BACKGROUND: The efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen for treatment of laboratory-confirmed mild/moderately severe COVID-19 remains unclear.
METHODS: We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies (RWS; observational studies) of the efficacy/effectiveness and/or safety of the approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir regimen for COVID-19. We pooled appropriate data (adjusted estimates for RWS) using an inverse variance, random-effects model. We calculated statistical heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic. Results are presented as relative risk (RR) with associated 95% CI. We further assessed risk of bias/study quality and conducted trial sequential analysis of the evidence from RCTs.
RESULTS: We included 4 RCTs (4,070 persons) and 16 RWS (1,925,047 persons) of adults (aged ≥18 years). One and 3 RCTs were of low and unclear risk of bias, respectively. The RWS were of good quality. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir significantly decreased COVID-19 hospitalization compared with placebo/no treatment (RR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.10-0.31; I 2 = 77.2%; 2 RCTs, 3,542 persons), but there was no significant difference for decrease of worsening severity (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-1.01; I 2 = 47.5%; 3 RCTs, 1,824 persons), viral clearance (RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.51; I 2 = 82%; 2 RCTs, 528 persons), adverse events (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 0.92-2.14; I 2 = 70.6%; 4 RCTs, 4,070 persons), serious adverse events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.41-1.62; I 2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 3,806 persons), and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.04-1.70; I 2 = 49.9%; 3 RCTs, 3,806 persons), although trial sequential analysis suggested that the current total sample sizes for these outcomes were not large enough for conclusions to be drawn. Real-world studies also showed significantly decreased COVID-19 hospitalization (RR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60; I 2 = 95.0%; 11 RWS, 1,421,398 persons) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.34; I 2 = 65%; 7 RWS, 286,131 persons) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with no treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir appears to be promising for preventing hospitalization and potentially decreasing all-cause mortality for persons with mild/moderately severe COVID-19, but the evidence is weak. More studies are needed.

BACKGROUND: Camostat mesylate, an oral serine protease inhibitor, is a powerful TMPRSS2 inhibitor and has been reported as a possible antiviral treatment against COVID-19. Therefore, we aim to assess the safety and efficacy of camostat mesylate for COVID-19 treatment.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, clinical trials.gov, and medrxiv until June 2023. The outcomes were pooled using Mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO with ID CRD42023439633.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs, including 1,623 patients, were included in this analysis. There was no difference between camostat mesylate and placebo in producing negative PCR test results at 1-7 days (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: [0.54, 1.06] P = 0.1), 8-14 days (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: [0.84, 1.23] P = 0.87), or 15-21 days (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: [0.82, 1.19] P = 0.90); clinical resolution of symptoms at 1-7 days (RR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.58, 1.53) P = 0.81), 8-14 days (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: [0.74, 1.11] P = 0.33, ), or 15-21 days (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: [0.40, 1.51] P = 0.45); and time to symptom improvement (MD:-0.38 weeks (95% CI: [-1.42, 0.66] P = 0.47, I2 = 85%).
CONCLUSIONS: Camostat mesylate did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, compared to placebo.

At the beginning of 2020, the world was faced with the challenge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic announced by the WHO on March 11, caused by the betacoronavirus type 2 of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2), which had profound health, sociological and even economic consequences. The quickly implemented and large-scale research resulted in the introduction of widely available vaccines that reduced the further development of the pandemic and antivirals against SARS-CoV-2. Currently, 11 antiviral drugs (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab, Regdanvimab, Casirivimab/Imdevimab, Sotrovimab, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, Baricitinib, Anakinra, Tocilizumab, Vilobelimab) have been approved or conditionally approved by the European Medicines Agency and/or by the Food and Drug Administration and are available on the pharmaceutical market. The progress in the pathophysiological description of the SARS-CoV-2 infection has allowed the identif i cation of potential targets for drugs against SARS-CoV-2: inhibitors of intracellular entry of the virus (the interaction between the viral spike (S) protein and the cellular angiotensin converting enzyme-2; ACE2 receptor), inhibitors of viral and cellular proteases, and immunomodulatory drugs (antagonists of pro-inf l ammatory cytokines or complement components). Novel agents against SARS-CoV-2 are also sought among the previously routinely used drugs as their repositioning and among plant-derived compounds. It is expected that ongoing research should result in the introduction of new drugs used in COVID-19 in the near future. The article brief l y describes the current epidemiological situation regarding COVID-19 and the currently used vaccines. Moreover, the paper outlines currently used and researched potential drugs in the pharmacotherapy of this disease.

In the realm of acute respiratory infections, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), poses a global public health challenge. The application of corticosteroids (CSs) in COVID-19 remains a contentious topic among researchers. Accordingly, our team performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to meticulously evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. To explore efficacy of CSs in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, we meticulously screened RCTs across key databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as China\'s CNKI and Wanfang Data. We focused on assessing the 28 days mortality rates. We evaluated the data heterogeneity using the Chi-square test and I2 values, setting significance at 0.1 and 50%. Data from 21 RCTs involving 5721 participants were analyzed. The analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between CSs intervention and the 28 days mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.84-1.03; P = 0.15). However, subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in 28 days mortality among patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (RR at 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76-0.95; P = 0.004). Specifically, short-term CS administration (≤ 3 days) was associated with a substantial improvement in clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004), as was longer-term use (≥ 8 days) (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.04). Additionally, in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, the administration of dexamethasone increased the number of 28 days ventilator-free days (Mean Difference = 1.92; 95% CI: 0.44-3.40; P = 0.01). Methylprednisolone also demonstrated significant benefits in improving clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that although there is no significant difference in 28 days mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of CSs may be beneficial in improving clinical outcomes in moderate or severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of CSs. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that while CSs may not be suitable for all COVID-19 patients, they could be effective and safe in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is recommended to administer CSs for personalized treatments in COVID-19 cases to improve the clinical outcomes while minimizing adverse events.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has been the major health concern in 2019 globally. Considering the severity and phase of the disease, various pharmacotherapy schedules were proposed. Here, we set out to provide close-up insights on the clinical utility of Tocilizumab (TCZ), a biologic monoclonal antibody in this regard.
UNASSIGNED: In this comprehensive review, various databases, including Scopus, PubMed Central, Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and preprint publishers (med/bioRxiv) were searched until January 30, 2024, according to the keywords and search criteria.
UNASSIGNED: Besides the pros and cons, compelling evidence purported the safety and efficacy of TCZ and indicated that it exhibits great potential to reduce short-term and all-cause (28-30-day) mortality. TCZ significantly drops the adverse events if administered in the right time course (in the inflammatory phase) during critical/severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Despite contradictory results, the benefits of TCZ appear significant, especially in combination with add-on therapies, such as corticosteroids. Although the safety of TCZ is acceptable, solid data is lacking as to its benefits during pregnancy. There are limited data on TCZ combination therapies, such as hemoperfusion, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), simple O2 therapy, vasopressor support, convalescent plasma therapy, and even in vaccinated patients and COVID-19 reinfection, especially in elderly persons. In addition, the impact of TCZ therapy on the long-lasting COVID-19 is unclear.
UNASSIGNED: Personalized medicine based on individual characteristics and pertinent clinical conditions must be considered in the clinicians\' decision-making policy. Finally, to mitigate the risk-to-benefit ratio of TCZ, a treatment algorithm, based on available literature and updated national institute of health (NIH) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, is also proposed.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has taken many forms and continues to evolve, now around the Omicron wave, raising concerns over the globe. With COVID-19 being declared no longer a \"public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC),\" the COVID pandemic is still far from over, as new Omicron subvariants of interest and concern have risen since January of 2023. Mainly with the XBB.1.5 and XBB.1.16 subvariants, the pandemic is still very much \"alive\" and \"breathing.\"
METHODS: This review consists of five highly concerning questions about the current state of the COVID Omicron peak. We searched four main online databases to answer the first four questions. For the last one, we performed a systematic review of the literature, with keywords \"Omicron,\" \"Guidelines,\" and \"Recommendations.\"
RESULTS: A total of 31 articles were included. The main symptoms of the current Omicron wave include a characteristically high fever, coughing, conjunctivitis (with itching eyes), sore throat, runny nose, congestion, fatigue, body ache, and headache. The median incubation period of the symptoms is shorter than the previous peaks. Vaccination against COVID can still be considered effective for the new subvariants.
CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines recommend continuation of personal protective measures, third and fourth dose boosters, along with administration of bivalent messenger RNA vaccine boosters. The consensus antiviral treatment is combination therapy using Nirmatrelvir and Ritonavir, and the consensus for pre-exposure prophylaxis is Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab combination. We hope the present paper raises awareness for the continuing presence of COVID and ways to lower the risks, especially for at-risk groups.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19.
METHODS: Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.
RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (n = 7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.64-1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2).
METHODS: A search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until October 20, 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess the quality of included studies. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to analyze data.
RESULTS: Twenty-one studies including 10,011 patients were examined. The meta-analysis results showed that azvudine and standard of care/placebo (SOC/PBO) were significantly different concerning mortality rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.57) and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference = - 0.75, 95% CI: -1.29 to-0.21). However, the two groups did not show significant differences concerning hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and need for mechanical ventilation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were significantly different in mortality rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.92), ICU admission (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.78), and need for mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.89), but the two treatments were not significantly different in negative PCR conversion time, and hospital stay (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse events between groups was not significant (P > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was rated as low or moderate.
CONCLUSIONS: The antiviral effectiveness of azvudine against SARS-COV-2 is questionable with regard to the certainty of evidence. Further research should be conducted to establish the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19.

Severe pulmonary infections, including COVID-19, community-acquired pneumonia, influenza, and Pneumocystis pneumonia, are a leading cause of death among adults worldwide. Pulmonary infections in critically ill patients may cause septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or both, which are associated with mortality rates ranging between 30% and 50%.
Corticosteroids mitigate the immune response to infection and improve outcomes for patients with several types of severe pulmonary infections. Low-dose corticosteroids, defined as less than or equal to 400 mg hydrocortisone equivalent daily, can reduce mortality of patients with severe COVID-19, community-acquired pneumonia, and Pneumocystis pneumonia. A randomized clinical trial of 6425 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen or noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation reported that dexamethasone 6 mg daily for 10 days decreased 28-day mortality (23% vs 26%). A meta-analysis that included 7 randomized clinical trials of 1689 patients treated in the intensive care unit for severe bacterial community-acquired pneumonia reported that hydrocortisone equivalent less than or equal to 400 mg daily for 8 days or fewer was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with placebo (10% vs 16%). In a meta-analysis of 6 randomized clinical trials, low-dose corticosteroids were associated with lower mortality rates compared with placebo for patients with HIV and moderate to severe Pneumocystis pneumonia (13% vs 25%). In a predefined subgroup analysis of a trial of low-dose steroid treatment for septic shock, patients with community-acquired pneumonia randomized to 7 days of intravenous hydrocortisone 50 mg every 6 hours and fludrocortisone 50 μg daily had decreased mortality compared with the placebo group (39% vs 51%). For patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by various conditions, low-dose corticosteroids were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (34% vs 45%) according to a meta-analysis of 8 studies that included 1091 patients. Adverse effects of low-dose corticosteroids may include hyperglycemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, neuropsychiatric disorders, muscle weakness, hypernatremia, and secondary infections.
Treatment with low-dose corticosteroids is associated with decreased mortality for patients with severe COVID-19 infection, severe community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and moderate to severe Pneumocystis pneumonia (for patients with HIV). Low-dose corticosteroids may also benefit critically ill patients with respiratory infections who have septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or both.