Pathogen Profiles in Outpatients with Non-COVID-19 during the 7th Prevalent Period of COVID-19 in Gunma, Japan.

The identification of pathogens associated with respiratory symptoms other than the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be challenging. However, the diagnosis of pathogens is crucial for assessing the clinical outcome of patients. We comprehensively profiled pathogens causing non-COVID-19 respiratory symptoms during the 7th prevalent period in Gunma, Japan, using deep sequencing combined with a next-generation sequencer (NGS) and advanced bioinformatics technologies. The study included nasopharyngeal swabs from 40 patients who tested negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using immuno-chromatography and/or quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) methods. Comprehensive pathogen sequencing was conducted through deep sequencing using NGS. Additionally, short reads obtained from NGS were analyzed for comprehensive pathogen estimation using MePIC (Metagenomic Pathogen Identification Pipeline for Clinical Specimens) and/or VirusTap. The results revealed the presence of various pathogens, including respiratory viruses and bacteria, in the present subjects. Notably, human adenovirus (HAdV) was the most frequently detected virus in 16 of the 40 cases (40.0%), followed by coryneforms, which were the most frequently detected bacteria in 21 of the 40 cases (52.5%). Seasonal human coronaviruses (NL63 type, 229E type, HKU1 type, and OC43 type), human bocaviruses, and human herpesviruses (human herpesvirus types 1-7) were not detected. Moreover, multiple pathogens were detected in 50% of the subjects. These results suggest that various respiratory pathogens may be associated with non-COVID-19 patients during the 7th prevalent period in Gunma Prefecture, Japan. Consequently, for an accurate diagnosis of pathogens causing respiratory infections, detailed pathogen analyses may be necessary. Furthermore, it is possible that various pathogens, excluding SARS-CoV-2, may be linked to fever and/or respiratory infections even during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Phase II, Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Investigating the Efficacy of Mebendazole in the Management of Symptomatic COVID-19 Patients.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has spread throughout the world, affecting almost all nations and territories. The current double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of mebendazole as an adjuvant therapy for outpatients with COVID-19. The patients were recruited and divided into two groups: a Mebendazole-treated group and placebo group. The mebendazole and placebo groups were matched for age, sex, and complete blood count (CBC) with differential and liver and kidney function tests at baseline. On the third day, the C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were lower (2.03 ± 1.45 vs. 5.45 ± 3.95, p < 0.001) and the cycle threshold (CT) levels were higher (27.21 ± 3.81 vs. 24.40 ± 3.09, p = 0.046) significantly in the mebendazole group than in the placebo group on the third day. Furthermore, CRP decreased and CT dramatically increased on day three compared to the baseline day in the mebendazole group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). There was a significant inverse correlation between lymphocytes and CT levels in the mebendazole group (r = -0.491, p = 0.039) but not in the placebo group (r = 0.051, p = 0.888). Mebendazole therapy increased innate immunity and returned inflammation to normal levels in COVID-19 outpatients faster than it did in the placebo group in this clinical trial. Our findings add to the growing body of research on the clinical and microbiological benefits of repurposing antiparasitic therapy, specifically mebendazole, for SARS-CoV-2 infection and other viral infections.

Outpatients prescribed with fluvoxamine around the time of COVID-19 diagnosis are not at a reduced risk of subsequent hospitalization and death compared to their non-prescribed peers: population-based matched cohort study.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of exposure to fluvoxamine around the COVID-19 diagnosis on subsequent hospitalizations and mortality in COVID-19 outpatients in a real-life setting. METHODS: Using nationwide administrative data, we identified adult COVID-19 outpatients diagnosed up to August 15, 2021 and conducted two cohort studies. Study 1 included subjects prescribed fluvoxamine around the index COVID-19 diagnosis (Cohort A), their peers suffering similar psychiatric difficulties but not prescribed fluvoxamine (Cohort B) and those free of psychiatric difficulties/treatments (Cohort C). Study 2 included subjects prescribed fluvoxamine (Cohort Fluvoxamine) and their peers prescribed paroxetine (Cohort Paroxetine). Cohorts were mutually exactly matched and incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization, 30-day all-cause hospitalization and of COVID-19-related mortality was estimated. RESULTS: Of the 416,030 first-episode outpatients, Study 1 included 1016 Cohort A, 95,984 Cohort B and 275,804 Cohort C patients. Matched Cohort A (n = 749) vs. Cohort B (n = 31,336) relative risks (95%CI/CrI), frequentist and Bayes with skeptical, otpimistic and pesimistic priors, were COVID-related hospitalization 1.37 (0.56-3.33), 1.15 (0.55-2.11), 1.03 (0.56.1.96) and 1.43 (0.63-2.94), respectively; 30-day all-cause hospitalization 1.88 (0.76-4.67), 1.76 (1.39-2.25), 1.76 (1.39-2.24) and 1.86 (1.43-2.38), respectively; COVID-19-related mortality 0.73 (0.35-1.55), 0.93 (0.53-1.76), 0.79 (0.40-1.54) and 0.88 (0.37-2.11), respectively. Matched Cohort A vs. C (866 vs. 222,792) comparison yielded similar estimates, as did the matched Cohort Fluvoxamine vs. Paroxetine comparison in Study 2 (344 of 994 matched to 535 of 1796 patients). CONSLUSION: Outpatients prescribed fluvoxamine around the time of COVID-19 diagnosis were not at a reduced risk of hospitalizations and mortality compared to their non-prescribed peers.

Antibiotics Use in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Literature Review.

The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of the pandemic. We performed a literature review to assess the reasons, evidence and practices on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. Published articles providing data on antibiotics use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches on the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Searching the MEDLINE database, the following search terms were adopted: ((antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)). Searching the SCOPUS database, the following search terms were used: ((antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)). The risk of bias in the included studies was not assessed. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five-hundred-ninety-three studies were identified, published from January 2020 to 30 October 2022. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, 32 studies were on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 inpatients and 4 on antibiotic use in COVID-19 outpatients. Apart from the studies identified and included in the review, the main recommendations on antibiotic treatment from 5 guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19 were also summarized in a separate paragraph. Antibiotics should not be prescribed during COVID-19 unless there is a strong clinical suspicion of bacterial coinfection or superinfection.

Clinical efficacy of different monoclonal antibody regimens among non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression: a prospective cohort study.

This study aimed to compare the clinical progression of COVID-19 in high-risk outpatients treated with the monoclonal antibodies (mAb) bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. This is an observational, multi-centre, prospective study conducted from 18 March to 15 July 2021 in eight Italian tertiary-care hospitals including mild-to-moderate COVID-19 outpatients receiving bamlanivimab (700 mg), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (700-1400 mg) or casirivimab-imdevimab (1200-1200 mg). All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to Italian Medicines Agency definitions. In a patient subgroup, SARS-CoV-2 variant and anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology were analysed at baseline. Factors associated with 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were identified using multivariable multilevel logistic regression (MMLR) and summarised with adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 635 outpatients received mAb: 161 (25.4%) bamlanivimab, 396 (62.4%) bamlanivimab-etesevimab and 78 (12.2%) casirivimab-imdevimab. Ninety-five (15%) patients received full or partial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant was detected in 99% of patients. Baseline serology showed no significant differences among the three mAb regimen groups. Twenty-eight-day all-cause hospitalisation was 11.3%, with a significantly higher proportion (p 0.001) in the bamlanivimab group (18.6%), compared to the bamlanivimab-etesevimab (10.1%) and casirivimab-imdevimab (2.6%) groups. On MMLR, aORs for 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were significantly lower in patients receiving bamlanivimab-etesevimab (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.88 p 0.015) and casirivimab-imdevimab (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.61, p 0.009) compared to those receiving bamlanivimab. No patients with a history of vaccination were hospitalised. The study suggests differences in clinical outcomes among the first available mAb regimens for treating high-risk COVID-19 outpatients. Randomised trials are needed to compare efficacy of mAb combination regimens in high-risk populations and according to circulating variants.