Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction In the stressful context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, some reports have raised concerns regarding psychiatric disorders with the use of hydroxychloroquine. In this study, we reviewed all psychiatric adverse effects with hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients, as well as in other indications, reported in VigiBase, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) global database of individual case safety reports. Methods First, we analyzed all psychiatric adverse effects, including suicide, of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients reported to 16 June 2020. We also performed disproportionality analysis to investigate the risk of reporting psychiatric disorders with hydroxychloroquine compared with remdesivir, tocilizumab, or lopinavir/ritonavir prescribed in COVID-19 patients. We used reporting odds ratios (RORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to calculate disproportionality. Second, we sought to examine the psychiatric safety profile of hydroxychloroquine in other indications (before 2020). Results Among the 1754 reports with hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients, we found 56 psychiatric adverse effects. Half of these adverse effects were serious, including four completed suicides, three cases of intentional self-injury, and 12 cases of psychotic disorders with hallucinations. Compared with remdesivir, tocilizumab, or lopinavir/ritonavir, the use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with an increased risk of reporting psychiatric disorders (ROR 6.27, 95% CI 2.74–14.35). Before 2020, suicide was the main cause of death among all adverse drug reactions reported with hydroxychloroquine, followed by cardiac adverse effects (cardiomyopathy) and respiratory failure. Conclusions This pharmacovigilance analysis suggests that COVID-19 patients exposed to hydroxychloroquine experienced serious psychiatric disorders, and, among these patients, some committed suicide. Further real-world studies are needed to quantify the psychiatric risk associated with hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a trial involving 1033 patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the addition of baricitinib to remdesivir was associated with shorter recovery time, particularly among patients receiving high-flow oxygen, and with a 30% higher odds of improvement at day 15 than remdesivir alone. Adverse events were less frequent with the combination therapy.

In this randomized, double-blind trial in 1062 adults hospitalized with Covid-19, remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery (10 days, vs. 15 days with placebo). The estimates of mortality by day 29 were 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo. The benefit of remdesivir was most apparent in patients who were receiving low-flow oxygen at baseline.

Among nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19–related symptoms that began less than a week previously, a 3-day course of remdesivir resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. Adverse effects in the remdesivir group were similar to those in the placebo group.

COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has become a global pandemic. 3CL protease is a virally encoded protein that is essential across a broad spectrum of coronaviruses with no close human analogs. PF-00835231, a 3CL protease inhibitor, has exhibited potent in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 as a single agent. Here we report, the design and characterization of a phosphate prodrug PF-07304814 to enable the delivery and projected sustained systemic exposure in human of PF-00835231 to inhibit coronavirus family 3CL protease activity with selectivity over human host protease targets. Furthermore, we show that PF-00835231 has additive/synergistic activity in combination with remdesivir. We present the ADME, safety, in vitro, and in vivo antiviral activity data that supports the clinical evaluation of PF-07304814 as a potential COVID-19 treatment. The 3CL protease of SARS-CoV-2 is inhibited by PF-00835231 in vitro. Here, the authors show that the prodrug PF-07304814 has broad spectrum activity, inhibiting SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 in mice and its ADME and safety profile support clinical development.

No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2–10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir–ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87–1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95–2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

A cohort of patients with severe Covid-19 received treatment with remdesivir under a compassionate-use protocol. Improvement in oxygen-support status was observed in 68% of patients, and overall mortality was 13% over a median follow-up of 18 days.

A randomized trial comparing a 5-day course of intravenous remdesivir with a 10-day course in patients with Covid-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia who were not yet receiving mechanical ventilation showed no significant differences in outcome related to the duration of treatment.

Numerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective. We carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions and the level of evidence behind each treatment regimen in different clinical settings. Both published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and confounding-adjusted observational studies which met our predefined eligibility criteria were collected. We included studies investigating the effect of pharmacological management of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 management. Mild patients who do not require hospitalization or have self-limiting disease courses were not eligible for our NMA. A total of 110 studies (40 RCTs and 70 observational studies) were included. PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, SSRN, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the beginning of 2020 to August 24, 2020. Studies from Asia (41 countries, 37.2%), Europe (28 countries, 25.4%), North America (24 countries, 21.8%), South America (5 countries, 4.5%), and Middle East (6 countries, 5.4%), and additional 6 multinational studies (5.4%) were included in our analyses. The outcomes of interest were mortality, progression to severe disease (severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and/or mechanical ventilation), viral clearance rate, QT prolongation, fatal cardiac complications, and noncardiac serious adverse events. Based on RCTs, the risk of progression to severe course and mortality was significantly reduced with corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.86, p = 0.032, and OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91, p = 0.002, respectively) and remdesivir (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p < 0.001, and OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98, p = 0.041, respectively) compared to standard care for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in non-ICU; corticosteroids were also shown to reduce mortality rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, p < 0.001) for critically ill patients in ICU. In analyses including observational studies, interferon-alpha (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.39, p = 0.004), itolizumab (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92, p = 0.042), sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.88, p = 0.030), anakinra (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p = 0.019), tocilizumab (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60, p < 0.001), and convalescent plasma (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96, p = 0.038) were associated with reduced mortality rate in non-ICU setting, while high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, p = 0.003), ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005), and tocilizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.012) were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. Convalescent plasma was the only treatment option that was associated with improved viral clearance rate at 2 weeks compared to standard care (OR 11.39, 95% CI 3.91 to 33.18, p < 0.001). The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was shown to be associated with increased QT prolongation incidence (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.20, p = 0.003) and fatal cardiac complications in cardiac-impaired populations (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.00, p = 0.007). No drug was significantly associated with increased noncardiac serious adverse events compared to standard care. The quality of evidence of collective outcomes were estimated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The major limitation of the present study is the overall low level of evidence that reduces the certainty of recommendations. Besides, the risk of bias (RoB) measured by RoB2 and ROBINS-I framework for individual studies was generally low to moderate. The outcomes deducted from observational studies could not infer causality and can only imply associations. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020186527). In this NMA, we found that anti-inflammatory agents (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG), convalescent plasma, and remdesivir were associated with improved outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not provide clinical benefits while posing cardiac safety risks when combined with azithromycin, especially in the vulnerable population. Only 29% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is supported by moderate or high certainty and can be translated to practice and policy; the remaining 71% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.

This clinical trial compared two antiplatelet regimens during PCI: oral clopidogrel and intravenous cangrelor. As compared with clopidogrel, cangrelor resulted in a reduced rate of periprocedureal ischemic events without a significant increase in bleeding. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation is widely used to reduce the risk of death or myocardial infarction in patients with acute coronary syndromes and to reduce the burden of angina and improve the quality of life in patients with stable angina. 1 – 5 Despite advances in adjunctive pharmacotherapy, thrombotic complications during PCI remain a major concern. 6 Antiplatelet therapies, including the P2Y 12 -receptor inhibitors, reduce the risk of ischemic events, particularly stent thrombosis. 7 – 10 To date, only oral P2Y 12 inhibitors have been available. There are several limitations of these drugs when they are used for urgent or periprocedural . . .