Emerging treatments
Remdesivir
Remdesivir is an investigational broad-spectrum antiviral agent that inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. It is approved in many countries for the treatment of COVID-19.
In the UK and Europe, remdesivir has been conditionally approved in adolescents (≥12 years of age who weigh at least 40 kg) and adults with pneumonia who require supplemental oxygen (low- or high-flow oxygen or other non-invasive ventilation at start of treatment).[963]
In the US, remdesivir has been approved for the treatment of adolescents (≥12 years of age who weigh at least 40 kg) and adults who require hospitalisation, and has emergency-use authorisation for use in children.[964]
The World Health Organization recommends against the use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients in addition to standard care, regardless of disease severity.[746][747][748]
This weak or conditional recommendation is based on a systematic review and network meta-analysis of four randomised trials with 7333 hospitalised patients, and included the NIAID-ACTT-1 trial (on which the original US approval of remdesivir was based) and the WHO Solidarity trial. There is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves patient outcomes such as time to clinical improvement, the need for mechanical ventilation, or mortality. However, the meta-analysis did not prove that remdesivir has no benefit.[747][748] The WHO Solidarity trial found that remdesivir appears to have little or no effect on hospitalised patients, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay.[965]
Another living systematic review and network meta-analysis found that remdesivir may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence) compared with standard of care.[799][800]
[Figure caption and citation for the preceding image starts]: Recommendations and evidence for the use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients with COVID-19BMJ. 2020;370:m3379 [Citation ends].
The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends considering remdesivir for up to 5 days in adults and children ≥12 years of age and ≥40 kg who are in hospital and needing low-flow supplemental oxygen.[563]
Do not use remdesivir in adults, young people, and children in hospital and on high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, except as part of a clinical trial.
There is limited evidence suggesting that remdesivir probably reduces the risk of death in hospitalised patients who need low-flow supplemental oxygen. However, evidence shows that remdesivir may increase the risk of death in people who are on high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation.
Evidence does not suggest any greater benefit with a 10-day course of remdesivir compared with a 5-day course, but suggests an increased risk of harm. There may also be no benefit in completing the full course of remdesivir if the patient progresses to needing high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation during treatment.
Evidence for remdesivir in children and young people is limited.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends remdesivir in hospitalised adults who require supplemental oxygen.[3]
It may be given alone (e.g., for patients who require minimal supplemental oxygen) or in combination with dexamethasone (e.g., for patients who require increasing amounts of supplemental oxygen).
The panel also recommends remdesivir, in combination with dexamethasone, in hospitalised patients who require high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation. It does not recommend remdesivir in patients who require invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).
The panel acknowledges that remdesivir may also be appropriate in hospitalised patients who do not require oxygen, but who are at high risk of disease progression.
The recommended treatment course is 5 days or until hospital discharge, whichever comes first. Some experts recommend a 10-day course in patients who have not shown substantial clinical improvement by day 5.
In children, the panel recommends remdesivir in those who are hospitalised, are aged ≥12 years, have risk factors for severe disease, and have an emergent or increasing need for supplemental oxygen. The panel recommends remdesivir in hospitalised children aged ≥16 years who have an emergent or increasing need for supplemental oxygen, regardless of whether they have risk factors for severe disease. The panel recommends considering remdesivir in hospitalised children of all ages who have an emergent or increasing need for supplemental oxygen, in consultation with a paediatric infectious disease specialist.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends remdesivir in hospitalised patients with severe disease over no antiviral treatment, based on moderate-certainty evidence.[794]
The recommended treatment course is 5 days in patients on oxygen, and 10 days in patients on mechanical ventilation or ECMO.
The panel suggests against the routine use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients who do not require oxygen and have an oxygen saturation >94% on room air, based on very low-certainty evidence.
There are conflicting recommendations across international guidelines about the use of remdesivir, so it is important that you check local guidance and protocols.
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Casirivimab/imdevimab
Casirivimab and imdevimab are intravenous investigational neutralising human immunoglobulin G-1 monoclonal antibodies with activity against SARS-CoV-2. The two antibodies bind to nonoverlapping epitopes of the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein to block virus entry into host cells. Casirivimab/imdevimab (formerly known as REGN-COV2) has been granted an emergency-use authorisation in the US for the treatment of mild to moderate disease in children and adults.[966]
The US emergency-use authorisation covers patients with positive results of direct viral testing who are 12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalisation. This includes patients who are 65 years of age or older, or who have certain chronic medical conditions.
The European Medicines Agency has issued advice that casirivimab/imdevimab may be used in patients aged 12 years and older who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease; however, the agency is yet to issue a marketing authorisation.[967]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends casirivimab/imdevimab for the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate disease who are at high risk of clinical progression, as defined by the emergency-use authorisation criteria.[3]
Treatment should be started as soon as possible after the patient receives a positive test result and within 10 days of symptom onset.
The panel recommends against the use of monoclonal antibodies in hospitalised patients, except in the context of a clinical trial. However, their use may be considered in patients with mild to moderate disease who are hospitalised for a reason other than COVID-19 but who otherwise meet the emergency-use authorisation criteria.
In children, there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of monoclonal antibody products in those who are not hospitalised but have risk factors for severe disease. However, they may be considered on a case-by-case basis for non-hospitalised children who meet emergency-use authorisation criteria for high risk of severe disease (especially those who meet more than one criterion or are aged ≥16 years) in consultation with a paediatric infectious disease specialist.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America suggests casirivimab/imdevimab in ambulatory patients with mild to moderate disease who are at high risk for progression to severe disease rather than no neutralizing antibodies, based on low-certainty evidence. [794]
Patients with mild to moderate disease who are at high risk of progression to severe disease admitted to the hospital for reasons other than COVID-19 may also receive casirivimab/imdevimab.
There are limited data on efficacy in high-risk patients between 12 and 18 years of age.
Evidence is emerging.
Emergency-use authorisation was based on a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in non-hospitalised adults with mild to moderate symptoms that found that casirivimab/imdevimab reduced hospitalisation or accident and emergency department visits in patients at high risk for disease progression within 28 days after treatment, when compared with placebo. This study is yet to be published.[966]
The UK RECOVERY trial found that among hospitalised patients who were seronegative at baseline, casirivimab/imdevimab significantly reduced the primary outcome of 28-day mortality by one fifth compared with usual care alone. There was clear evidence that the effect of treatment in seronegative patients differed from that in seropositive patients. Results are yet to be published.[968]
An interim analysis of an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, phase 1-3 trial in non-hospitalised patients found that casirivimab/imdevimab reduced viral load from baseline through to day 7, with a greater effect in patients whose immune response had not yet been initiated or who had a high viral load at baseline.[969]
Casirivimab/imdevimab is not authorised for use in hospitalised patients or those who require oxygen as it has not shown benefit in these patients. Further enrolment of patients requiring high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation has been placed on hold due to a potential safety signal and an unfavourable risk/benefit profile at this time. However, enrolment of hospitalised patients requiring either no or low-flow oxygen is being continued.[970]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug. Casirivimab/imdevimab is given as an intravenous infusion; however, subcutaneous administration has also been authorised in the US as an alternative route of administration when intravenous administration is not feasible and would lead to delay in treatment.
Circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants may be associated with resistance to monoclonal antibodies. Consult local guidance for details regarding specific variants and resistance.
Sotrovimab
Sotrovimab (formerly known as VIR-7831) is an investigational monoclonal antibody with activity against SARS-CoV-2. It is designed to attach to the spike protein of the virus.
The US emergency-use authorisation covers patients with positive results of direct viral testing who are 12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalisation. This includes patients who are 65 years of age or older, or who have certain chronic medical conditions.[971]
The European Medicines Agency has issued advice that sotrovimab may be used in patients aged 12 years and older (weighing at least 40 kg) who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease; however, the agency is yet to issue a marketing authorisation.[972]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends sotrovimab for the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate disease who are at high risk of clinical progression, as defined by the emergency-use authorisation criteria.[3] The panel’s recommendations are based on preliminary results from clinical trials.
Treatment should be started as soon as possible after the patient receives a positive test result and within 10 days of symptom onset.
The panel recommends against the use of monoclonal antibodies in hospitalised patients, except in the context of a clinical trial. However, their use may be considered in patients with mild to moderate disease who are hospitalised for a reason other than COVID-19 but who otherwise meet the emergency-use authorisation criteria.
In children, there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of monoclonal antibody products in those who are not hospitalised but have risk factors for severe disease. However, monoclonal antibody products may be considered on a case-by-case basis for non-hospitalised children who meet emergency-use authorisation criteria for high risk of severe disease (especially those who meet more than one criterion or are aged ≥16 years) in consultation with a paediatric infectious disease specialist.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America suggests sotrovimab in ambulatory patients with mild to moderate disease who are at high risk for progression to severe disease rather than no neutralising antibodies, based on low-certainty evidence.[794]
Patients with mild to moderate disease who are at high risk of progression to severe disease admitted to the hospital for reasons other than COVID-19 may also receive sotrovimab.
There are limited data on efficacy in high-risk patients between 12 and 18 years of age.
Evidence is limited.
Authorisation was based on an interim analysis from a phase 1/2/3 randomised controlled trial in 583 non-hospitalised adults with mild to moderate disease that reported an 85% reduction in hospitalisation or death compared with placebo.[971]
While the manufacturer has published press releases about interim results from clinical trials, these trials have not been published as yet.
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug. Sotrovimab is given as an intravenous infusion.
Circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants may be associated with resistance to monoclonal antibodies. Consult local guidance for details regarding specific variants and resistance.
Bamlanivimab/etesevimab
Bamlanivimab (formerly known as LY-CoV555) and etesevimab (formerly known as LY-CoV016) are intravenous investigational neutralising human immunoglobulin G-1 monoclonal antibodies with activity against SARS-CoV-2. The two antibodies bind to different, but overlapping, epitopes of the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein to block virus entry into host cells. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab has been granted an emergency-use authorisation in the US for the treatment of mild to moderate disease in children and adults.[966]
The US emergency-use authorisation covers patients with positive results of direct viral testing who are 12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalisation. This includes patients who are 65 years of age or older, or who have certain chronic medical conditions.
The European Medicines Agency has issued advice that bamlanivimab/etesevimab may be used in patients aged 12 years and older who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease. The agency is yet to issue a marketing authorisation, but has started a rolling review of the data. The agency also concluded that despite uncertainties around the benefits of bamlaniviamab monotherapy, it can be considered a treatment option for this indication.[973]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel currently recommends against the use of bamlanivimab/etesevimab at this time due to circulation of variants of concern, which have reduced susceptibility to this treatment.[3]
The Infectious Diseases Society of America suggests bamlanivimab/etesevimab in ambulatory patients with mild to moderate disease who are at high risk for progression to severe disease rather than no neutralising antibodies, based on low-certainty evidence.[794]
Patients with mild to moderate disease who are at high risk of progression to severe disease admitted to the hospital for reasons other than COVID-19 may also receive bamlanivimab/etesevimab.
There are limited data on efficacy in high-risk patients between 12 and 18 years of age.
The panel recommends against the use of bamlanivimab monotherapy in hospitalised patients with severe disease, based on moderate-certainty evidence.
Evidence is emerging.
Among patients with mild to moderate disease, treatment with bamlanivimab/etesevimab was associated with a significant reduction in viral load at day 11 compared with placebo; however, no significant difference in viral load reduction was observed with bamlanivimab monotherapy.[974]
Among residents and staff in skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, treatment with bamlanivimab monotherapy reduced the incidence of infection compared with placebo.[975]
Among high-risk ambulatory patients, treatment with bamlanivimab/etesevimab reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death compared with placebo and accelerated the reduction in viral load.[976]
Immune escape variants have been reported in immunocompromised patients treated with bamlanivimab monotherapy.[977]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab is given as an intravenous infusion.
Circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants may be associated with resistance to monoclonal antibodies. Consult local guidance for details regarding specific variants and resistance.
Convalescent plasma
Convalescent plasma is a blood product that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from patients who have recovered. High-titre convalescent plasma (i.e., plasma with high SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres) has been granted an emergency-use authorisation in the US for the treatment of hospitalised patients early in the disease course, and to those hospitalised patients who have impaired humoral immunity and cannot produce an adequate antibody response. Low-titre convalescent plasma is no longer authorised.[978] It has not been authorised for this indication in the UK or Europe.
UK guidance recommends that convalescent plasma should not be used in the management of hospitalised patients with suspected or confirmed infection.[979] This recommendation is based on data from the UK RECOVERY and REMAP-CAP trials.
Preliminary data (yet to be peer reviewed) from the UK RECOVERY trial found that high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes among hospitalised patients.[980]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends against the use of low-titre convalescent plasma.[3]
There are insufficient data for the panel to recommend either for or against the use of high-titre convalescent plasma in hospitalised patients with impaired immunity.
The panel recommends against the use of high-titre convalescent plasma in hospitalised patients who do not have impaired immunity and who do not require mechanical ventilation, except in the context of a clinical trial.
The panel recommends against the use of convalescent plasma in hospitalised patients who do not have impaired immunity and who require mechanical ventilation.
There are insufficient data for the panel to recommend either for or against the use of high-titre convalescent plasma in non-hospitalised patients, except in the context of a clinical trial.
In children, the panel recommends against the use of convalescent plasma in those who are mechanically ventilated. The panel recommends against the use of convalescent plasma in hospitalised children who do not require mechanical ventilation, except in the context of a clinical trial. High-titre convalescent plasma may be considered on a case-by-case basis for hospitalised children who meet the emergency-use authorisation criteria for its use, in consultation with a paediatric infectious disease specialist.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America suggests against the use of convalescent plasma in hospitalised patients, based on low-certainty evidence.[794]
The guideline panel recommends convalescent plasma in ambulatory patients with mild to moderate disease only in the context of a clinical trial.
Evidence is emerging.
Emergency-use authorisation was based on the preprint (not peer reviewed) publication of an open-label, multicentre, expanded access programme study of over 35,000 patients that found convalescent plasma lowered 7-day mortality by 9% in hospitalised patients when given within 3 days of diagnosis, and by 12% when given 4 or more days later.[981]
Evidence from meta-analyses appears to be conflicting. A meta-analysis and systematic review of four peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials and six unpublished randomised controlled trials, and a meta-analysis and systematic review of 12 randomized controlled trials, found that treatment with convalescent plasma was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality (or any benefit for other outcomes) compared with placebo or standard of care, based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence.[982][983] However, while another meta-analyses of ten randomised controlled trials also found no association between convalescent plasma therapy and a reduction in mortality, when one of the trials was excluded due to a large proportion of patients in the convalescent plasma arm receiving plasma with low levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, additional analyses found that patients treated with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients who did not receive convalescent plasma (11% versus 16%). Therefore, early transfusion of high-titre plasma appears to reduce mortality.[984] A meta-analysis that included three randomised controlled trials and nine observational studies found that convalescent plasma reduced mortality when used as an adjunctive therapy.[985]
A Cochrane review found high-certainty evidence that convalescent plasma does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement for the treatment of moderate to severe disease.[986]
The UK RECOVERY trial found that high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve 28-day mortality or other prespecified outcomes (hospital discharge within 28 days, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation) in hospitalised patients compared with usual care.[987]
A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in older patients with mild disease who received convalescent plasma within 72 hours after the onset of symptoms found that early administration reduced the progression to severe disease.[988] However, a National Institutes of Health clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in treating accident and emergency department patients who developed mild to moderate symptoms has been halted. An interim analysis of the trial data determined that while convalescent plasma caused no harm, it was unlikely to benefit this group of patients.[989]
A cohort study found a potential survival benefit in patients with haematological cancers.[990]
Baricitinib
Baricitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor. It is thought to prevent the dysregulated production of proinflammatory cytokines in patients with severe or critical disease. Baricitinib is already approved in some countries for certain conditions.
It has been granted an emergency-use authorisation for the treatment of COVID-19 in the US, in combination with remdesivir, for the treatment of suspected or confirmed disease in hospitalised children aged 2 years and older and adults who require supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.[991]
It has not been authorised for this indication in the UK or Europe; however, the European Medicines Agency is currently evaluating its use in hospitalised patients from 10 years of age who require supplemental oxygen.[992]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel currently recommends baricitinib, in combination with dexamethasone alone or dexamethasone plus remdesivir, in recently hospitalised patients on high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation with rapidly increasing oxygen needs and systemic inflammation.[3]
The panel recommends against the use of baricitinib in combination with tocilizumab except in the context of a clinical trial. There is potential for an additive risk of infection.
There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of baricitinib in children.
The panel recommends against the use of other Janus kinase inhibitors except in a clinical trial.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends baricitinib with remdesivir in hospitalised patients with severe disease who cannot receive corticosteroids because of a contraindication, rather than remdesivir alone.[794]
The combination should only be given with a corticosteroid in the context of a clinical trial.
Evidence is emerging.
Emergency-use authorisation was based on a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that found baricitinib plus remdesivir reduced time to recovery (defined as either being discharged from the hospital, or being hospitalised but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care) within 29 days after initiating treatment compared with patients who received placebo plus remdesivir. The median time to recovery was 7 days for baricitinib plus remdesivir and 8 days for placebo plus remdesivir.[993]
A living systematic review and network meta-analysis found that Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation (moderate-certainty evidence) compared with standard care.[799][800]
Another systematic review and network meta-analysis found that Janus kinase inhibitors are also associated with a reduced risk of mortality, and clinical improvement in hospitalised patients.[994]
A meta-analysis that included six cohort studies and five clinical trials involving over 2000 participants treated with either baricitinib or ruxolitinib found that use of Janus kinase inhibitors reduced the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and increased survival, but did not reduce the length of hospitalisation. The evidence was most convincing for baricitinib. Timing of treatment may be important in determining the impact on outcomes.[995]
There is a lack of evidence for other drugs within this drug class (e.g., tofacitinib, fedratinib, ruxolitinib); however, clinical trials are ongoing.
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Ivermectin
Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent. It has been shown to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.[996] Ivermectin is already approved in some countries for parasitic infections, but is off-label for this indication. The European Medicines Agency does not recommend ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials.[997]
The World Health Organization does not recommend ivermectin except in the context of a clinical trial.[746]
This recommendation applies to patents with any disease severity and any duration of symptoms.
There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating COVID-19.[747][748] For most key outcomes, including mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalisation, and viral clearance, the evidence is of very low certainty.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel states that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend eitherfor or against the use of ivermectin.[3]
The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends against the use of ivermectin in outpatients and hospitalised patients outside of the context of a clinical trial, adding that more trials of sufficient design are needed.[794]
Other international guidelines may recommend ivermectin in select patient groups.
Indian guidelines recommend that ivermectin may be considered as an option in patients with mild disease, although acknowledge that this recommendation is based on low-certainty evidence.[998]
Evidence is emerging.
A meta-analysis of 18 randomised controlled trials found statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance with use of ivermectin.[999]
A meta-analysis of nine randomised controlled trials found that ivermectin was associated with decreased mortality compared with standard of care or placebo, with a low certainty of evidence.[1000]
Another meta-analysis found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death based on moderate-certainty evidence. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced infection by an average of 86%. Secondary outcomes provided less-certain evidence.[1001]
Another meta-analysis of six randomised controlled trials found a preliminary positive effect on mortality associated with use in hospitalised patients. The authors concluded that this effect warrants further appropriately designed, large-scale randomised controlled trials. The meta-analysis was limited by a small number of patients included with a significant risk of biases in the majority of included trials.[1002]
A systematic review and meta-analysis found that adding ivermectin to usual care led to significant clinical improvement and a significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared with usual care; however, the quality of evidence was very low.[1003]
A living systematic review and network meta-analysis found that studies on ivermectin for prophylaxis have been small and it remains very uncertain whether ivermectin reduces the risk of infection. Evidence for the effects of ivermectin on mortality is of very low certainty.[1004]
A randomised controlled trial in patients with mild to moderate disease found that those treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered 2 days earlier and were less likely to progress to severe disease compared with placebo.[1005]
The PRINCIPLE trial in the UK is currently investigating the use of ivermectin.[1006]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Anakinra
Anakinra is an intravenous/subcutaneous interleukin-1 inhibitor. It is being trialled in patients for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-induced cytokine release syndrome. Anakinra is already approved in some countries for certain conditions, but is off-label for this indication. The European Medicines Agency has started to evaluate an application to extend the use of anakinra to include the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with pneumonia who are at risk of developing severe respiratory failure.[1007]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel states that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of anakinra.[3]
The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence states that there is no evidence available to determine whether anakinra is effective, safe, or cost-effective for treating adults and children with secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 or a similar coronavirus.[1008]
Evidence is limited.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine observational studies found that anakinra reduced the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality risk in hospitalised non-intubated patients compared with standard of care. However, confirmation of safety and efficacy requires randomised controlled trials.[1009]
A systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies (five observational studies, five case series, four case reports, and one randomised controlled trial) also found that anakinra significantly reduced the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality risk compared with standard care alone.[1010]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Regdanvimab
Regdanivimab (formerly known as CT-P59) is an investigational neutralising monoclonal antibody with activity against SARS-CoV-2. Regdanvimab has been granted a conditional marketing authorisation in South Korea for the treatment of adults with mild symptoms who are aged ≥60 years or have at least one underlying medical condition, and all adults with moderate symptoms. The European Medicines Agency recommends that regdanvimab can be used for the treatment of confirmed COVID-19 in adult patients who do not require supplemental oxygen therapy and who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease.[1011]
Evidence is limited.
According to press releases from the manufacturer, regdanivimab reduced progression from mild-moderate to severe disease by 50%, and from moderate to severe disease by 68%, and reduced the risk of hospitalisation or death by 72% in patients at high risk of progressing to severe disease. However, results from the phase 2/3 trials are yet to be published.[1012][1013] Regdanivimab has also demonstrated neutralising capability against key emerging mutations, including the B.1.1.7 variant.[1014]
Intravenous immunoglobulin
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is a blood product prepared from serum pooled from healthy donors. It has an immunomodulatory effect that suppresses a hyperactive immune response. IVIG is already approved in some countries for certain conditions, but is off-label for this indication.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel states that there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific immunoglobulin.[3]
Evidence is limited.
A meta-analysis of four clinical trials and three cohort studies with 825 hospitalised patients found that IVIG reduced mortality in patients with critical disease; however, there was no significant difference between the severe and non-severe subgroups.[1015]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Stem cell therapy
Mesenchymal stem cells are an investigational product and have been studied for their immunomodulatory properties. It is thought that they can reduce the pathological changes that occur in the lungs, and inhibit the cell-mediated immune inflammatory response.[1016] Mesenchymal stem cells are not approved for this indication.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends against the use of mesenchymal stem cells except in the context of a clinical trial.[3]
Evidence is limited.
Remestemcel-L (ex vivo cultured adult human mesenchymal stem cells from the bone marrow of healthy adult donors) is currently in phase 3 trials for the treatment of moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in ventilator-dependent patients. An interim analysis of data found that the trial is not likely to meet its 30-day mortality reduction end point and has stopped enrolment, although the trial will be completed with the patients currently enrolled, with follow-up as planned.[1017]
Interferons
Interferons are a family of cytokines with antiviral properties. Interferons are already approved in some countries for certain conditions, but are off-label for this indication.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends against the use of interferons for the treatment of severe or critically ill patients except in the context of a clinical trial.[3]
Evidence is limited.
The WHO Solidarity trial found that interferon beta-1a appears to have little or no effect on hospitalised patients, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay.[965]
A randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial found that nebulised interferon beta-1a was associated with a higher odds of clinical improvement and more rapid recovery.[1018]
A phase 2 trial found that peginterferon lambda reduced viral load and increased the number of participants with a negative nasopharyngeal swab at day 7 in outpatients with mild to moderate disease compared with placebo.[1019][1020]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing these drugs.
Vitamin D
Vitamin D supplementation has been associated with a reduced risk of acute respiratory infections such as influenza.[1021][1022][1023][1024]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel states that there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against vitamin D for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.[3]
The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends vitamin D supplementation in adults (including pregnant and breastfeeding women), young people, and children over 4 years of age between October and early March (and at other times of the year if at risk of vitamin D deficiency) to maintain bone and muscle health. However, it does not recommend supplementation to solely prevent or treat COVID-19, except as part of a clinical trial.[1025]
Evidence is limited.
A Cochrane review found there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation. The evidence is very uncertain. There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly due to different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes.[1026]
Meta-analyses found that vitamin D might be associated with improved clinical outcomes and that there may be a potential role for vitamin D supplementation in reducing disease severity, but noted that additional evidence is required.[1027][1028]
A pilot randomised controlled trial found that high-dose calcifediol significantly reduced the need for intensive care unit treatment in hospitalised patients, and may improve clinical outcomes.[1029]
Vitamin C
Vitamin C supplementation has shown promise in the treatment of viral infections.[1030] High-dose intravenous vitamin C is being trialled in some centres for the treatment of severe disease.[1031]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel states that there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against vitamin C for the treatment of non-critically ill or critically ill patients.[3]
Evidence is limited.
There is no evidence to support or refute the use of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19; however, several trials are ongoing.[1032]
A pilot randomised controlled trial found high-dose intravenous vitamin C may show potential benefit in improving oxygenation and reducing mortality in critically ill patients; however, the trial was underpowered.[1033]
Colchicine
Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory agent that downregulates multiple pro-inflammatory pathways. It is thought that its inhibitory effects on neutrophil activity, cytokine generation, and the inflammation/thrombosis interface, along with an overall lack of evidence for systemic immunosuppression, make it a useful treatment.[1034] Colchicine is already approved in some countries for indications such as gout and familial Mediterranean fever, but is off-label for this indication.
The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not recommend colchicine in hospitalised patients.[563]
The guideline also recommends against its use in community settings, except in the context of a clinical trial.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel states that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of colchicine in non-hospitalised patients.[3]
The panel recommends against its use in hospitalised patients.
The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency states that colchicine should not be used except in the context of a clinical trial, or unless there is an additional licensed indication for its use.[1035]
Evidence is limited.
A living systematic review and network meta-analysis found that colchicine may reduce mortality (low-certainty evidence) and probably reduces the duration of hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence) compared with standard care.[799][800]
A systematic review and meta-analysis found that colchicine was associated with a reduction in disease severity and mortality, especially when given early in the course of disease (within 3-6 days from the onset of symptoms or hospital admission). However, the analysis was largely based on observational studies and only included three randomised clinical trials.[1036] Another systematic review and meta-analysis supports the reduction in mortality; however, meta-regression analysis found that the benefit was reduced as age increased.[1037]
A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of over 4400 non-hospitalised patients found that colchicine led to a lower rate of the composite of death or hospital admission compared with placebo among patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed disease; however, the effect was not statistically significant when participants without a PCR-confirmed diagnosis were included.[1038] More randomised controlled trials are required.
Colchicine was being studied in the RECOVERY trial; however, recruitment has now closed as an interim analysis of the trial data found no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of mortality benefit.[1039]
Studies are inconclusive in patients with mild to moderate disease, and adverse effects are significant.[1040]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Fluvoxamine
Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor that has anti-inflammatory effects.[1041] Fluvoxamine is already approved in some countries for indications such as depression and obsessive compulsive disorder, but is off-label for this indication.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel states that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of fluvoxamine.[3]
Evidence is limited.
A preliminary double-blind, randomised controlled trial found that adult outpatients had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days compared with placebo; however, the study was limited by a small sample size and short follow-up duration.[1042]
A prospective cohort study in the setting of a mass outbreak found that fluvoxamine may prevent clinical deterioration requiring hospitalisation and symptoms persisting beyond 2 weeks.[1043]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Nitazoxanide
Nitazoxanide is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic agent with in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 that is already approved in some countries for indications such as cryptosporidiosis and giardiasis, but is off-label for this indication.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends against the use of nitazoxanide except in the context of a clinical trial.[3]
Evidence is limited.
A randomised double-blind pilot trial found an evident decrease in the time for hospital discharge, faster evolution to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction negativity, and a higher reduction of inflammatory markers among patients treated with nitazoxanide compared with placebo. However, this was a small, proof-of-concept trial.[1044]
A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with mild disease found that nitazoxanide was associated with reduced viral load but not reduced time to symptom resolution.[1045]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) inhibitors
GM-CSF inhibitors (e.g., lenzilumab, mavrilimumab, otilimab) may mitigate lung inflammation in severe and critical disease by minimising downstream production of numerous pro-inflammatory mediators involved in the pathogenesis of disease. These agents are currently investigational.
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel states that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of GM-CSF inhibitors.[3]
Evidence is limited.
A phase 3 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (preprint) found that lenzilumab significantly improved survival without ventilation in hospitalised, hypoxic patients COMPARED with remdesivir and/or corticosteroids. Subjects with a C-reactive protein level <150 mg/L and age <85 years had the greatest benefit.[1046]
A small multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial found that there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe disease, hypoxaemia, and systemic hyperinflammation who were free of supplemental oxygen at day 14 after treatment with mavrilimumab compared with placebo.[1047]
Inhaled corticosteroids
Inhaled budesonide is undergoing clinical trials and shows promise.[1048] It is already approved in some countries for indications such as asthma and COPD, but is off-label for this indication.
The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency states that inhaled budesonide can be considered on a case-by-case basis in eligible patients who meet all of the following criteria (and who do not meet specific exclusion criteria):[1049]
Patients with onset of symptoms within the past 14 days, and symptoms are ongoing
Confirmation of diagnosis by molecular testing within the past 14 days
Age 65 years and over, or age 50 to 64 years with a comorbidity consistent with a long-term health condition.
The European Medicines Agency advises that there is currently insufficient evidence that inhaled corticosteroids are beneficial.[1050]
Evidence is limited.
The PRINCIPLE trial has reported a 3-day median benefit in self-reported recovery for patients in the community setting who received inhaled budesonide.[1051] The impact on hospitalisation rates or mortality has not been established. Results are yet to be published.
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Antibiotics
Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic, and doxycycline is a tetracycline antibiotic. Both are approved for use in various bacterial infections.
The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not recommend the use of azithromycin.[563]
The guideline panel considered that the results from studies of azithromycin for moderate to critical disease in the hospital setting and mild to moderate disease in the community setting showed no meaningful benefit in any of the critical outcomes.
The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency recommends that azithromycin and doxycycline should not be used within primary care (or hospitalised patients for azithromycin) unless there are additional indications for which their use remains appropriate.[1052]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends against the use of antibacterial therapy (e.g., azithromycin, doxycycline) in the absence of another indication.[3]
Evidence does not support the use of these drugs.
A systematic review and meta-analysis found that azithromycin was not associated with an improvement in hospitalisation rate, intensive care unit admission, need for respiratory support, or mortality rate compared with control.[1053]
The UK RECOVERY trial found that azithromycin showed no significant clinical benefit (i.e., length of hospital stay, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, 28-day mortality) in hospitalised patients compared with usual standard care alone.[1054]
The UK PRINCIPLE trial is currently evaluating three treatment strategies in older people (people aged over 65 years, or people aged over 50 years with an underlying health condition): usual care alone; usual care plus azithromycin; and usual care plus doxycycline.[1055]
The ATOMIC2 open-label randomized trial found that adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment in non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate disease did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death.[1056]
An interim analysis of the trial concluded that azithromycin and doxycycline offered no meaningful beneficial effect, in terms of time to recovery, hospitalisation, or death compared with standard of care in patients aged 50 years and over who were treated at home in the early stages of infection.[1052][1057]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing these drugs.
Lopinavir/ritonavir
Lopinavir/ritonavir is an oral protease inhibitor. It is approved for the treatment of HIV infection, but is off-label for this indication.
The World Health Organization strongly recommends against the use of lopinavir/ritonavir, regardless of disease severity. This recommendation is based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence.[746][747][748]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends against the use of lopinavir/ritonavir except in the context of a clinical trial.[3]
The Infectious Diseases Society of America also recommends against the use of lopinavir/ritonavir based on moderate-certainty evidence.[794]
Evidence does not support the use of this drug.
The WHO Solidarity trial found that lopinavir/ritonavir appears to have little or no effect on hospitalised patients, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay.[965]
The UK RECOVERY trial found that there is no beneficial effect of lopinavir/ritonavir in hospitalised patients, with no significant difference in 28-day mortality, risk of progression to mechanical ventilation or death, or duration of hospital stay between the two treatment arms (lopinavir/ritonavir versus usual care alone).[1058]
A systematic review and meta-analysis found that lopinavir/ritonavir had no significant advantage in efficacy over standard care, no antivirals, or other antiviral treatments.[1059]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing this drug.
Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine
Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. These drugs have been shown to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.[1060][1061] Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are already approved in some countries for certain conditions, but are off-label for this indication.
The World Health Organization (WHO) strongly recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, regardless of disease severity, based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence.[746][747][748]
The WHO also strongly recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19. A systematic review and network meta-analysis found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital. There was a small or no effect on laboratory-confirmed infection, but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation.[1062][1063]
The US National Institutes of Health guidelines panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (with or without azithromycin) in hospitalised or non-hospitalised patients.[3]
The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America also strongly recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in hospitalized patients based on moderate-certainty evidence.[794]
Evidence does not support the use of these drugs for treatment.
A Cochrane review found that hydroxychloroquine has no clinical benefit in hospitalised patients, with moderate‐ to high‐certainty evidence from several randomised trials, and a probable increase in adverse events associated with its use. Evidence for prevention of hospital admission in outpatients is very uncertain. Evidence for pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis is limited.[1064]
A living systematic review concluded that there is low-strength evidence from trials and cohort studies that hydroxychloroquine has no positive effect on all-cause mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation. Trials show low strength of evidence for no positive effect on intubation or death and discharge from the hospital, whereas evidence from cohort studies about these outcomes remains insufficient. Data are insufficiently strong to support a treatment benefit of hydroxychloroquine for other outcomes (e.g., intensive care unit admission, symptom resolution). In trials where hydroxychloroquine is initiated in the outpatient setting, there is low strength of evidence that it reduces hospitalisation; however, there is insufficient evidence from cohort studies.[1065][1066]
The WHO Solidarity trial found that hydroxychloroquine appears to have little or no effect on hospitalised patients, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay.[965]
The UK RECOVERY trial found that hydroxychloroquine does not reduce the risk of death at 28 days compared with usual care.[1067]
A living systematic review and network meta-analysis found that hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the rate of infection, admission to hospital, or mortality compared with standard care or placebo when used for prophylaxis. More patients discontinued hydroxychloroquine because of adverse events.[1004]
Consult local drug formulary for information about contraindications, cautions, adverse effects, and drug interactions before prescribing these drugs.
Clinical trials
Various other treatments are in clinical trials around the world.
International trials to identify treatments that may be beneficial, such as the World Health Organization’s Solidarity trial, and the UK’s randomised evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial, are ongoing. The RECOVERY Trial is currently testing these treatments: baricitinib; dimethyl fumarate; and casirivimab/imdevimab.
Use of this content is subject to our disclaimer