.86] and 56.03 h [33.74, 87.86], respectively). The mean decline in virus titer from baseline to 24 h was significantly greater for baloxavir than for the other drugs. Other differences in efficacy outcomes were not significant. No significant differences were found between baloxavir and the other antivirals for safety, except total drug-related adverse events where baloxavir demonstrated a decrease compared to oseltamivir and laninamivir.
CONCLUSION
The NMA suggests that baloxavir demonstrated better or similar efficacy results compared to other antivirals with a comparable safety profile. Baloxavir led to a significant decrease in viral titer versus zanamivir, oseltamivir and peramivir and decreased viral shedding versus zanamivir and oseltamivir.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Dibenzothiepins; Humans; Influenza, Human; Morpholines; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuraminidase; Pyridones; Triazines
PubMed: 33720617
DOI: 10.26442/00403660.2020.11.000870 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Apr 2022Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are likely part of the rapid response and control in influenza pandemics and institutional outbreaks. We conducted a systematic review to...
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are likely part of the rapid response and control in influenza pandemics and institutional outbreaks. We conducted a systematic review to appraise the current evidence on the use of NAIs among healthcare workers in the context of an influenza pandemic.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Enzyme Inhibitors; Health Personnel; Humans; Influenza, Human; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Zanamivir
PubMed: 33715650
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2021.79 -
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Aug 2021The study was to compare the efficacy between IV peramivir and oral oseltamivir treatments in patients with influenza. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The study was to compare the efficacy between IV peramivir and oral oseltamivir treatments in patients with influenza.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published before January 2020.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled effect size by using a random-effects model. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1,138 patients were reviewed. The incidence of total complications revealed no significant difference between 600 mg IV peramivir (P600) and 75 mg oral oseltamivir (O75) treatments (2.8% vs. 4.1%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-1.38). The incidence of pneumonia was not significantly different between the P600 and O75 treatment groups (2.2% vs. 2.7%; RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.37-1.51). Regarding the time to the alleviation of symptoms, no difference was found in P600 and O75 treatment (MD = -3.00; 95% CI: -11.07 to 5.06). The rate of fever clearance in 24 h and the time to fever resolution were not statistically different between the IV peramivir and oral oseltamivir treatments (at different dosages) groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment of influenza with IV peramivir or oral oseltamivir had similar clinical efficacy.
Topics: Acids, Carbocyclic; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Antiviral Agents; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33641583
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2021.1878025 -
Health Science Reports Mar 2021Oseltamivir is recommended in the treatment of influenza illness in high-risk populations, including those with chronic heart and lung diseases.
BACKGROUND
Oseltamivir is recommended in the treatment of influenza illness in high-risk populations, including those with chronic heart and lung diseases.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the rate of use and effectiveness of oseltamivir in these groups of patients.
METHODS
The protocol for the systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019125998). Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials published up to 16 February 2020. Quality appraisal of final studies was conducted using GRADE guidelines. Data were extracted using a predeveloped template. Main outcomes measured included the rate of use of oseltamivir for influenza-like-illness and its effectiveness in reducing disease severity in patients with cardiopulmonary diseases. Outcomes measured for effectiveness were influenza-related complications (respiratory infections and asthma exacerbations), hospitalization rates, and time to freedom from illness. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomized trials and Cochrane's Risk of Bias in nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool for nonrandomized trials. Where data were available, pooled analyses were conducted. Dichotomous variables were evaluated using the Mantel-Hansel method. A random effect model was applied. Summary measures were reported as risk ratios where relevant.
RESULTS
Our systematic review identified nine studies. Oseltamivir use ranged from 25% to 100%. When oseltamivir group was compared to placebo, rates of respiratory tract infections reduced by 28% (RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59-0.90), hospitalization reduced by 52% (RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.28-0.80) and median time to illness alleviation decreased by 10.4 to 120 hours. There was no significant reduction in asthma exacerbation rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review suggests that the use of oseltamivir is beneficial in reducing disease severity, however, its use in high-risk population remains suboptimal.
PubMed: 33614979
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.241