Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients: a living systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to perform a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients. MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google up to October 8, 2020. Study eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs and adjusted RRs from cohorts, separately. We evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. ResultsOf 1156 citations, 24 studies were eligible (five RCTs and 19 cohorts). Five RCTs at low risk of bias, with 1325 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI 0.80–1.49, I2 = 0%). Four RCTs with 771 patients examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.71 (95%CI 0.52–0.96, I2 = 0%), with a corresponding number needed to treat of 17 (95%CI 9–100). Among 18 cohorts at moderate risk of bias with 9850 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.58 (95%CI 0.51–0.66, I2 = 2.5%). This association was observed over all degrees of COVID-19 severity. Data from the RCTs did not show a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.63 (95%CI 0.38–1.06, five RCTs) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55–1.24, five RCTs), respectively. ConclusionsCumulative moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While RCTs showed that tocilizumab did not reduce short-term mortality, low-certainty evidence from cohort studies suggests an association between tocilizumab and lower mortality. We did not observe a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab use. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment

Association of corticosteroids use and outcomes in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundTo systematically review the literature about the association between systemic corticosteroid therapy (CST) and outcomes of COVID-19 patients. MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprints up to July 20, 2020. We included observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) that assessed COVID-19 patients treated with CST. We pooled adjusted effect estimates of mortality and other outcomes using a random effect model, among studies at low or moderate risk for bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. ResultsOut of 1067 citations screened for eligibility, one RCT and 19 cohort studies were included (16,977 hospitalized patients). Ten studies (1 RCT and 9 cohorts) with 10,278 patients examined the effect of CST on short term mortality. The pooled adjusted RR was 0.92 (95% CI 0.69–1.22, I2 = 81.94%). This effect was observed across all stages of disease severity. Four cohort studies examined the effect of CST on composite outcome of death, ICU admission and mechanical ventilation need. The pooled adjusted RR was 0.41(0.23−0.73, I2 = 78.69%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of CST on delayed viral clearance. The pooled adjusted RR was 1.47(95% CI 1.11–1.93, I2 = 43.38%). ConclusionIn this systematic review, as of July 2020, heterogeneous and low certainty cumulative evidence based on observational studies and one RCT suggests that CST was not associated with reduction in short-term mortality but possibly with a delay in viral clearance in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 of different severities. However, the discordant results between the single RCT and observational studies as well as the heterogeneity observed across observational studies, call for caution in using observational data and suggests the need for more RCTs to identify the clinical and biochemical characteristics of patients’ population that could benefit from CST

Contamination of rural surface and ground water by endosulfan in farming areas of the Western Cape, South Africa

BACKGROUND: In South Africa there is little data on environmental pollution of rural water sources by agrochemicals. METHODS: This study investigated pesticide contamination of ground and surface water in three intensive agricultural areas in the Western Cape: the Hex River Valley, Grabouw and Piketberg. Monitoring for endosulfan and chlorpyrifos at low levels was conducted as well as screening for other pesticides. RESULTS: The quantification limit for endosulfan was 0.1 μg/L. Endosulfan was found to be widespread in ground water, surface water and drinking water. The contamination was mostly at low levels, but regularly exceeded the European Drinking Water Standard of 0.1 μg/L. The two most contaminated sites were a sub-surface drain in the Hex River Valley and a dam in Grabouw, with 0.83 ± 1.0 μg/L (n = 21) and 3.16 ± 3.5 μg/L (n = 13) average endosulfan levels respectively. Other pesticides including chlorpyrifos, azinphos-methyl, fenarimol, iprodione, deltamethrin, penconazole and prothiofos were detected. Endosulfan was most frequently detected in Grabouw (69%) followed by Hex River (46%) and Piketberg (39%). Detections were more frequent in surface water (47%) than in groundwater (32%) and coincided with irrigation, and to a lesser extent, to spraying and trigger rains. Total dietary endosulfan intake calculated from levels found in drinking water did not exceed the Joint WHO/FAO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) criteria. CONCLUSION: The study has shown the need for monitoring of pesticide contamination in surface and groundwater, and the development of drinking water quality standards for specific pesticides in South Africa

Prevalence and Mortality of COVID-19 Patients With Gastrointestinal Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosed. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was performed from December 1, 2019 to May 7, 2020. Observational studies including adults with COVID-19 infection and reporting GI symptoms were included. The primary outcome was assessing the weighted pooled prevalence (WPP) of GI symptoms in patients with COVID-19 infection. Secondary outcomes were WPP of overall mortality, and mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection with GI symptoms. Results: A total of 78 studies with 12,797 patients were included. Among GI symptoms (at onset of illness in 6, at admission in 17, data given separately for both in 3, and data unavailable in 52 studies), the WPP of diarrhea was 12.4% (95% CI, 8.2% to 17.1%), I =94%; nausea and/or vomiting, 9.0% (95% CI, 5.5% to 12.9%), I =93%; loss of appetite, 22.3% (95% CI, 11.2% to 34.6%, I =94%; and abdominal pain, 6.2% (95% CI, 2.6% to 10.3%), I =92%. Mortality among patients with GI symptoms (0.4%; 95% CI, 0% to 1.1%; I =74%) was similar to overall mortality (2.1%; 95% CI, 0.2% to 4.7%; I =94%), P=.15. Most studies had high risk of bias and overall quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. Conclusion: Gastrointestinal symptoms are seen in up to 1 in 5 patients with COVID-19 infection. More high-quality evidence is needed to confirm these findings and explore factors causing mortality in these patients. 2 2 2 2 2

Efficacy and Safety of Clonidine in the Treatment of Acute Mania in Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review

Clonidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, has been proposed as an antimanic agent that acts by reducing noradrenergic transmission. We conducted a systematic review to examine the efficacy and safety of clonidine for acute mania/hypomania. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies investigating the efficacy and safety of monotherapy/adjuvant treatment with clonidine for acute mania/hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder (BD). Nine studies (n = 222) met our inclusion criteria, including five RCTs (n = 159) and four non-randomized studies (n = 63). Non-randomized studies showed clonidine to help reduce symptoms of mania. However, data from placebo controlled RCTs were inconsistent. One RCT showed adjuvant clonidine as superior to placebo, whereas another RCT reported that clonidine was not better than placebo. In individual RCTs, lithium and valproate offered better antimanic effects compared to clonidine. Studies reported hypotension, depression, and somnolence as common adverse effects. Significant differences in study design and sample size contributed to high heterogeneity. This systematic review suggests low-grade evidence for clonidine as an adjuvant treatment for acute mania with mood stabilizers and inconclusive efficacy as monotherapy, warranting further well-designed RCTs