a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Available online xxxxPurpose: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is a public health emergency of international concern. As of this time, there is no known effective pharmaceutical treatment, although it is much needed for patient contracting the severe form of the disease. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence regarding chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and three trial Registries were searched for studies on the use of chloroquine in patients with COVID-19. Results: We included six articles (one narrative letter, one in-vitro study, one editorial, expert consensus paper, two national guideline documents) and 23 ongoing clinical trials in China. Chloroquine seems to be effective in limiting the replication of SARS-CoV-2 (virus causing COVID-19) in vitro. Conclusions: There is rationale, pre-clinical evidence of effectiveness and evidence of safety from long-time clinical use for other indications to justify clinical research on chloroquine in patients with COVID-19. However, clinical use should either adhere to the Monitored Emergency Use of Unregistered Interventions (MEURI) framework or be ethically approved as a trial as stated by the World Health Organization. Safety data and data from high-quality clinical trials are urgently needed.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) among patients admitted to an intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mortality of those who developed VAP. We performed a systematic search on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to 2nd March 2021 for nonrandomized studies specifically addressing VAP in adult patients with COVID-19 and reporting data on at least one primary outcome of interest. Random effect single-arm meta-analysis was performed for the occurrence of VAP and mortality (at the longest follow up) and ICU length of stay. Twenty studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, for a total of 2611 patients with at least one episode of VAP. The pooled estimated occurrence of VAP was of 45.4% (95% C.I. 37.8–53.2%; 2611/5593 patients; I2 = 96%). The pooled estimated occurrence of mortality was 42.7% (95% C.I. 34–51.7%; 371/946 patients; I2 = 82%). The estimated summary estimated metric mean ICU LOS was 28.58 days (95% C.I. 21.4–35.8; I2 = 98%). Sensitivity analysis showed that patients with COVID-19 may have a higher risk of developing VAP than patients without COVID-19 (OR 3.24; 95% C.I. 2.2–4.7; P = 0.015; I2 = 67.7%; five studies with a comparison group).

Purpose: To assess efficacy and safety of chloroquine (CQ)/hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19 in adult humans. Materials and methods: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and two pre-print repositories (bioRxiv, medRxiv) were searched from inception to 8th June 2020 for RCTs and nonrandomized studies (retrospective and prospective, including single-arm, studies) addressing the use of CQ/HCQ in any dose or combination for COVID-19. Results: Thirty-two studies were included (6 RCTs, 26 nonrandomized, 29,192 participants). Two RCTs had high risk, two 'some concerns' and two low risk of bias (Rob2). Among nonrandomized studies with comparators, nine had high risk and five moderate risk of bias (ROBINS-I). Data synthesis was not possible. Low and moderate risk of bias studies suggest that treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 with CQ/HCQ may not reduce risk of death, compared to standard care. High dose regimens or combination with macrolides may be associated with harm. Postexposure prophylaxis may not reduce the rate of infection but the quality of the evidence is low. Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 should be treated with CQ/HCQ only if monitored and within the context of high quality RCTs. High quality data about efficacy/safety are urgently needed.

No abstract

Ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) is a novel beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor combination approved for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, complicated intra-abdominal infections, and for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019128927) was to evaluate the effectiveness of CZA combination therapy versus CZA monotherapy in the treatment of severe infections. The databases included in the search, until February 12th, 2020, were MEDLINE by PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies published in peer-reviewed journals and in the English language. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (longest follow-up) evaluated in patients with the diagnosis of infection with at least one pathogen; secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological improvement/cure. Thirteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis: 7 RCTs and 6 retrospective studies All the six retrospective studies identified carbapenamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) as the cause of infection and for this reason were included in the network meta-analysis (NMA); the quality of the studies, assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa Scale, was moderate-high. In all the six retrospective studies included in the NMA, CZA was used in large part for off-label indications (mostly blood stream infections: 80–100% of patients included). No difference in mortality rate was observed in patients undergoing CZA combination therapy compared to CZA monotherapy [n = 503 patients, direct evidence OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.65–1.41].

No abstract

Providing guidance to publicly funded authors on how to publish their work in open access journals is likely to reduce the waste of public money, say David Moher and colleagues

No abstract