EFFECT OF EARLY TREATMENT WITH FLUVOXAMINE ON RISK OF EMERGENCY CARE AND HOSPITALIZATION AMONG PATIENTS WITH COVID-19: THE TOGETHER RANDOMIZED PLATFORM CLINICAL TRIAL

BackgroundRecent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER randomized platform clinical trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we assessed the efficacy of fluvoxamine vs. placebo in preventing either extended emergency room observation or hospitalization due to COVID-19. Herein, we report the preliminary findings. MethodsThis placebo-controlled, randomized, adaptive, platform trial conducted among symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of emergency room observation for >6 hours or hospitalization from COVID-19 up to 28 days post randomization using intention to treat. Modified intention to treat (mITT) explored patients receiving at least 24 hours of treatment before a primary outcome event. Secondary outcomes included viral clearance at day 7, time to hospitalization, mortality, and adverse drug reactions. We used a Bayesian analytic framework to determine effects along with probability of success of intervention compared to placebo. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing. FindingsThe study team screened 9020 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomization from January 15, 2021 to August 6th 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. A total of 3238 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine (n=739), placebo (n=733) and other treatments (n=1766). Herein, we report the effectiveness of fluvoxamine vs. a concurrent placebo control. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18-102 years); 57% were female. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency room for >6 hours or admitted to hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared to placebo (77/739 vs 108/733; Relative Risk [RR]: 0.71; 95% Bayesian Credible Interval [95% BCI]: 0.54 - 0.93), with a probability of superiority of 99.4% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97.6% (risk difference 4.3%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 88% were hospitalizations. Findings were similar for the mITT analysis (RR0.68, 95% BCI : 0.50- 0.91). We found no significant relative effects between the fluvoxamine and placebo groups on viral clearance at day 7 (Odds ratio [OR]: 0.75; 95% Confidence Intervals [95% CI]: 0.53 - 1.07), mortality (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.36 - 1.30), time to death (Hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58 - 1.08), days hospitalized (Mean Difference (MD) 1.22 days; 95% CI: 0.98 - 1.53), number of days ventilated (MD 1.10; 95% CI: 0.70 - 1.73) or other secondary outcomes. Data capturing all 28 days of follow-up will be reported after August 26th, 2021. InterpretationTreatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19, reduced the need for extended emergency room observation or hospitalization. FundingThe trial was supported by FastGrants and The Rainwater Foundation.

Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 19 January 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 January 2021. Study selectionRandomized trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomized trials - six addressing hydroxychloroquine (6,059 participants), one addressing ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (234 participants) and two addressing ivermectin alone (540 participants), all compared to standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine has no important effect on admission to hospital (risk difference (RD) 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3 fewer to 4 more, high certainty) or mortality (RD 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 2 fewer to 3 more, high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably has no important effect on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 2 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 18 fewer to 28 more, moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (RD 19 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 1 fewer to 70 more, moderate certainty) and may have no important effect on suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 15 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 64 fewer to 41 more, low certainty). Due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision - and thus very low certainty evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 52 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 58 fewer to 37 fewer), and ivermectin alone on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 50 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 159 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain uncertain. ConclusionHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not have an important effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not have an important effect on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, we are highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321). Readers noteThis 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.

Quantifying the impacts of human mobility restriction on the spread of coronavirus disease 2019: an empirical analysis from 344 cities of China / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

BACKGROUND@#Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), human mobility restriction measures have raised controversies, partly because of the inconsistent findings. An empirical study is promptly needed to reliably assess the causal effects of the mobility restriction. The purpose of this study was to quantify the causal effects of human mobility restriction on the spread of COVID-19.@*METHODS@#Our study applied the difference-in-difference (DID) model to assess the declines of population mobility at the city level, and used the log-log regression model to examine the effects of population mobility declines on the disease spread measured by cumulative or new cases of COVID-19 over time after adjusting for confounders.@*RESULTS@#The DID model showed that a continual expansion of the relative declines over time in 2020. After 4 weeks, population mobility declined by -54.81% (interquartile range, -65.50% to -43.56%). The accrued population mobility declines were associated with the significant reduction of cumulative COVID-19 cases throughout 6 weeks (ie, 1% decline of population mobility was associated with 0.72% [95% CI: 0.50%-0.93%] reduction of cumulative cases for 1 week, 1.42% 2 weeks, 1.69% 3 weeks, 1.72% 4 weeks, 1.64% 5 weeks, and 1.52% 6 weeks). The impact on the weekly new cases seemed greater in the first 4 weeks but faded thereafter. The effects on cumulative cases differed by cities of different population sizes, with greater effects seen in larger cities.@*CONCLUSIONS@#Persistent population mobility restrictions are well deserved. Implementation of mobility restrictions in major cities with large population sizes may be even more important.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)

BackgroundCOVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. Methods and findingsWe planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexidine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. ConclusionsNo evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intraveneous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexidine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020178787 Author summaryWhy was this study done? O_LISevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has spread rapidly worldwide, causing an international outbreak of the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19). C_LIO_LIThere is a need for a living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of all possible interventions for treatment of COVID-19. C_LI What did the researchers do and find? O_LIWe conducted the second edition of our living systematic review with meta-analyses and Trial sequential analyses to compare the effects of all treatment interventions for COVID-19. C_LIO_LIVery low certainty evidence indicated that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intraveneous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexidine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. C_LIO_LINine single trials showed statistically significant results on our predefined outcomes but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. C_LIO_LINone of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference of the experimental interventions on our predefined outcomes. C_LI What do these findings mean? O_LINo evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists C_LIO_LIMore high quality, low risk of bias randomized clinical trials are urgently needed. C_LI

Quantifying the impacts of human mobility restriction on the spread of COVID-19: an empirical analysis from 344 cities of China

ObjectiveSince the outbreak of novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19), human mobility restriction measures have raised controversies, partly due to inconsistent findings. Empirical study is urgently needed to reliably assess the causal effects of mobility restriction. MethodsOur study applied the difference-in-difference (DID) model to assess declines of population mobility at the city level, and used the log-log regression model to examine the effects of population mobility declines on the disease spread measured by cumulative or new cases of COVID-19 over time, after adjusting for confounders. ResultsThe DID model showed that a continual expansion of the relative declines over time in 2020. After four weeks, population mobility declined by 54.81% (interquartile ranges, -65.50% to -43.56%). The accrued population mobility declines were associated with significant reduction of cumulative COVID-19 cases throughout six weeks (i.e., 1% decline of population mobility was associated with 0.72% (95%CI 0.50% to 0.93%) reduce of cumulative cases for one week, 1.42% two weeks, 1.69% three weeks, 1.72% four weeks,1.64% five weeks and 1.52% six weeks). The impact on weekly new cases seemed greater in the first four weeks, but faded thereafter. The effects on cumulative cases differed by cities of different population sizes, with greater effects seen in larger cities. ConclusionPersistent population mobility restrictions are well deserved. However, a change in the degree of mobility restriction may be warranted over time, particularly after several weeks of rigorous mobility restriction. Implementation of mobility restrictions in major cities with large population sizes may be even more important.