Idsa Covid 19 GL TX and MGMT v4.4.1
Idsa Covid 19 GL TX and MGMT v4.4.1
Idsa Covid 19 GL TX and MGMT v4.4.1
Authors
Adarsh Bhimraj,1 Rebecca L. Morgan,2 Amy Hirsch Shumaker,3 Valery Lavergne,4 Lindsey
Baden,5 Vincent Chi-Chung Cheng,6 Kathryn M. Edwards,7 Rajesh Gandhi,8 Jason Gallagher,9
William J. Muller,10 John C. O’Horo,11 Shmuel Shoham,12 M. Hassan Murad,13 Reem A.
Mustafa,14 Shahnaz Sultan,15 Yngve Falck-Ytter3
Affiliations
1Department of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Version 4.4.1
0
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
11Division of Infectious Diseases, Joint Appointment Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Panel Members: Adarsh Bhimraj (lead), Lindsey Baden, Vincent Chi-Chung Cheng, Kathryn M.
Edwards, Rajesh Gandhi, Jason Gallagher, William J. Muller, John C. O’Horo, Shmuel Shoham,
Amy Hirsch Shumaker
Version 4.4.1
1
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Abstract
Background: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for
treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a need for frequently updated
practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature.
Objective: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for
treatment of COVID-19. There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use,
based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature.
Methods: In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a
multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and
methodologists with varied areas of expertise. The process followed a rapid recommendation
checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-
reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment,
Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence
and make recommendations.
Results: On April 11, 2020, IDSA released online initial treatment recommendations and
narrative summaries of other treatments under evaluation. Since that time, the guideline panel
and methodologists have continued to monitor the literature and issue updates and
addendums to these guidelines in response to evolving research.
Conclusions: Since the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that
patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much needed evidence on the
efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a
determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.
Version 4.4.1
2
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
IDSA Disclaimer
It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation
among patients. They are assessments of current scientific and clinical information provided as
an educational service; are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent
evidence (new evidence may emerge between the time information is developed and when it is
published or read); should not be considered inclusive of all proper treatments methods of
care, or as a statement of the standard of care; do not mandate any particular course of
medical care; and are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular
patients or special clinical situations. Whether and the extent to which to follow guidelines is
voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the
physician in the light of each patient’s individual circumstances. While IDSA makes every effort
to present accurate, complete, and reliable information, these guidelines are presented “as is”
without any warranty, either express or implied. IDSA (and its officers, directors, members,
employees, and agents) assume no responsibility for any loss, damage, or claim with respect to
any liabilities, including direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages, incurred in
connection with these guidelines or reliance on the information presented.
The guidelines represent the proprietary and copyrighted property of IDSA. Copyright
2021 Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. No part of these guidelines
may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written
permission of IDSA. Permission is granted to physicians and health care providers solely to copy
and use the guidelines in their professional practices and clinical decision-making. No license or
permission is granted to any person or entity, and prior written authorization by IDSA is
required, to sell, distribute, or modify the guidelines, or to make derivative works of or
incorporate the guidelines into any product, including but not limited to clinical decision
support software or any other software product. Except for the permission granted above, any
person or entity desiring to use the guidelines in any way must contact IDSA for approval in
Version 4.4.1
3
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
accordance with the terms and conditions of third-party use, in particular any use of the
guidelines in any software product.
Executive Summary
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with a rapidly increasing incidence
of infections and deaths. Many pharmacologic therapies are being used or considered for
treatment. Given the rapidity of emerging literature, the Infectious Diseases Society of America
(IDSA) identified the need to develop living, frequently updated evidence-based guidelines to
support patients, clinicians and other health-care professionals in their decisions about
treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.
Summarized below are the recommendations with comments related to the clinical
practice guideline for the treatment and management of COVID-19. A detailed description of
background, methods, evidence summary and rationale that support each recommendation,
and research needs can be found online in the full text. In brief, per Grading of
Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology,
recommendations are labeled as “strong” or “conditional”. The word “recommend” indicates
strong recommendations and “suggest” indicates conditional recommendations. In situations
where promising interventions were judged to have insufficient evidence of benefit to support
their use and with potential appreciable harms or costs, the expert panel recommended their
use in the context of a clinical trial. These recommendations acknowledge the current
“knowledge gap” and aim at avoiding premature favorable recommendations for potentially
ineffective or harmful interventions.
Recommendation 1: Among patients with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel recommends
against hydroxychloroquine. (Strong recommendation, Moderate certainty of evidence)
Version 4.4.1
4
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Recommendation 2: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel
recommends against hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. (Strong recommendation, Low
certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 3: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel
recommends against the use of the combination lopinavir/ritonavir. (Strong recommendation,
Moderate certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 4: Among hospitalized critically ill patients* with COVID-19, the IDSA
guideline panel recommends dexamethasone rather than no dexamethasone. (Strong
recommendation, Moderate certainty of evidence)
Version 4.4.1
5
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
**Severe illness is defined as patients with SpO2 ≤94% on room air, including patients on
supplemental oxygen.
***Non-severe illness is defined as patient with a SpO2 > 94% not requiring supplemental
oxygen.
Remarks:
• Patients, particularly those who respond to steroids alone, who put a high value on
avoiding possible adverse events of tocilizumab and a low value on the uncertain
mortality reduction, would reasonably decline tocilizumab.
• In the largest trial on the treatment of tocilizumab, criterion for systemic
inflammation was defined as CRP ≥75 mg/L.
Severity definitions:
*Severe illness is defined as patients with SpO2 ≤94% on room air, including patients on
supplemental oxygen.
Version 4.4.1
6
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Recommendation 8: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel
suggests against COVID-19 convalescent plasma. (Conditional recommendation, Low certainty
of evidence)
Recommendation 10a: In hospitalized patients with severe* COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests
remdesivir over no antiviral treatment. (Conditional recommendation, Moderate certainty of
evidence)
Recommendation 10b: In patients with COVID-19 on invasive ventilation and/or ECMO, the
IDSA panel suggests against the routine initiation of remdesivir (Conditional recommendation,
Very low certainty of evidence)
Version 4.4.1
7
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Recommendation 12: In patients with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital without the need for
supplemental oxygen and oxygen saturation >94% on room air, the IDSA panel suggests against
the routine use of remdesivir. (Conditional recommendation, Very low certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 13: Among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the IDSA
panel suggests against famotidine use for the sole purpose of treating COVID-19 outside of the
context of a clinical trial. (Conditional recommendation, Very low certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 14: Among ambulatory patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk
for progression to severe disease, the IDSA guideline panel suggests bamlanivimab/etesevimab,
casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab rather than no neutralizing antibody treatment.
(Conditional recommendation, Moderate certainty of evidence)
Remarks:
• Patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 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, casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab.
• Local variant susceptibility should be considered in the choice of the most
appropriate neutralizing antibody therapy.
• There are limited data on efficacy of bamlanivimab/etesevimab,
casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab in high-risk patients under 18 years of age.
Recommendation 15: Among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the IDSA guideline
panel recommends against bamlanivimab monotherapy. (Strong recommendation, Moderate
certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 16: Among hospitalized adults with severe* COVID-19 having elevated
inflammatory markers but not on invasive mechanical ventilation, the IDSA panel suggests
Version 4.4.1
8
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Remarks:
• Baricitinib 4 mg per day up to 14 days or until discharge from hospital.
• Baricitinib appears to demonstrate the most benefit in those with severe COVID-19
on high-flow oxygen/non-invasive ventilation at baseline.
Recommendation 17: Among hospitalized patients with severe* COVID-19 who cannot receive
a corticosteroid (which is standard of care) because of a contraindication, the IDSA guideline
panel suggests use of baricitinib with remdesivir rather than remdesivir alone. (Conditional
recommendation, Low certainty of evidence)
• Remark: Baricitinib 4 mg daily dose for 14 days or until hospital discharge. The benefits
of baricitinib plus remdesivir for persons on mechanical ventilation are uncertain.
Recommendation 18: In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests
against ivermectin use outside of the context of a clinical trial. (Conditional recommendation,
very low certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 19: In outpatients with COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests against ivermectin
use outside of the context of a clinical trial. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of
evidence)
Version 4.4.1
9
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Since the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that
patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much needed evidence on the
efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19. The panel has determined that when an
explicit trade-off between highly uncertain benefits and known putative harms of these
therapeutic agents were considered, a net positive benefit was not reached and could possibly
be negative (risk of excess harm). The panel acknowledges that enrolling patients in
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) might not be feasible for many frontline providers due to
limited access and infrastructure. Should lack of access to clinical trials exist, we encourage
setting up local or collaborative registries to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of
drugs to contribute to the knowledge base. Each clinician can play a role in advancing our
understanding of this disease through a local registry or other data collection efforts.
Background
The first cases of COVID-19 were reported from Wuhan, China in early December 2019
[1], now known to be caused by a novel beta-coronavirus, named as Severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Within a span of months, COVID-19 has become
pandemic due to its transmissibility, spreading across continents with the number of cases and
deaths rising daily [2]. Although most infected individuals exhibit a mild illness (80%+), 14%
have serious and 5% have critical illness. Approximately 10% will require hospital admission due
to COVID-19 pneumonia, of which approximately 10% will require ICU care, including invasive
ventilation due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [3]. While mortality appears to
be more common in older individuals and those with comorbidities, such as chronic lung
disease, cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes, young people with no
comorbidities also appear to be at risk for critical illness including multi-organ failure and death.
There has been an expanding number of studies rapidly published online and in
academic journals; however, some of these may be of limited quality and are pre-published
without sufficient peer-review. Critical appraisal of the existing studies is needed to determine
if the existing evidence is sufficient to support currently proposed management strategies.
Version 4.4.1
10
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Given the rapid global spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the difficulty for the overburdened
front-line providers and policymakers to stay up to date on emerging literature, IDSA has
recognized the necessity of developing a rapid guideline for the treatment of COVID-19. The
guideline panel is using a methodologically rigorous process for evaluating the best available
evidence and providing treatment recommendations. Two additional guidelines on diagnostic
testing and infection prevention also have been developed. These guidelines will be frequently
updated as substantive literature becomes available and are accessible on an easy to navigate
web and device interface at http://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines.
There continue to be several ongoing trials evaluating therapeutic agents for the
treatment of COVID-19. As data becomes available from these trials and if there is a
preponderance of evidence to suggest the use of a therapeutic agent even in the context of
clinical trials is no longer warranted it will be removed from future updates of the guideline
(and the removal will be noted in the updated guidelines). If there is emerging evidence on the
efficacy or safety of a therapeutic agent not mentioned in the current version of the guideline it
will be included in future updates of the guideline.
These recommendations are intended to inform patients, clinicians, and other health
professionals by providing the latest available evidence.
Methods
This guideline was developed using the GRADE approach for evidence assessment. In
addition, given the need for an urgent response to a major public health crisis, the
methodological approach was modified according to the Guidelines International
Network/McMaster checklist for the development of rapid recommendations [4].
Panel composition
The initial guideline panel assembled in March 2020 was composed of nine members
including infectious diseases specialists as well as experts in public health as well as other front-
Version 4.4.1
11
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Question generation
Clinical questions included in this guideline were developed into a PICO format
(Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) [5] and prioritized according to available
evidence that met the minimum acceptable criteria (i.e., the body of evidence reported on at
least a case-series design, case reports were excluded). Panel members prioritized patient-
Version 4.4.1
12
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
important outcomes such as mortality, development of ARDS (need for non-invasive or invasive
ventilation) and clinical improvement (such as disease-oriented outcomes inferred by
radiological findings or virologic cure), and severe adverse events (SAE) leading to treatment
discontinuation. Serious adverse events are death, life threatening reactions, those that require
hospitalization, result in disability or permanent damage or require an intervention to prevent
permanent impairment [6]. Additional drug specific harms were evaluated when clinically
relevant, including possible drug-drug reactions, if applicable.
Search strategy
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highly-sensitive search was
reviewed by the methodologist in consultation with the technical team information specialist
and was determined to have high sensitivity [7]. An additional term, COVID, was added to the
search strategy used in addition to the treatment terms identified in the PICO questions (Table
s1). Ovid Medline and Embase were searched from 2019 through September 18, 2020. Horizon
scans have been performed regularly during the evidence assessment and recommendation
process to locate additional grey literature and manuscript pre-prints. Reference lists and
literature suggested by panelists were reviewed for inclusion. No restrictions were placed on
language or study type.
For several interventions, no direct evidence was available other than case reports or
mechanistic considerations. The panel either decided to include plausible indirect evidence and
Version 4.4.1
13
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
As higher quality direct evidence for clinical outcomes becomes available, outcomes
previously deemed critical by the panel became less important for decision-making. For
example, at the time of the first guideline, clinical improvement outcomes (e.g., need for
mechanical ventilation) were not reported, only the results of radiographic findings. However,
with the recent publication of RCTs and non-randomized studies reporting on direct measures
Version 4.4.1
14
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
of clinical improvement, results of radiographic studies were deemed to be less critical for
decision making.
Evidence to recommendations
The panel considered core elements of the GRADE evidence in the decision process,
including Certainty of evidence and balance between desirable and undesirable effects.
Additional domains were acknowledged where applicable (feasibility, resource use,
acceptability). For all recommendations, the expert panelists reached consensus. Voting rules
were agreed on prior to the panel meetings for situations when consensus could not be
reached.
Figure 1. Approach and implications to rating the quality of evidence and strength of
recommendations using the GRADE methodology (unrestricted use of the figure granted by the
U.S. GRADE Network)
Version 4.4.1
15
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Review process
This guideline has been rapidly reviewed and approved by the IDSA Board of Directors
Executive Committee external to the guideline development panel. SHEA and PIDS have
reviewed and provided endorsement of its contents.
Version 4.4.1
16
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Changes to these guidelines will fall into one of two categories: update or amendment.
An update involves a search for new studies, and if any new studies are found, they will be
critically appraisal and the pertinent section will be removed and replaced with the updated
section. An amendment involves a change or correction to the document, without any search
for new studies and their appraisal. It will also involve changes made to clarify or explain a
section based on “living” feedback from the readers.
Guideline revisions may result in major, minor, or “patch” version changes, defined as
follows:
- Major version (e.g., 1.0.0): Synonymous with a newly published version in the journal. This
is usually called a "breaking version", i.e., prior recommendations may not be valid
anymore.
- Minor version (e.g., 1.1.0): Includes new information, maybe even added PICOs, but not a
breaking version, i.e., existing recommendations are still valid, although new
recommendations may be available.
- Patch version (e.g., 1.0.1): Small changes, i.e., typos, adding words, removing words, but
there are no material changes to the document or changes in recommendations.
Version 4.4.1
17
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Results
Systematic review and horizon scan of the literature identified 2030 references of which
48 informed the evidence base for these recommendations (Figure s1). Characteristics of the
included studies can be found in the supplementary materials.
Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine; Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine
plus Azithromycin
Recommendation 1: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel
recommends against hydroxychloroquine*. (Strong recommendation, Moderate certainty of
evidence)
Recommendation 2: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel
recommends against hydroxychloroquine* plus azithromycin. (Strong recommendation, Low
certainty of evidence)
Version 4.4.1
18
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Our search identified eight RCTs and seven comparative cohort studies of hospitalized
patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated with HCQ with reported mortality, clinical
progression or clinical improvement, and adverse events outcomes [27-41] (Table s3a) (Table
1).
In addition, we identified two RCTs, four comparative cohort studies, one case-control
study, and three single-arm studies reporting adjusted analyses of hospitalized patients with
confirmed COVID-19 treated with HCQ plus AZ with reported mortality, failure of virologic
clearance (assessed with polymerase chain reaction [PCR] test), clinical improvement, and
adverse events (i.e., significant QT prolongation leading to treatment discontinuation) [19, 27,
28, 37, 39, 41-45] (Table s3b) (Table 2).
Benefits
Version 4.4.1
19
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Hydroxychloroquine
Five RCTs showed a trend toward mortality among patients with COVID-19 treated with
HCQ compared to those who were not (relative risk [RR]: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]:
0.99, 1.19, Moderate certainty in the evidence) (Table 1) [28, 29, 33].
Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin
One RCT could not exclude the risk of in-hospital mortality among patients treated with
HCQ+AZ compared to those not receiving HCQ or HCQ+AZ (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64; 95% CI:
0.18, 2.21; Low certainty of evidence [CoE]) [28]. Three non-randomized studies failed to
identify an association between treatment with HCQ+AZ and mortality: Ip reported an adjusted
HR of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.75, 1.28); Magagnoli reported an adjusted HR in a subset after propensity
score adjustment of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.77); Rosenberg 2020 reported an adjusted HR of 1.35
(95% CI: 0.79, 2.40) [37, 39, 41]. As stated in the HCQ section, one non-randomized study
reported a reduction in mortality among patients receiving HCQ+AZ (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.22,
0.40); however, it failed to adjust for the critical confounder of disease severity and imbalances
in steroid use [27]. As described in the HCQ section, similar methodologic concerns exist among
patients allocated to HCQ+AZ in the Arshad study, leading to several sources of bias in
interpreting their favorable results.
Harms
Hydroxychloroquine
One RCT reported that persons treated with HCQ experienced a longer time until
hospital discharge (median 16 days compared with 13 days) and lower probability of being
discharged alive within the 28-day study period (rate ratio: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.99) [29]. In
addition, persons treated with HCQ who were not on mechanical ventilation at baseline were
more likely to be placed on mechanical ventilation during follow up (rate ratio: 1.10; 95% CI:
0.92, 1.31; Low CoE) [29, 32]. Across the body of evidence from four RCTs, treatment with HCQ
may increase the risk of experiencing adverse events (RR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.49, 3.75; Low CoE)
and severe adverse events (adjusted odds ratio: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.84; Low CoE) [28, 30, 31,
Version 4.4.1
20
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
35]. One RCT and two non-randomized studies suggest increased risk of QT prolongation among
patients treated with HCQ compared to those not receiving HCQ (RR: 8.47; 95% CI: 1.14, 63.03;
Low CoE and RR: 2.89; 95% CI: 1.62, 5.16; Very low CoE, respectively) [28, 38, 39]. In addition,
Rosenberg 2020 reported 16% of patients in the HCQ arm experienced arrhythmias compared
with 10% in the non-HCQ arm (RR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.97, 2.50; Very low CoE).
While the 4-aminoquinolines, chloroquine and HCQ, have not been demonstrated to
cause hemolysis in people with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency [47, 48],
case reports of hemolysis have emerged when these agents have been used for the treatment
of COVID-19 [49-51]. It is possible that infection with SARS-CoV-2 may trigger hemolysis in
G6PD deficient individuals in the absence of a 4-aminoquinolone. Caution should be exercised
in administering these agents to G6PD deficient individuals with COVID-19, particularly if used
for extended durations.
Renal clearance accounts for 15-25% of total clearance of HCQ; however, dose
adjustments are not recommended with kidney dysfunction. Chloroquine and HCQ are
metabolized by cytochrome P450 isoenzymes 2C8, 2D6, and 3A4 [52]. Therefore, inhibitors and
inducers of these enzymes may result in altered pharmacokinetics of these agents.
Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin
One RCT suggests increased risk of QT prolongation among patients treated with
HCQ+AZ compared to those not receiving HCQ (RR: 8.50; 95% CI: 1.16, 62.31; Low CoE) [28].
Two studies described significant QT prolongation in 10 of 95 patients treated with HCQ+AZ,
illustrating the high risk for clinically relevant arrhythmias with this treatment [43, 45]. In
addition, several case reports of QT prolongation related to HCQ have also been published [53-
56]. A case-control study of persons with COVID-19 treated with HCQ+AZ compared to healthy,
untreated controls reported higher values of minimum (415 vs. 376 ms), mean (453 vs. 407 ms)
Version 4.4.1
21
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
and maximum QTc-interval (533 vs. 452 ms) among COVID-19 cases (n=22) compared to
controls (n=34) [42].
Additional case reports have cited the risk of a prolonged QT prolongation, torsades de
pointes, and ventricular tachycardia in patients without COVID-19 receiving AZ alone. In a large
cohort study, patients taking a five-day course of AZ had an increased risk of sudden cardiac
death with a HR of 2.71 (1.58-4.64) vs. 0.85 (0.45-1.60), compared to patients receiving either
no antibiotic or amoxicillin, respectively [57]. Given the cumulative effect on cardiac conduction
seen with HCQ and AZ, if this combination was used, baseline and follow-up electrocardiogram
(ECG) monitoring would be indicated, as well as careful surveillance for other concomitant
medications known to prolong the QT interval.
Azithromycin has a low risk for cytochrome P450 interactions [58]; however, additional
pharmacologic adverse events including gastrointestinal effects and QT prolongation need to
be carefully considered, particularly in the outpatient setting where frequent ECG monitoring is
not feasible.
Other considerations
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence against treatment with HCQ was
moderate due to concerns with imprecision around the risk for a trend towards harms from
increased mortality. When considering the addition of AZ, the overall certainty of the evidence
was low; however, the panel recognized even greater concern with the toxicity. In addition,
based on the moderate certainty of increased QT prolongation, the panel determined that this
demonstrated certain harm with uncertain benefit; therefore, the panel made a strong
recommendation against HCQ+AZ.
Version 4.4.1
22
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
The guideline panel recommends against the use of either HCQ alone or in combination
with AZ in the hospital setting as higher certainty benefits (e.g., mortality reduction) are now
highly unlikely even if additional high quality RCTs would become available.
This recommendation does not address the use of azithromycin for secondary bacterial
pneumonia in patients with COVID-19 (Table s2).
Version 4.4.1
23
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Clinical status (assessed with: 7-point scale; higher signifies worsening severity)
12 randomized serious not serious not serious serious e none 159 173 - median 1.21 CRITICAL
trials d higher
⨁⨁◯◯
(0.69 higher LOW
to 2.11
higher)
Arrhythmias
16 observational very not serious not serious very serious none 44/271 (16.2%) 23/221 RR 1.56 58 more per CRITICAL
studies serious e,h (10.4%) (0.97 to 1,000
⨁◯◯◯
g 2.50) (from 3 fewer VERY LOW
to 156 more)
4 2,7,8,9 randomized serious i not serious not serious serious e none 94/315 (29.8%) j 18/176 RR 2.36 139 more IMPORTANT
trials (10.2%) k (1.49 to per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
3.75) (from 50 LOW
more to 281
more)
Severe AEs (assessed with: untoward medical event leading to death, a life-threatening experience, prolongation of hospitalization, or persistent or significant disability or incapacity)
14 randomized not not serious not serious very serious e none 14/242 (5.8%) 11/237 OR 1.26 11 more per CRITICAL
trials serious (4.6%) (0.56 to 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
2.84) l (from 20 LOW
fewer to 75
more)
QT prolongation (RCTs)
12 randomized not not serious not serious very serious h none 13/89 (14.6%) 1/58 RR 8.47 129 more IMPORTANT
trials serious (1.7%) (1.14 to per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
63.03) (from 2 more LOW
to 1,000
more)
QT prolongation (NRS)
2 6,10 observational very not serious not serious serious h none 46/355 (13.0%) 13/311 RR 2.89 79 more per IMPORTANT
studies serious (4.2%) (1.62 to 1,000
⨁◯◯◯
g,m 5.16) (from 26 VERY LOW
more to 174
more)
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Risk of bias: Study limitations
Inconsistency: Unexplained heterogeneity across study findings
Indirectness: Applicability or generalizability to the research question
Imprecision: The confidence in the estimate of an effect to support a particular decision
Publication bias: Selective publication of studies
Version 4.4.1
25
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
26
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
11 randomized not not serious not serious b very serious c,d none 5/172 (2.9%) 6/173 (3.5%) HR 0.64 12 fewer CRITICAL
trials serious (0.18 to per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
a 2.21) (from 28 LOW
fewer to 40
more)
Mortality (NRS)
3 2,3,4 observational very not serious not serious serious d none Three non-randomized studies failed to identify an association between CRITICAL
studies serious persons treated with HCQ + AZ and mortality: Ip reported an adjusted
⨁◯◯◯
e HR of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.75, 1.28); Magagnoli reported an adjusted HR in a VERY LOW
subset after propensity score adjustment of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.77);
Rosenberg 2020 reported an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.35 (95% CI:
0.79, 2.40)(Ip, Magagnoli 2020, Rosenberg 2020).
Clinical status (assessed with: 7-point scale, higher values represent worse clinical outcomes)
11 randomized serious not serious not serious b serious d,g none 172 173 - MD 0.99 CRITICAL
trials f higher
⨁⨁◯◯
(0.57 LOW
higher to
1.73
higher)
Version 4.4.1
27
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Virologic Failure (follow up: range 5 days to 6 days; assessed with: PCR Test)
2 5,6,7 observational very serious i serious j serious c none 29/71 (40.8%) k 12/12 (100.0%) l not IMPORTANT
studies serious estimable
⨁◯◯◯
h VERY LOW
QT prolongation (RCTs)
11 randomized not not serious serious m,n serious c none 17/116 (14.7%) 1/58 (1.7%) RR 8.50 129 more IMPORTANT
trials serious (1.16 to per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
62.31) (from 3 LOW
more to
1,000
more)
QT prolongation (NRS)
2 7,8 observational very not serious serious n serious c none 10/95 (10.5%) n - - - IMPORTANT
studies serious
⨁◯◯◯
h VERY LOW
11 randomized serious not serious not serious o serious c,d none 5/239 (2.1%) 0/50 (0.0%) RR 2.34 0 fewer CRITICAL
trials f (0.13 to per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
41.61) (from 0 LOW
fewer to 0
fewer)
Version 4.4.1
28
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
29
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Lopinavir/Ritonavir
Recommendation 3: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel
recommends against the use of the combination lopinavir/ritonavir. (Strong recommendation,
Moderate certainty of evidence)
Lopinavir/ritonavir is a protease inhibitor that was U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-
approved for the treatment of HIV in September 2000. Ritonavir is added to the combination as a
pharmacokinetic enhancer due to its strong inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4, a metabolic pathway
for lopinavir metabolism. Lopinavir/ritonavir demonstrated in vitro inhibition of SARS CoV-1 and MERS-
CoV replication [59-61]. A trial of lopinavir/ritonavir and ribavirin vs historical controls in SARS CoV-1
patients, showed a reduced rate of ARDS and mortality in those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir. This study
had limitations including a control group from early in the outbreak when management strategies
likely differed significantly [62]. During the MERS outbreak, case reports cited efficacy of
lopinavir/ritonavir with interferon in the management of MERS patients [63, 64]. During the early
phase of COVID-19, triple combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin
shortened the duration of viral shedding and hospital stay in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19
in an open-label, randomized, phase II trial [65].
Version 4.4.1
30
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Benefits
Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir failed to show
or exclude a beneficial effect on mortality or need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00; 95%
CI: 0.89, 1.13; moderate CoE and RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.34; low CoE). Similarly, lopinavir/ritonavir
may reduce failure of clinical improvement at 14 days, but it is uncertain (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.97;
very low CoE).
Harms
RECOVERY reported 1/1588 serious adverse event due to treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir
[67]; however, nearly 14% of lopinavir/ritonavir recipients in Cao 2020 were unable to complete the
full 14-day course of administration. This was due primarily to gastrointestinal adverse events,
including anorexia, nausea, abdominal discomfort, or diarrhea, as well as two serious adverse events,
both acute gastritis. Two recipients had self-limited skin eruptions. Such side effects, including the risks
of hepatic injury, pancreatitis, more severe cutaneous eruptions, and QT prolongation, and the
potential for multiple drug interactions due to CYP3A inhibition, are well documented with this drug
combination. The side-effect profile observed in these trials raise concerns about the use of higher or
more prolonged lopinavir–ritonavir dose regimens in efforts to improve outcomes.
Other considerations
The panel determined the certainty of evidence to be moderate due to concerns with
imprecision. The guideline panel made a strong recommendation against treatment with the
combination of lopinavir/ritonavir for hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Version 4.4.1
31
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
32
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Risk of bias: Study limitations
Inconsistency: Unexplained heterogeneity across study findings
Indirectness: Applicability or generalizability to the research question
Imprecision: The confidence in the estimate of an effect to support a particular decision
Publication bias: Selective publication of studies
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio
Explanations
a. Unblinded studies which can affect outcomes that require judgment, such a how investigators judge clinical improvement or decide to stop the treatment in patients with side
effects.
b. 95% CI may not include a meaningful difference.
c. Modified intention to treat data from Cao 2020 used for this outcome; some deaths were excluded when drug was not given.
d. One patient randomized to the lopinavir-ritonavir arm in Cao 2020 was mechanically ventilated at baseline.
e. Small number of events making estimates highly uncertain
f. The upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval crosses the threshold of meaningful improvement as the worst case estimate is a 3% RRR.
References
1. Cao B, Wang Y, Wen D, et al. A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020.
2. WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Pan H, Peto R, et al. Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 — Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 497-511.
3. RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Horby PW, Mafham M, et al. Lopinavir–ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled,
open-label, platform trial. The Lancet 2020; 396(10259): 1345-52.
Version 4.4.1
33
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Glucocorticoids
Recommendation 4: Among hospitalized critically ill patients* with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline
panel recommends dexamethasone rather than no dexamethasone. (Strong recommendation,
Moderate certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 5: Among hospitalized patients with severe**, but non-critical, COVID-19 the IDSA
guideline panel suggests dexamethasone rather than no dexamethasone. (Conditional
recommendation, Moderate certainty of evidence)
Severity definitions:
Version 4.4.1
34
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
*Critical illness is defined as patients on mechanical ventilation and ECMO. Critical illness
includes end organ dysfunction as is seen in sepsis/septic shock. In COVID-19, the most
commonly reported form of end organ dysfunction is ARDS
**Severe illness is defined as patients with SpO2 ≤94% on room air, including patients on
supplemental oxygen.
***Non-severe illness is defined as patient with a SpO2 > 94% not requiring supplemental oxygen.
The last literature search was conducted on September 4, 2020 and we identified eight RCTs and
seven comparative non-randomized studies.
In the early days of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, based on experience in both SARS and MERS,
recommendations [68] cautioned against the use of systemic corticosteroids due to risk of worsening
clinical status, delayed viral clearance, and adverse events [69-71]. Given the hyper-inflammatory state
in COVID-19, immunomodulatory approaches, including steroids, continue to be evaluated to address
both ARDS and systemic inflammation. ARDS stemming from dysregulated systemic inflammation may
translate into prolonged ventilatory requirements and in-hospital mortality. In non-viral ARDS settings
there is increasing support for the role of steroids in the management of ARD [72]. A recent
multicenter RCT in patients with moderate to severe ARDS demonstrated a reduced number of
ventilatory days and reduction in mortality with use of a 10-day regimen of dexamethasone [73].
Critical illness
Our search identified one systematic review that analyzed eight RCTs reporting on treatment
with glucocorticoids among 1,844 critically ill patients with COVID-19 [74]. Three RCTs reported on
patients treated with low- and high-dose dexamethasone [73, 75, 76]; three RCTs reported on patients
treated with low-dose hydrocortisone [77-79]; and two RCTs reported on patients treated with high-
Version 4.4.1
35
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
dose methylprednisolone [74, 80]. The definition of critically ill varied across trials; however, the
majority of patients had ARDS.
Our search identified one RCT, one “partially” randomized trial, one prospective cohort, and
five retrospective cohort studies [75, 81-87]. The RCT provided the best available evidence on
treatment with corticosteroids for persons with COVID-19 [75] (Tables 4-6). Corral-Gudino et al.
reported on a study that randomized patients to receive methylprednisolone or standard of care;
however, patients expressing a preference for methylprednisolone were assigned to the same
treatment arm [81]. Corral-Gudino et al. did not report the disaggregated results from the randomized
trial; therefore, succumbing to the same potential for bias as reported subsequently for the non-
randomized studies. The non-randomized studies had significant limitations with controlling for
multiple co-interventions and disease severity at baseline [82-87]. All non-randomized studies had
concerns with risk of bias due to lack of adjustment for critical confounders or potential for residual
confounding. Timing of receipt, dose and duration of corticosteroids varied across studies.
The RECOVERY trial is a randomized trial among hospitalized patients in the United Kingdom
[75]. In that study, 2,104 participants were randomized to receive dexamethasone (6 mg daily for up to
10 days) and 4,321 were randomized to usual care. The RECOVERY trial reported on the outcomes of
mortality and hospital discharge. Participants and study staff were not blinded to the treatment arms.
Benefits
Critical illness
Among hospitalized, critically ill patients, the odds of mortality at 28 days was 34% less among
patients treated with glucocorticoids than among patients not treated with glucocorticoids (OR: 0.66;
95% CI: 0.54; 0.82; High CoE). In addition, at 28 days, patients receiving dexamethasone were more
likely to be discharged from the hospital (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.19; Moderate CoE).
Severe illness
Among hospitalized patients, 28-day mortality was 17% lower in the group that received
dexamethasone than in the group that did not receive dexamethasone (RR 0.83; 0.74-0.92; Moderate
Version 4.4.1
36
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
CoE). In addition, at 28 days, patients receiving dexamethasone were more likely to be discharged from
the hospital (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.19; Moderate CoE).
Non-severe illness
In a sub-group analyses of patients without hypoxia not receiving supplemental oxygen, there
was no evidence for benefit and a trend toward harm with dexamethasone in participants who were
not on supplemental oxygen (RR 1.22; 0.86, 1.75; Low CoE).
Harms
A systematic review of six studies did not report a difference in the events of serious adverse
events experienced by patients randomized to receive treatment with glucocorticoids or no treatment
with glucocorticoids (64/354 among those receiving glucocorticoids vs. 80/342 among those not
receiving glucocorticoids).
Patients receiving a short course of steroids may experience hyperglycemia, neurological side
effects (e.g., agitation/confusion), adrenal suppression, and risk of bacterial and fungal infection [82,
88, 89].
Other considerations
Critical illness
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of the evidence for treatment with glucocorticoids
for patients with critical COVID-19 was moderate due to concerns with indirectness and imprecision.
Severe illness
The panel agreed the overall certainty of evidence for treatment with glucocorticoids for
patients with severe COVID-19 as moderate due to concerns with indirectness since the evidence was
from dexamethasone.
Non-severe illness
Version 4.4.1
37
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence for patients without hypoxemia
requiring supplemental oxygen as low due to concerns with risk of bias (post hoc analysis) and
imprecision.
The panel agreed the overall certainty of evidence for treatment with glucocorticoids for
patients with severe COVID-19 as moderate due to concerns with indirectness since the evidence was
from dexamethasone. The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence for patients without
hypoxemia requiring supplemental oxygen as low due to concerns with risk of bias (post hoc analysis)
and imprecision.
The guideline panel recommends dexamethasone for patients with critical COVID-19. The
guideline panel suggests dexamethasone for patients with severe COVID-19. If dexamethasone is not
available, then alternative glucocorticoids may be used (see details above). The guideline panel
suggests against glucocorticoids for patients with COVID-19 without hypoxemia requiring supplemental
oxygen.
Version 4.4.1
38
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
39
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Table 5. GRADE evidence profile, Recommendation 5
Question: Glucocorticoids compared to no glucocorticoids for hospitalized patients with severe but not critical COVID-19
Last reviewed and updated 9/25/2020
Certainty assessment № of patients Effect
Certainty Importance
№ of Study Risk of Other no Relative Absolute
Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision glucocorticoids
studies design bias considerations glucocorticoids (95% CI) (95% CI)
Mortality (follow up: 28 days)
11 randomized not not serious serious b not serious none 454/2104 (21.6%) 1065/4321 RR 0.83 42 fewer CRITICAL
trials serious a (24.6%) (0.74 to per 1,000
⨁⨁⨁◯
0.92) (from 64 MODERATE
fewer to
20 fewer)
Hospital discharge (follow up: 28 days)
11 randomized not not serious serious b not serious none 1360/2104 2639/4321 RR 1.11 67 more IMPORTANT
trials serious a (64.6%) (61.1%) (1.04 to per 1,000
⨁⨁⨁◯
1.19) (from 24 MODERATE
more to
116 more)
Adverse events
Patients receiving a short course of steroids may experience - CRITICAL
hyperglycemia, neurological side effects (e.g.,
agitation/confusion), adrenal suppression, and risk of infection
(Salton 2020; Henzen 2000; Siemieniuk 2015).
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Risk of bias: Study limitations
Inconsistency: Unexplained heterogeneity across study findings
Indirectness: Applicability or generalizability to the research question
Imprecision: The confidence in the estimate of an effect to support a particular decision
Publication bias: Selective publication of studies
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio
Explanations
a. Analysis adjusted for baseline age.
b. Indirectness due to different health care system (allocation of intensive care resources in an unblinded study). Indirectness to other corticosteroids.
Reference
1. RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Horby P, Lim WS, et al. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 693-704.
Version 4.4.1
40
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Table 6. GRADE evidence profile, Recommendation 6
Question: Glucocorticoids compared to no glucocorticoids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 not receiving supplemental oxygen
Last reviewed and updated 9/25/2020
Certainty assessment № of patients Effect
Certainty Importance
№ of Study Risk of Other no Relative Absolute
Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision glucocorticoids
studies design bias considerations glucocorticoids (95% CI) (95% CI)
Version 4.4.1
42
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Interleukin-6 Inhibitors
Remarks:
• Patients, particularly those who respond to steroids alone, who put a high value on
avoiding possible adverse events of tocilizumab and a low value on the uncertain
mortality reduction, would reasonably decline tocilizumab.
• In the largest trial on the treatment of tocilizumab, criterion for systemic inflammation
was defined as CRP ≥75 mg/L.
Severity definitions:
*Severe illness is defined as patients with SpO2 ≤94% on room air, including patients on
supplemental oxygen.
**Critical illness is defined as patients on mechanical ventilation and ECMO. Critical illness
includes end organ dysfunction as is seen in sepsis/septic shock. In COVID-19, the most
commonly reported form of end organ dysfunction is ARDS.
Version 4.4.1
43
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
early descriptions found that those with elevated IL-6 levels and evidence of hyperinflammation had
increased rates of more severe disease [90, 91]. Tocilizumab, a monoclonal anti-IL-6-receptor
blocking antibody, has been proposed as a therapeutic agent to mitigate hyperinflammation
associated with COVID-19. Tocilizumab is FDA-approved for various rheumatologic conditions as well
as cytokine release syndrome associated with CAR-T cell therapy.
Our search identified eight RCTs (including pre-prints) that reported on patients with severe
COVID-19 randomized to treatment with tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo/usual care [97-104].
Gordon 2020, Horby 2021, Rosas 2020, and Veiga 2021 allowed for patients to be on mechanical
ventilation at randomization, whereas the other trials included patients with a lower disease severity
(e.g., allowed supplemental oxygen but excluded those on higher levels of oxygen support) or
included patients with severe COVID with an inflammatory phenotype.
One trial, RECOVERY, contributed the majority of the weight in the analysis [99]. RECOVERY
trial participants must have demonstrated clinical evidence of progressive COVID-19, which was
defined as <92% oxygen saturation on room air or receiving oxygen and CRP ≥75 mg/L. Use of
steroids was balanced across both the participants receiving tocilizumab or not receiving
tocilizumab. Following recommendations for treatment with glucocorticoids, 82% of participants in
both arms received dexamethasone. While RECOVERY did not blind participants or healthcare
personnel to the treatment arm randomized to, this likely would not introduce bias in the objective
measurement of the outcome of mortality; however, was considered as a risk of bias consideration
for the more subjectively measured outcomes, clinical deterioration, along with the total body of
evidence contributing to those outcomes (Table 7). There is limited safety data in the preliminary
report.
Version 4.4.1
44
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Both RECOVERY and REMAP CAP (the two tocilizumab trials that reported a benefit) initiated
treatment early (randomization at median of two days of hospitalization in RECOVERY; <24 hours in
the ICU for REMAP-CAP), suggesting tocilizumab may be more beneficial in people with early rapidly
progressive disease.
Benefits
Harms
Serious adverse events among patients receiving tocilizumab did not differ from those not
receiving tocilizumab (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.07; low CoE). An additional trial attributed treatment
with tocilizumab to three serious adverse events; however, did not report events among patients not
receiving tocilizumab [99]. Previously, tocilizumab has been associated with gastrointestinal
perforations in non-COVID-19 settings, and case reports of bowel perforations have recently
emerged with the use of tocilizumab for COVID-19 [105-108]. Increased infection risks have been
noted in uncontrolled studies, and it is possible that this risk may be compounded by the
combination of glucocorticoids and tocilizumab. [109, 110].
Other considerations
While the overall certainty of evidence for the trend toward a reduction in mortality was
moderate, the panel believes that differences in mortality rates across the trials may be the result of
the differences in baseline severity of study participants and timing of tocilizumab receipt in the
Version 4.4.1
45
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
The use of tocilizumab, as with other therapeutic agents that can suppress the immune
system, presents additional considerations and potential concerns when used in
immunocompromised hosts. The panel did not conduct an analysis of available data to assess
differences in efficacy and/or adverse effects of tocilizumab among oncology or other
immunocompromised patients at this time.
The guideline panel suggests tocilizumab for hospitalized adults with COVID-19.
Version 4.4.1
46
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
47
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Explanations
a. Although some studies did not blind participants or investigators, this is unlikely to affect the mortality outcome.
b. 95% CI includes benefits as well as harms.
c. Some studies lacked blinding and due to the mechanism of tocilizumab (reduction in inflammatory marker), unblinding likely occurred in the blinded studies.
d. Definition of clinical deterioration varied, with all studies including need for ventilation and death, but other studies included need for ICU admission (2 studies) or PaO2/FiO2
ratio of less than 150 mmHg (1 study).
e. The 95% CI includes both potential for harm as well as benefit; Few events reported do not meet the optimal information size and suggest fragility in the estimate.
References
1. Gordon AC, Mouncey PR, Al-Beidh F, et al. Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19 – Preliminary report. medRxiv 2021: Available at:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.07.21249390v2.full [Preprint 9 January 2021].
2. Rosas I, Bräu N, Waters M, et al. Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. medRxiv 2020: Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.27.20183442
[Preprint 12 September 2020].
3. Hermine O, Mariette X, Tharaux PL, et al. Effect of Tocilizumab vs Usual Care in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Moderate or Severe Pneumonia: A Randomized
Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 181(1): 32-40.
4. Salama C, Han J, Yau L, et al. Tocilizumab in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 Pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2021; 384(1): 20-30.
5. Salvarani C, Dolci G, Massari M, et al. Effect of Tocilizumab vs Standard Care on Clinical Worsening in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized
Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 181(1): 24-31.
6. Stone JH, Frigault MJ, Serling-Boyd NJ, et al. Efficacy of Tocilizumab in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 2333-44.
7. Veiga VC, Prats J, Farias DLC, et al. Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled
trial. BMJ 2021; 372: n84.
8. Horby PW, Pessoa-Amorim G, Peto L, et al. Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): preliminary results of a randomised, controlled,
open-label, platform trial. medRxiv 2021: Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.11.21249258 [Preprint 11 February 2021].
Version 4.4.1
48
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Convalescent Plasma
Recommendation 8: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the IDSA guideline panel suggests
against COVID-19 convalescent plasma. (Conditional recommendation, Low certainty of evidence)
Convalescent plasma has been used as passive immunotherapy for prevention and treatment of
infections for over 100 years [111, 112]. The predominant proposed protective mechanism is thought
to be pathogen neutralization, although antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity and enhanced
phagocytosis may also play a role. With the advent of effective antimicrobial therapy (i.e., “the
antibiotic era”) convalescent plasma fell out of favor. In recent years, interest in this approach has
been revived as a means of addressing viral epidemics such as Ebola, SARS -1 and MERS. Studies of
convalescent plasma derived from people who had recovered from those specific infections showed
encouraging results, but were typically small, non-randomized, and largely descriptive [113-115]. In the
current pandemic, convalescent plasma obtained from individuals who recovered from COVID-19 has
been used in over 75,000 patients with moderate to severe infection as part of an expanded access
program [116]. When measurement of neutralizing antibody titers is available, the FDA recommends
neutralizing antibody titers of at least 1:160. Assays to measure neutralizing antibody titers were not
widely available early in the pandemic so it is unclear if the plasma used in the context of the expanded
access program had adequate titers of neutralizing antibodies meeting the FDA targets. Multiple
prospective clinical trials are in progress utilizing plasma with an IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA) titer cutoff of ≥1:320. Titers at that level are seen in about 80% of donors [117]. The
Version 4.4.1
49
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
probability of obtaining a neutralizing antibody titer of ≥1:160 is highest (80% or greater) when the
ELISA IgG titer is ≥1:1,350 [118]. In an analysis of the convalescent plasma expanded access program,
higher levels of antibodies were associated with significant improvements in mortality compared to
those receiving convalescent plasma with lower concentrations of neutralizing antibodies [116].
Regarding timing of treatment: Based on historical experience and emerging data, efficacy appears
best when convalescent plasma is given at earlier stages of the disease and particularly prior to when
patients become critically ill [119, 120]. The analysis of the convalescent plasma expanded access
program suggests the most benefit is seen when convalescent plasma is given in the first three days
from diagnosis [116]. In August 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for
investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients [121]. In
early February 2021, the FDA issued a revision to the EUA to limit the authorization to the use of high-
titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the treatment of hospitalized patients early in the disease
course [122].
Our search identified and was informed by evidence from eleven RCTs and a large (n=20,000),
single-arm registry study [111-115, 117-120, 123-125], as they provided the best available evidence for
the outcomes of mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events, and adverse
events. Ten of those RCTs reported on convalescent plasma transfusions for patients hospitalized with
COVID-19 (Table 8) [111-114, 117-120, 123, 124] and one RCT reported on receipt of convalescent
plasma by ambulatory persons with mild COVID-19 disease (Table 9) [115].
Ten trials randomized 13,026 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to receive a transfusion with
COVID-19 convalescent plasma [111-114, 117-120, 123, 124]. Several trials were open-label and/or had
concerns with risk of bias due to lack of adjustment for critical confounders or potential for residual
confounding (Table s12a). Timing of receipt of COVID-19 convalescent plasma during the clinical course
of the patients’ illness varied across studies (Table s11). One trial reported on 160 persons who
received high-titer convalescent plasma less than 72 hours after the onset of symptoms of COVID-19
(mean age: 77.2 years; standard deviation: ±8.6 years) [115]. In addition, Joyner 2020 reported on
Version 4.4.1
50
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
safety outcomes of over 20,000 patients enrolled in the same FDA Expanded Access Program for
COVID-19 convalescent plasma study.
Benefits
Hospitalized patients
Ambulatory persons
Receipt of COVID-19 convalescent plasma may reduce progression to severe respiratory disease
(RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.94; low CoE); however, the evidence is uncertain, as oxygenation and
respiration rates are surrogate measures of need for ventilation, morbidity, and death, and because of
the fragility of the estimate due to small number of events reported. Convalescent plasma transfusion
may reduce mortality and clinical deterioration based on the body of evidence from an RCT (RR: 0.50;
95% CI: 0.09, 2.65; low CoE and RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.24, 1.40; very low CoE, respectively); however, the
evidence is uncertain due to concerns with fragility of the estimate due to small number of events
reported and the wide confidence interval failing to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect.
Harms
In the largest safety study (n=20,000), within four hours of completion of convalescent plasma
transfusion authors reported 146 serious adverse events classified as transfusion reactions (<1% of all
transfusions) [125]. Of these, 63 deaths were reported (0.3%), 13 judged as possibly or probably
related to the transfusion. The non-mortality serious adverse events include 37 reports of transfusion-
associated circulatory overload, 20 cases of transfusion-related acute lung injury, and 26 cases of
severe allergic transfusion reactions.
Version 4.4.1
51
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Within seven days of transfusion, 1,711 deaths were reported (mortality rate: 8.56%; 95% CI:
8.18, 8.95). In addition, 1,136 serious adverse events were reported: 643 cardiac events (569 judged as
unrelated to the transfusion), 406 sustained hypotensive events requiring intravenous pressor support,
and 87 thromboembolic or thrombotic events (55 judged as unrelated to the transfusion).
Four trials among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 could not exclude an increase in mild-to-
severe adverse events among patients receiving convalescent plasma (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.62; low
CoE) [113, 114, 118, 120]; however, the evidence was uncertain due to concerns with lack of blinding.
In addition, included studies lacked a standard definition for what met the definition of an adverse
event. One trial conducted among ambulatory persons receiving early, high-titer convalescent plasma
did not report any serious adverse events [115].
Other considerations
Hospitalized patients
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence is low due to concerns with risk of bias
and imprecision. The guideline panel recognized the inability to exclude a meaningful beneficial or
detrimental effect of convalescent plasma transfusion on mortality from the existing large body of
evidence.
Ambulatory persons
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence is low due to concerns with risk of bias
and imprecision, which recognized the limited events and concerns with fragility. The guideline panel
recognized the uncertainty of potential benefit when high titer convalescent plasma is given early in
the course of COVID-19 disease.
The guideline panel suggests against COVID-19 convalescent plasma for persons hospitalized
with COVID-19. The guideline panel recommends COVID-19 convalescent plasma for ambulatory
persons only in the context of a clinical trial. Additional clinical trials are needed to determine whether
there is a benefit of treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma and at what dose (neutralizing
Version 4.4.1
52
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
antibody titers), especially for patients early in the disease course of COVID-19 (Table s2). Existing data
suggests that if a benefit exists, convalescent plasma is most useful when given early and with a high
titer of neutralizing antibodies; future trials should attempt to compare outcomes of convalescent
plasma given in this optimal setting to the standard of care. Additional research is needed to
determine if different treatment effects are reported based on the severity of disease, and timing in
the disease course. In addition, it is important to identify its efficacy in unique sub-populations like
patients with diseases or therapies that cause immunoglobulin deficiencies.
Version 4.4.1
53
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
no Certainty Importance
№ of Study Risk of Other convalescent Relative Absolute
Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision convalescent
studies design bias considerations plasma (95% CI) (95% CI)
plasma
Version 4.4.1
54
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
no Certainty Importance
№ of Study Risk of Other convalescent Relative Absolute
Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision convalescent
studies design bias considerations plasma (95% CI) (95% CI)
plasma
1 11 observational extremely not serious not serious not serious none SAEs from 20,000 transfused patients: Within 7 days of ⨁◯◯◯ CRITICAL
studies serious f transfusion, 1,711 deaths (8.56%) and 1,136 serious VERY LOW
adverse events (5.68%) were reported. Non-mortality
SAEs included: 643 cardiac events (569 judged as
unrelated to the transfusion); 406 sustained hypotensive
events requiring intravenous pressor support; and 87
thromboembolic or thrombotic events (55 judged as
unrelated to the transfusion).
Any adverse events (RCTs)
4 3,4,6,8 randomized serious d not serious not serious g serious h none 102/433 52/240 (21.7%) RR 1.02 4 more ⨁⨁◯◯ IMPORTANT
trials (23.6%) (0.64 to per 1,000 LOW
1.62) (from 78
fewer to
134 more)
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Risk of bias: Study limitations
Inconsistency: Unexplained heterogeneity across study findings
Indirectness: Applicability or generalizability to the research question
Imprecision: The confidence in the estimate of an effect to support a particular decision
Publication bias: Selective publication of studies
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; HR: Hazard Ratio; OR: Odds ratio
Explanations
a. Li 2020 time between symptom onset and randomization was over 14 days for >90% (median 30 days), no adjustment for co-interventions, allocation concealment methods
not reported and participants and healthcare professionals not blinded.
b. Many trials had concerns due to open-label trial, allocation concealment not reported, and no adjustments for co-interventions.
c. The 95% CI includes the potential for appreciable benefit; however, cannot exclude the potential for no effect.
d. Concerns include open-label trial design and assessment of outcome.
e. The 95% CI may not include a clinically meaningful reduction in need for mechanical ventilation.
f. No comparative effects available. Some subjectivity in classification of outcomes as transfusion related.
g. Lack standard definition for adverse events. Studies report on mild to severe events.
Version 4.4.1
55
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
h. The 95% CI includes the potential for both increased harms, as well as no increased harms. Few events suggests fragility of the estimate.
References
1. Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, et al. Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized
Clinical Trial. JAMA 2020; 324(5): 460-70.
2. Gharbharan A, Jordans CC, GeurtsvanKessel C, et al. Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19. A randomized clinical trial. medRxiv 2020: Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.01.20139857 [Preprint 3 July 2020].
3. AlQahtani M, Abdulrahman A, AlMadani A, et al. Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19
disease. medRxiv 2020: Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.02.20224303 [Preprint 4 November 2020].
4. Avendaño-Solà C, Ramos-Martinez A, Muñez-Rubio E, et al. Convalescent plasma for COVID-19: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. medRxiv 2020: Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.26.20182444 [Preprint 29 September 2020].
5. Ray Y, Paul SR, Bandopadhyay P, et al. Clinical and immunological benefits of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19: insights from a single center open label
randomised control trial. medRxiv 2020: Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.25.20237883 [Preprint 29 November 2020].
6. Simonovich VA, Burgos Pratx LD, Scibona P, et al. A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2021; 384(7): 619-29.
7. Agarwal A, Mukherjee A, Kumar G, et al. Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate covid-19 in adults in India: open label phase II multicentre randomised
controlled trial (PLACID Trial). BMJ 2020; 371: m4232.
8. O’Donnell MR, Grinsztejn B, Cummings MJ, et al. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of convalescent plasma in adults with severe COVID-19. medRxiv 2021:
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.12.21253373 [Preprint 13 March 2021].
9. Horby PW, Estcourt L, Peto L, et al. Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.
medRxiv 2021: Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.09.21252736 [Preprint 10 March 2021].
10. Balcells ME, Rojas L, Le Corre N, et al. Early versus deferred anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in patients admitted for COVID-19: A randomized phase II clinical trial.
PLoS Med 2021; 18(3): e1003415.
11. Joyner MJ, Bruno KA, Klassen SA, et al. Safety Update: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in 20,000 Hospitalized Patients. Mayo Clin Proc 2020; 95(9): 1888-97.
Version 4.4.1
56
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
early
Risk no early Certainty Importance
№ of Study Other convalescent Relative Absolute
of Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision convalescent
studies design considerations plasma with (95% CI) (95% CI)
bias plasma
high titers
11 randomized not not serious not serious very serious b none 2/80 (2.5%) 4/80 (5.0%) RR 0.50 25 fewer ⨁⨁◯◯ CRITICAL
trials serious (0.09 to per 1,000 LOW
a 2.65) (from 46
fewer to 83
more)
Progression to severe respiratory disease (follow up: 15 days; assessed with: defined as a respiratory rate of ≥ 30 breaths per minute, Sa02 < 93% on RA, or both)
11 randomized not not serious serious c serious d none 13/80 (16.3%) 25/80 (31.3%) RR 0.52 150 fewer ⨁⨁◯◯ CRITICAL
trials serious (0.29 to per 1,000 LOW
a 0.94) (from 222
fewer to 19
fewer)
Clinical deterioration (follow up: 25 days; assessed with: life-threatening respiratory disease, critical systemic illness, or death, alone or in combination)
11 randomized not not serious serious c very serious b none 7/80 (8.8%) 12/80 (15.0%) RR 0.58 63 fewer ⨁◯◯◯ CRITICAL
trials serious (0.24 to per 1,000 VERY LOW
a 1.40) (from 114
fewer to 60
more)
11 randomized not not serious not serious very serious d none 0/79 (0.0%) 0/80 (0.0%) not ⨁⨁◯◯ CRITICAL
trials serious estimable LOW
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Version 4.4.1
57
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
early
Risk no early Certainty Importance
№ of Study Other convalescent Relative Absolute
of Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision convalescent
studies design considerations plasma with (95% CI) (95% CI)
bias plasma
high titers
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Risk of bias: Study limitations
Inconsistency: Unexplained heterogeneity across study findings
Indirectness: Applicability or generalizability to the research question
Imprecision: The confidence in the estimate of an effect to support a particular decision
Publication bias: Selective publication of studies
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; HR: Hazard Ratio; OR: Odds ratio
Explanations
a. Trial was terminated early due to futility.
b. 95% CI includes both the potential for both appreciable benefit as well as the potential for harm; Few events reported do not meet the optimal information size and suggest
fragility of the estimate.
c. Oxygenation and respiration rates are surrogate measures of need for ventilation, morbidity and death.
d. Few events reported do not meet the optimal information size and suggest fragility of the estimate.
References
1. Libster R, Marc GP, Wappner D, et al. Prevention of severe COVID-19 in the elderly by early high-titer plasma. medRxiv 2020: Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.20.20234013 [Preprint 21 November 2020].
Version 4.4.1
58
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Remdesivir
Section last reviewed and updated 5/16/2021
Recommendation 10a: In hospitalized patients with severe* COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests
remdesivir over no antiviral treatment. (Conditional recommendation, Moderate certainty of
evidence)
Recommendation 10b: In patients with COVID-19 on invasive ventilation and/or ECMO, the IDSA
panel suggests against the routine initiation of remdesivir (Conditional recommendation, Very low
certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 12: In patients with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital without the need for
supplemental oxygen and oxygen saturation >94% on room air, the IDSA panel suggests against the
routine use of remdesivir. (Conditional recommendation, Very low certainty of evidence)
Remdesivir (GS-5734) is an antiviral drug with potent in vitro activity against a range of RNA
viruses including MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV 1 & 2 [126-128]. Remdesivir acts by causing premature
termination of viral RNA transcription [128]. Its use improved disease outcomes and reduced viral
loads in SARS-CoV-1 infected mice [127]. In rhesus macaques, therapeutic treatment with remdesivir
showed reduction in SARS-CoV-2 loads, pathologic changes, and progression of clinical disease [129]. In
Version 4.4.1
59
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
this same animal model, remdesivir treatment initiated 12 hours post-inoculation reduced clinical
signs, virus replication in the lungs, and decreased the presence and severity of lung lesions.
Three RCTs compared treatment with five days of remdesivir (200 mg day one, 100 mg daily
days 2-5), 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg day one, 100 mg daily days 2-10), or no remdesivir for
patients hospitalized with oxygen saturation >94% on room air [32, 130, 131] (Table 10a). The
outcomes assessed were mortality, clinical improvement, and serious adverse events. Adaptive Covid-
19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-1) and SOLIDARITY provided subgroup analyses among patients with mild-to-
moderate disease [32, 130]. Randomization and lack of blinding failed to control for or balance receipt
of co-interventions (e.g., treatment with dexamethasone, tocilizumab, hydroxychloroquine, and
lopinavir/ritonavir) equally across arms in Spinner et al (2020) [131]. In addition, the Spinner et al did
not adjust for severity of disease.
Three RCTs comparing treatment with remdesivir (200 mg day one, 100 mg daily days 2-10)
against no remdesivir treatment [32, 130, 132], and one RCT comparing five days of treatment (200 mg
day one, 100 mg daily days 2-5) against 10 days (200 mg day one, 100 mg daily days 2-10) of treatment
[133] served as the best available evidence among hospitalized persons with severe COVID-19 (Tables
10b, 11, and 12). The outcomes assessed were mortality, time to clinical improvement, need for
mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events, and adverse events leading to treatment
discontinuation.
All trials used different definitions of severe disease for participants. ACTT-1 participants were
considered to have severe disease if they required mechanical ventilation, supplemental oxygen, if
SpO2 was 94% or lower while breathing ambient air, or if they had tachypnea (respiratory rate >24
breaths per minute) [130]. Within the SOLIDARITY trial (available only as a pre-print at this time),
participants with severe disease were receiving mechanical ventilation [32]. In Wang 2020, severe
Version 4.4.1
60
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
participants had a SpO2 <94% while breathing room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to
fractional inspired O2 of <300 mm Hg and radiologically confirmed pneumonia.
Updated analyses include the final analysis from the ACTT-1 and the interim analysis of the
SOLIDARITY trial [32, 130]. SOLIDARITY reported mortality among persons remaining in hospital up to
the duration of the study; however, among patients discharged before the end of the study, mortality
may not have been collected completely. The study by Wang et al (2020) was stopped early due to lack
of recruitment into the trial due to decreased incidence in China.
Subgroups from SOLIDARITY and ACTT-1 reported on the outcomes of mortality, time to
recovery and serious adverse events among patients on invasive ventilation or ECMO [32, 130] (Table
10b). The duration of ventilation at time of treatment with remdesivir was not reported in ACTT-1. This
may introduce uncertainty when assessing outcomes of mortality or time to recovery.
In ACTT-1 [130], randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment.
Disease severity groups were mild-moderate COVID-19 (SpO2 > 94%) and severe COVID-19 (SpO2 ≤
94%). The severe COVID-19 stratum included patients who were hypoxemic with various degrees of
severity including those requiring low flow oxygen by nasal cannula, those needing high flow oxygen,
non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation and ECMO. In addition to analyses on
established strata, authors performed post hoc analyses for subgroups within the strata (e.g., receiving
oxygen, receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, or receiving mechanical
ventilation or ECMO), which may introduce concerns with risk of bias and imprecision when making
inferences on efficacy of remdesivir among these subgroups including mechanically ventilated patients.
Benefits
Version 4.4.1
61
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Treatment with a five- or ten-day course of remdesivir failed to show or to exclude a reduction
in mortality when compared with no remdesivir (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.34; Very low CoE). A five-day
course of remdesivir may increase clinical improvement over no remdesivir (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.00,
1.34; Very low CoE) but a 10-day course of remdesivir was not associated with improved clinical status
as compared with no remdesivir. Patients with mild-to-moderate disease receiving treatment with
remdesivir had similar median time to recovery (median 5 vs. 5 days; Rate ratio: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.82,
1.81; Very low CoE).
The pooled analysis failed to show a mortality benefit at 28 days (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.10;
Low CoE) [32, 130, 132]. Patients receiving treatment with remdesivir trend toward greater clinical
improvement at 28 days than patients not receiving remdesivir (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.41; Low CoE)
[132]. In addition, based on a post-hoc analysis of patients with severe COVID-19, receiving treatment
with remdesivir had a shorter median time to recovery (median 11 vs. 18 days; Rate ratio: 1.31; 95% CI:
1.12, 1.52; Low CoE) and decreased need for mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.79;
Moderate CoE) [130].
In the study by Goldman et al that compared five and ten days of treatment, the shorter course
of remdesivir showed a trend toward decreased mortality (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.12; Low CoE) and
increased clinical improvement at 14 days (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.40; Low CoE); however, the
evidence is uncertain because the persons in the 10-day group had more severe disease at baseline
and there is the possibility of residual confounding despite the adjusted analysis [133].
Treatment with remdesivir failed to show a reduction in mortality (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.53;
Low CoE). Similarly, remdesivir failed to show or exclude a reduction in time to recovery among
patients on invasive ventilation and/or ECMO (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.36; Very low CoE).
Harms
Version 4.4.1
62
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Patients treated with five days of remdesivir do not appear to experience greater serious
adverse events than those not receiving remdesivir (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.31; Very low CoE).
Patients treated with remdesivir do not appear to experience greater SAEs (grade 3/4) than
those not receiving remdesivir (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.28; Moderate CoE) [130, 132].
Patients receiving five days of remdesivir may experience fewer SAEs and AEs leading to
treatment discontinuation than patients receiving 10 days of remdesivir (RR: 0.61; 0.44, 0.85; Low CoE
and RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.95; Low CoE, respectively); however, this evidence is uncertain because of
the increased severity of disease among patients in the 10-day arm [133].
Patients on invasive ventilation and/or ECMO treated with remdesivir do not appear to
experience greater serious adverse events than those not receiving remdesivir (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.54,
1.16; Moderate CoE).
Other considerations
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of the evidence for treatment of patients with an
oxygen saturation >94% with remdesivir compared to no remdesivir was very low due to concerns with
study limitations and imprecision. Because of the study limitations and the relatively small effect of
remdesivir in patients with moderate COVID-19, the panel suggests remdesivir not be used routinely in
these patients. There is a need for more rigorous trials to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir
in patients with moderate COVID-19.
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of the evidence for treatment of persons with
severe disease with remdesivir compared to no remdesivir treatment was moderate due to concerns
Version 4.4.1
63
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
with imprecision. Given the inconsistent definition used in the evidence to describe baseline severity,
the panel recognized a knowledge gap when assessing whether greater benefit could be attained for
patients with oxygen saturation >94% and no supplemental oxygen; however, they agreed that the
reported data supported the prioritization of remdesivir among persons with severe but not critical
COVID-19.
The panel agreed on the overall certainty of the evidence for treatment with a five-day course
compared to a 10-day course of treatment as low due to concerns with risk of bias and imprecision.
The panel recognized the benefit of a shorter course of treatment, if providing similar or greater
efficacy, on the availability of remdesivir. However, in a subgroup analysis of mechanically ventilated
patients, the duration of treatment was 10 days in ACCT-1 trial; therefore, the panel recognized that a
longer course of treatment could be desirable in this population.
The panel agreed on the overall certainty of the evidence for treatment of patients on invasive
ventilation and/or ECMO with remdesivir as very low due to concerns with risk of bias and imprecision.
The panel recognized that the estimates of effect for mortality and time to recovery exclude almost
any benefit.
Pediatric use
There are no randomized controlled data assessing efficacy of remdesivir for treatment of
hospitalized pediatric patients with COVID-19. A report of 77 children who received remdesivir through
compassionate use early in the pandemic found good tolerability in this population with a low rate of
serious adverse events [134].
An ongoing study of remdesivir in children [135] is using 5 mg/kg on day one (maximum dose
200 mg) followed by 2.5 mg/kg daily in patients over 14 days of age, gestational age more than 37
weeks, and weight greater than or equal to 2.5 kg. The FDA EUA applies to patients weighing over 3.5
kg and applies to the lyophilized powder formulation only.
Version 4.4.1
64
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
The guideline panel suggests against remdesivir for routine treatment of patients with oxygen
saturation >94% and no supplemental oxygen; however, strongly urges continued study through
recruitment into RCTs.
The guideline panel suggests remdesivir rather than no remdesivir for treatment of severe
COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with SpO2 <94% on room air. However, the guideline panel suggests
against the routine initiation of remdesivir among patients on invasive ventilation and/or ECMO.
Additional clinical trials are needed to provide increased certainty about the potential for both benefit
and harms of treatment with remdesivir, as well as to understand the benefit of treatment based on
disease severity.
Prescribing information in the United States recommends against use of remdesivir in patients
with estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL per minute. This recommendation arises from
concern about accumulation of the excipient (betadex sulfobutyl ether sodium) in such patients with
potential for hepatic and renal toxicity due to that substance. Additional research into safety of
remdesivir in patients with reduced renal function is needed to ascertain whether this concern is
substantiated.
Immunocompromised patients who are unable to control viral replication may still benefit from
remdesivir despite SpO2 that exceeds 94% on room air or a requirement for mechanical ventilation.
Management of immunocompromised patients with uncontrolled viral replication is a knowledge gap
and additional research into such populations is needed.
Version 4.4.1
65
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
66
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
67
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
68
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
d. The 95% CI cannot exclude the potential for benefit or harm. Also, few events do not meet the optimal information size.
e. SAEs calculated from severe study groups in Beigel 2021 & Wang 2020, not invasive mechanical ventilation/ECMO subgroup.
References
1. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med 2020; 383(19): 1813-26.
2. WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Pan H, Peto R, et al. Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 — Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 497-511.
3. Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 2020; 395(10236):
1569-78.
Version 4.4.1
69
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
70
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
2 1,2 randomized not serious not serious not serious serious f none 44/632 53/545 RR 0.79 20 fewer CRITICAL
trials (7.0%) (8.9%) (0.54 to 1.16) per 1,000
⨁⨁⨁◯
(from 45 MODERATE
fewer to
16 more)
Hospitalization
11 randomized not serious not serious not serious very serious d none 158 78 - MD 1 IMPORTANT
trials a,b days
⨁⨁◯◯
higher LOW
(0.12
higher to
1.88
higher)
Duration of mechanical ventilation
11 randomized not serious not serious not serious serious d none 158 78 - MD 8.5 IMPORTANT
trials a,b days
⨁⨁⨁◯
lower MODERATE
(9.14
lower to
7.86
lower)
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Risk of bias: Study limitations
Inconsistency: Unexplained heterogeneity across study findings
Indirectness: Applicability or generalizability to the research question
Imprecision: The confidence in the estimate of an effect to support a particular decision
Publication bias: Selective publication of studies
CI: Confidence interval; HR: Hazard Ratio; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; MD: Mean difference
Explanations
a. Co-interventions received in Wang 2020 include: interferon alpha-2b, lopinavir/ritonavir, vasopressors, antibiotics, corticosteroid therapy and were balanced between arms.
Version 4.4.1
71
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
b. Wang 2020 stopped early due to lack of recruitment. Trial initiated after reduction in new patient presentation (most patients enrolled later in the disease).
c. Post-hoc analysis of patients with severe disease from Pan 2020 and Beigel 2020 may introduce bias.
d. The 95% CI may not include a clinically meaningful effect.
e. Few events do not meet the optimal information size and suggest fragility in the estimate.
f. The 95% CI cannot exclude the potential for benefit or harm. Also, few events do not meet the optimal information size.
References
1. Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 2020; 395(10236):
1569-78.
2. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med 2020; 383(19): 1813-26.
3. WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Pan H, Peto R, et al. Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 — Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 497-511.
Version 4.4.1
72
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Mortality
11 randomized serious b not serious not serious serious a none 16/200 21/197 HR 0.75 27 fewer CRITICAL
trials (8.0%) (10.7%) (0.40 to 1.39) per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
(from 64 LOW
fewer to
42 more)
Clinical improvement at 14 days
11 randomized serious b not serious not serious serious c none 129/200 107/197 RR 1.19 103 more CRITICAL
trials (64.5%) (54.3%) (1.01 to 1.40) per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
(from 5 LOW
more to
217 more)
SAEs
11 randomized serious b not serious not serious serious c none 42/200 68/197 RR 0.61 135 fewer CRITICAL
trials (21.0%) (34.5%) (0.44 to 0.85) per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
(from 193 LOW
fewer to
52 fewer)
AEs leading to treatment discontinuation
11 randomized serious b,d not serious not serious serious c none 9/200 (4.5%) 20/197 RR 0.44 57 fewer CRITICAL
trials (10.2%) (0.21 to 0.95) per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
(from 80 LOW
fewer to 5
fewer)
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Version 4.4.1
73
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
74
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Famotidine
Recommendation 13: Among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests
against famotidine use for the sole purpose of treating COVID-19 outside of the context of a clinical
trial. (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence)
The last literature search was conducted on June 18, 2020 and we identified one non-
randomized study in OVID. There were no new non-indexed RCTs available.
Anecdotal reports from China suggest that patients infected with coronavirus who were
receiving famotidine, a H2 receptor antagonist to treat conditions such as acid reflux and peptic ulcer
disease, had improved survival vs. those receiving proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) [136]. This post hoc
finding summarized below has led to interest in the drug, though no predominant theory describing a
mechanism for its efficacy yet exists. One theory is that famotidine, like many other compounds, binds
and therefore inhibits the coronavirus main protease, 3C-like main protease (3CLpro) [137].
Our search identified one cohort study that compared 84 patients treated with famotidine
against 1,536 patients not receiving treatment with famotidine [138] (Table 13). Fifteen percent of
patients in the famotidine group (13/84) started famotidine at home before presenting to the hospital.
In addition, a subset of 420 patients not treated with famotidine were matched on baseline
characteristics to the treated patients.
Benefits
Famotidine may decrease the composite outcome of death or intubation (HR: 0.42; 95% CI:
0.21, 0.85; Very low CoE); however, the evidence is very uncertain (Table 13).
Version 4.4.1
75
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Harms
Famotidine is well tolerated. Common adverse events include diarrhea or constipation but
occur in less than 5% of people. Severe adverse events occur in less than 1% of persons taking
famotidine.
Other considerations
The panel determined that the certainty of evidence to be very low due to concerns with risk of
bias, imprecision, and possible publication bias. The panel agreed that critically ill patients (i.e.,
mechanically ventilated) may have been more likely to receive PPIs than famotidine, thus potentially
allocating more prognostically favorable patients to the famotidine group; however, the study did not
report a protective effect associated with the use of PPIs.
The guideline panel suggests against famotidine for the sole purpose of treating COVID-19,
unless in the context of a clinical trial. Additional clinical trials are needed to inform research for
treatment with famotidine for patients with COVID-19 (Table s2).
Version 4.4.1
76
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
77
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
c. Concerns about selective reporting due to unavailability of disaggregated data for outcomes of mortality or intubation, missing supplemental files, and raw data for primary
outcome from propensity-matched control group.
Reference
1. Freedberg DE, Conigliaro J, Wang TC, et al. Famotidine use is associated with improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A propensity score matched
retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterology 2020; 159(3): 1129-31.
Version 4.4.1
78
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Neutralizing Antibodies
Section last reviewed and updated 6/16/2021
Recommendation 14: Among ambulatory patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high
risk for progression to severe disease, the IDSA guideline panel suggests
bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab rather than no
neutralizing antibody treatment. (Conditional recommendation, Moderate certainty of
evidence)
Remarks:
• Patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 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, casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab.
• Local variant susceptibility should be considered in the choice of the most
appropriate neutralizing antibody therapy.
• There are limited data on efficacy of bamlanivimab/etesevimab,
casirivimab/imdevimab, or sotrovimab in high-risk patients under 18 years of age.
Recommendation 15: Among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the IDSA guideline
panel recommends against bamlanivimab monotherapy. (Strong recommendation, Moderate
certainty of evidence)
Version 4.4.1
79
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
The following medical conditions or other factors may place adults and pediatric patients
(age 12-17 years and weighing at least 40 kg) at higher risk for progression to severe COVID-
19:
• Older age (for example ≥65 years of age)
• Obesity or being overweight (for example, adults with BMI >25 kg/m2, or if age 12-17,
have BMI ≥85th percentile for their age and gender based on CDC growth charts
• Pregnancy
• Chronic kidney disease
• Diabetes
• Immunosuppressive disease or immunosuppressive treatment
• Cardiovascular disease (including congenital heart disease) or hypertension
• Chronic lung diseases (for example, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma
[moderate-to-severe], interstitial lung disease, cystic fibrosis and pulmonary
hypertension)
• Sickle cell disease
• Neurodevelopmental disorders (for example, cerebral palsy) or other conditions that
confer medical complexity (for example, genetic or metabolic syndromes and severe
congenital anomalies)
• Having a medical-related technological dependence (for example, tracheostomy,
gastrostomy, or positive pressure ventilation [not related to COVID-19])
a. These criteria refer to Recommendation 14
References
1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers: Emergency Use Authorization
(EUA) of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/145808/download.
Accessed 13 June 2021.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers: Emergency Use Authorization
(EUA) of Casirivimab and Imdevimab. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/143894/download.
Accessed 13 June 2021.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers: Emergency Use Authorization
(EUA) of Sotrovimab. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/149535/download. Accessed 13 June
2021.
Version 4.4.1
80
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Antibody treatments have been and continue to be evaluated in both hospitalized and
ambulatory patients. For outpatients, logistical challenges exist since the infrastructure for
administration of intravenous (IV) infusions does not exist in most ambulatory care settings.
There may also be concerns about spread of contagion when administering IV infusions in
clinics. However, these challenges are being addressed in a number of outpatient infusion
centers and availability of subcutaneous, or intramuscular administration options. Intravenous
infusion is recommended. Subcutaneous injection is an alternative route of administration
when IV infusion is not feasible and would lead to delay in treatment.
As of early June 2021, the FDA has released four emergency use authorizations for
neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies. On November 9, 2020, the FDA released an
emergency use authorization for bamlanivimab (revoked on April 16, 2021) [141, 142], on
November 21, 2020 for the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab [143], on February 9,
2021 for bamlanivimab and etesevimab, and on May 26, 2021 for sotrovimab [144].
Our search identified six publications of five RCTs reporting on treatment with
neutralizing antibodies (bamlanivimab or combination of casirivimab/imdevimab,
bamlanivimab/etesevimab, or sotrovimab) for patients with COVID-19 [145-148] (Tables 14-17).
Version 4.4.1
81
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
One phase III RCT assessed a single infusion of either 1200 mg or 2400 mg of
casirivimab/imdevimab in non-hospitalized participants with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 [147].
In the original phase of this trial, participants without risk factors for severe disease were
included; however, 1,040 participants were removed after randomization and not analyzed as
they had no risk factors for severe disease. In the amended phase of this investigation all
participants were considered at high risk for severe disease. Another phase III RCT also reported
on non-hospitalized participants with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who were at risk for severe
disease [148]. Participants in this study received a single infusion of sotrovimab 500 mg. Unlike
previous studies, this study did exclude participants with immunocompromising conditions.
Benefits
Bamlanivimab/etesevimab
Version 4.4.1
82
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
demonstrated a lower relative risk of COVID-19 related hospitalizations (defined as ≥24 hours
of acute care) through day 29 compared to no bamlanivimab/etesevimab (RR: 0.30; 95% CI:
0.16, 0.59; low CoE). Ambulatory persons who received bamlanivimab/etesevimab had a lower
relative risk of persistently high viral load at day seven compared to no
bamlanivimab/etesevimab (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25-0.46; low CoE).
Casirivimab/imdevimab
Concerns were raised by the panel whether bias could have been introduced by
excluding 1,040 persons post-randomization (2400 mg dose group) due to lack of risk factors
for severe disease. Therefore, the panel used the amended phase (1200 mg dose) full data set
to inform the effect estimates as no exclusions were reported. Sensitivity analyses were carried
out to test the robustness of this approach by either adding the 2400 mg to the 1200 mg dose
data set or by formally pooling both effect estimates using fixed effects model; these sensitivity
analyses resulted in little to no relevant differences in the findings. In addition, the amended
phase lower dose (1200 mg) results also served as confirmation that the latest EUA
recommended dosing appears to be equally effective as the previously authorized higher dose.
Among ambulatory persons with at least one risk factor for severe disease, there was no
difference in 29-day mortality in persons treated with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to no
casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.06, 16.20; low CoE). However, there was a
lower relative risk of hospitalization in persons treated with casirivimab/imdevimab 1200 mg
(RR:0.27; CI: 0.11, 0.65; moderate CoE).
Sotrovimab
Among ambulatory persons with at least one risk factor for severe disease, sotrovimab
demonstrated a lower relative risk of mortality compared to no sotrovimab (RR: 0.33; 95% CI:
0.01-8.19, low CoE). The low certainty of evidence was due to imprecision as there were no
mortality events in those who received sotrovimab and one death in the placebo arm. Among
ambulatory persons, sotrovimab use was associated with a lower relative risk of hospitalization,
compared to no sotrovimab (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.48; moderate CoE). Persons receiving
Version 4.4.1
83
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Bamlanivimab monotherapy
[Note: on April 16, 2021, FDA revoked EUA for monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab]
[142] Among ambulatory persons, bamlanivimab demonstrated a lower relative risk of
hospitalization, including visits to the emergency room, compared to no bamlanivimab (RR:
0.26; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.75; very low CoE). The very low certainty of evidence was due to
indirectness, as the treatment may not have been provided to enough persons at risk of
developing severe disease to be representative of the general population, and imprecision, due
to few events recorded. Bamlanivimab may increase viral clearance at three days (mean
difference: -0.49; 95% CI: -0.87, -0.11; low CoE); however, there may not be a meaningful
difference at 11 days as measured by change from baseline SARS-CoV-2 viral load (mean
difference: -0.22; 0.95: -0.60, 0.15; low CoE).
Harms
Bamlanivimab/etesevimab
Casirivimab/imdevimab
Version 4.4.1
84
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Sotrovimab
Persons who received sotrovimab were less likely to experience serious adverse events
compared to those receiving placebo (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.12-0.63; moderate CoE).
Bamlanivimab monotherapy
Similarly, serious adverse events at five and 28 days among patients hospitalized for
COVID-19 receiving bamlanivimab may not be meaningfully different from those receiving
placebo (RR: 1.85; 95% CI: 0.34, 9.97; moderate CoE and RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.27, 3.14; moderate
CoE, respectively). Similarly, infusion-related adverse events may not be meaningfully different
between patients hospitalized for COVID-19 receiving bamlanivimab or placebo (OR: 1.64, 95%
CI: 0.79, 3.44; moderate CoE).
Other considerations
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence for the treatment with
bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab in ambulatory persons with
COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe disease (at least one risk factor) was moderate
due to mostly low number of events (fragility of results). The results were driven by the number
of avoided hospitalizations, as the number of deaths that occurred were too sparse to show a
Version 4.4.1
85
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
clear trend. Neutralizing antibodies were well tolerated, and SAEs were comparable or lower
than placebo.
Bamlanivimab monotherapy
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence for treatment with
bamlanivimab for ambulatory persons with COVID-19 is very low due to concerns with
indirectness and imprecision.
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence for treatment with
bamlanivimab for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is moderate due to concerns with fragility
in the estimate from the small number of events reported. The guideline panel made a strong
recommendation against treatment with bamlanivimab for patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
The panel was moderately certain that any relevant benefit (reduction in mortality or clinical
improvement) could be excluded.
The emergence and circulation of new SARS-CoV-2 genetic variants has been reported
from the United States and other counties. The B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta), P.1 (gamma),
B.1.427/B.1.429 (epsilon) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants circulating in the United States are
classified as variants of concern as they may have potential clinical and public health
implications. The B.1.525 (eta), B.1.526 (iota), B.1.526.1, B.1.617, B.1.617.1 (kappa),
B.1.617.3 and P.2 (zeta) variants are classified as variants of interest [150]. In vitro
neutralizing assays using SARS-CoV-2 or vesicular stomatitis virus-based pseudovirus showed
that some of the variants had reduced susceptibility to the currently available neutralizing
antibodies under the EUA, either individually or in combination. There is limited data from
clinical studies.
Version 4.4.1
86
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
etesevimab together of >45-fold, and pseudovirus expressing K417T + E484K + N501Y found
in the P.1 lineage (gamma) had reduced susceptibility to bamlanivimab and etesevimab
together of >511-fold. Pseudovirus expressing spike protein from the B.1.427/B.1.429
lineages (epsilon), or the L452R substitution found in this lineage, had reduced susceptibility
to bamlanivimab and etesevimab together of 7.7-fold or 7.4-fold, respectively [151].
Casirivimab and imdevimab individually and together had neutralization activity against
pseudovirus expressing all spike protein substitutions found in the B.1.1.7 lineage (alpha) and
against pseudovirus expressing only N501Y found in B.1.1.7 (alpha) and other circulating
lineages. Casirivimab and imdevimab together had neutralization activity against pseudovirus
expressing all spike protein substitutions, or individual substitutions K417N, E484K or N501Y,
found in the B.1.1351 lineage (beta), and against K417T+E484K, found in the P.1 lineage
(gamma), although casirivimab alone, but not imdevimab, had reduced activity against
pseudovirus expressing K417N or E484K, as indicated above. The E484K substitution is also
found in the B.1.526 (iota) lineage. Casirivimab and imdevimab, individually and together,
retained neutralization activity against the L452R substitution found in the B.1.427/B.1.429
lineages (epsilon) [152].
Version 4.4.1
87
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
The guideline panel recommends against use of bamlanivimab for patients hospitalized
for COVID-19 (Table 18).
The guideline panel recognized the need for continued research and accrual of evidence,
particularly trials on patient important outcomes (hospitalizations progressing to need for
ventilation, or death), existing and new neutralizing antibodies, and neutralizing antibodies for
prophylaxis (Table s2).
Version 4.4.1
88
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Hospitalization (>24 hours of acute care) with COVID-19 (follow up: 29 days)
11 randomized not not serious not serious a,e serious b none 11/518 (2.1%) 36/517 (7.0%) RR 0.30 49 fewer per ⨁⨁⨁◯ CRITICAL
trials serious (0.16 to 0.59) 1,000 MODERATE
(from 58 fewer
to 29 fewer)
Persistently high viral load (PHVL) at day 7 (follow up: 7 days; assessed with: RT-PCR)
11 randomized not not serious serious a,f serious b none 50/508 (9.8%) 145/499 (29.1%) RR 0.34 192 fewer per ⨁⨁◯◯ IMPORTANT
trials serious (0.25 to 0.46) 1,000 LOW
(from 218 fewer
to 157 fewer)
Version 4.4.1
89
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
90
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
no Certainty Importance
№ of Study Risk of Other casirivimab/ Relative Absolute
Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision casirivimab/
studies design bias considerations imdevimab (95% CI) (95% CI)
imdevimab
All-cause mortality (1,200 mg) (follow up: 29 days)
11 randomized not serious not serious not serious very serious none 1/736 (0.1%) 1/748 (0.1%) RR 1.02 0 fewer per ⨁⨁◯◯ CRITICAL
trials a b,c (0.06 to 1,000 LOW
16.20) (from 4 fewer
to 4 more) d
COVID-19 related hospitalizations (1,200 mg) (follow up: 29 days)
11 randomized not serious not serious not serious e serious b none 6/736 (0.8%) 23/748 (3.1%) RR 0.27 22 fewer per ⨁⨁⨁◯ CRITICAL
trials a (0.11 to 1,000 MODERATE
0.65) (from 27 fewer
to 11 fewer)
Serious adverse events (all doses) (follow up: 29 days)
11 randomized not serious not serious not serious serious b none 50/3688 74/1843 RR 0.34 27 fewer per ⨁⨁⨁◯ CRITICAL
trials a (1.4%) (4.0%) (0.24 to 1,000 MODERATE
0.48) (from 31 fewer
to 21 fewer)
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Version 4.4.1
91
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
(1,200 mg is the currently recommended dose). However, sensitivity analysis of the entire data set showed similar results: for hospitalizations 23/2091 vs 59/1341; RR 0.25
(95% CI 0.16, 0.4); deaths: 2/2091 vs 3/1341; RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.08, 2.3).
b. Small number of events; fragility present.
c. 95% CI cannot exclude no difference or increased mortality.
d. As the RR 95% CI is wide due to sparse data, absolute risk difference recalculated independently and not based on RR.
e. COVID-19 related hospitalizations is a surrogate for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and death. Not rated down.
f. Disclaimer: Provisional evidence rating based on preliminary evidence from non-peer reviewed publication.
References
1. Weinreich DM, Sivapalasingam S, Norton T, et al. REGN-COV2, a Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021; 384(3): 238-51.
Version 4.4.1
92
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
93
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
94
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
95
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
96
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Mortality
11 randomized not not serious not serious serious a none 9/163 (5.5%) 5/151 (3.3%) HR 2.00 32 more per ⨁⨁⨁◯ CRITICAL
trials serious (0.67 to 1,000 MODERATE
5.99) (from 11 fewer
to 150 more)
Clinical improvement at day 5 (assessed with: pulmonary ordinal outcome [scale 1-7; 1 = least severe])
11 randomized not not serious not serious serious a none 161 150 OR 0.85 - ⨁⨁⨁◯ CRITICAL
trials serious (0.56 to MODERATE
1.29) b
Version 4.4.1
97
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
98
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Figure 3. Forest plot for the outcome of hospitalizations for casirivimab/imdevimab vs. no
casirivimab/imdevimab (1,200 mg data only)
Figure 4. Forest plot for the outcome of hospitalizations for casirivimab/imdevimab vs. no
casirivimab/imdevimab (lumping all data from 2,400 mg with 1,200 mg)
Figure 5. Forest plot for the outcome of hospitalizations for casirivimab/imdevimab vs. no
casirivimab/imdevimab (pooling 2,400 mg dose data with 1,200 mg dose data)
Version 4.4.1
99
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Baricitinib
Recommendation 16: Among hospitalized adults with severe* COVID-19 having elevated
inflammatory markers but not on invasive mechanical ventilation, the IDSA panel suggests
baricitinib rather than no baricitinib. (Conditional recommendation, Moderate certainty of
evidence)
Remarks:
Recommendation 17: Among hospitalized patients with severe* COVID-19 who cannot
receive a corticosteroid (which is standard of care) because of a contraindication, the IDSA
guideline panel suggests use of baricitinib with remdesivir rather than remdesivir alone.
(Conditional recommendation, Low certainty of evidence)
• Remark: Baricitinib 4 mg daily dose for 14 days or until hospital discharge. The benefits
of baricitinib plus remdesivir for persons on mechanical ventilation are uncertain.
*Severe illness is defined as patients with SpO2 ≤94% on room air, including patients on
supplemental oxygen, oxygen through a high-flow device, or non-invasive ventilation.
Version 4.4.1
100
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Baricitinib, a selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor currently FDA-approved for the
treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is being investigated in multiple studies for treatment of
COVID-19. The proposed benefits of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 may be two-
fold as it has both anti-inflammatory and potential antiviral activity [154]. Janus kinase
mediates cytokine signaling, which contributes to inflammation; Janus kinase inhibitors,
therefore, may decrease cytokine-mediated inflammation. Baricitinib inhibits host intracellular
membrane proteins AP2-associated protein kinase 1 (AAK1) and also binds cyclin G-associated
kinase (GAK), both thought to play a role in receptor mediated endocytosis of many viruses
including Ebola, dengue, Hepatitis C, and SARS CoV-2 [155-157]. Baricitinib has been evaluated
in people with COVID-19 in both randomized and non-randomized studies [158-162].
Based on experience in clinical trials for rheumatoid arthritis, baricitinib has been found
to be associated with an increased risk of adverse effects including infections (especially upper
respiratory tract infections), thrombosis, lymphopenia, anemia, increases in lipids, elevations in
liver enzymes, and elevations in creatinine phosphokinase [154]. Many of these side effects are
thought to be dose related, with increased incidence in patients taking baricitinib 4 mg
compared with 2 mg. Patients enrolled in Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) and
COV-BARRIER received baricitinib 4 mg daily for two weeks or until discharge, a shorter
duration than those taking the drug for RA. In clinical trials for RA, baricitinib was associated
with a numerically higher risk of upper respiratory tract infections and herpes simplex and
herpes zoster infections compared with placebo [163]. Opportunistic infections such as herpes
simplex, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis [164, 165] have been reported in patients taking
baricitinib.
Version 4.4.1
101
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg, two patients treated with baricitinib 2mg, and 1 patient
on placebo. In ACTT-2, the percentage of patients reported to have VTE was numerically higher
in the combination group (21 patients [4.1%] vs. 16 patients [3.1%]) although it was similar
overall (absolute difference 1%, 95% CI -1.3 to 3.3) [167]. Of note, all patients in the trial were
recommended to receive VTE prophylaxis if they had no contraindication. We do not have long-
term data, especially on safety, development of the aforementioned adverse effects and
opportunistic infections from these two trials.
Baricitinib
Our literature search identified one RCT that compared the use of baricitinib (4 mg daily
dose up to 14 days) to placebo in hospitalized adults with severe COVID (NIAID OS: 4 –
hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 5 – hospitalized, requiring supplemental
oxygen; or 6 – hospitalized, receiving non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen devices)
[162]. In the COV-BARRIER trial, randomization was stratified by disease severity, age, region,
and use of corticosteroids. Participants in both arms had >1 elevated inflammatory marker
(CRP, d-dimer, LDH, ferritin) and also received standard of care, which included corticosteroids
in 79% and/or antivirals (e.g., remdesivir in 18.9%).
Our literature search identified one RCT that reported on the use of baricitinib (4 mg
daily dose) plus remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 ([167].
This trial was conducted as the second stage of the ACTT-2, where subjects were randomized to
receive combination therapy with baricitinib and remdesivir or remdesivir alone [167] (Table
20). Randomization was stratified by disease severity classified by an OS of clinical status (4+5
vs 6+7 [7 –patients with an ordinal scale of 6 (high flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation) or
7 (mechanical ventilation or ECMO). Mild-moderate disease was defined as patients with an
ordinal scale of 4 (hospitalized, but not requiring supplemental oxygen) or 5 (requiring
supplemental oxygen). The trial was initiated before corticosteroids were commonly used for
severe COVID-19.
Version 4.4.1
102
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Benefits
Baricitinib
Treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 with baricitinib rather than no
baricitinib reduced 28-day mortality (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.78; Moderate CoE). The odds of
COVID-19 disease progression trends toward a reduction in persons receiving treatment with
baricitinib (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.08; Moderate CoE).
In ACTT-2, the combination of baricitinib and remdesivir showed a trend towards lower
mortality (4.7% vs. 7.1%; rate ratio: 0.65; 95% CI 0.39, 1.09; Moderate CoE). In patients
stratified within the severe COVID-19 pneumonia group, defined as 6 or 7 on the ordinal scale,
subjects who received baricitinib and remdesivir were more likely to experience clinical
recovery (defined as a value of <4 on the ordinal scale) at day 28 (69.3% vs. 59.7%; rate ratio
1.29; 95% CI 1.00, 1.66; Moderate CoE). The original stratification was altered as 40 subjects
were misclassified at baseline; however, re-analysis of the original stratified data produced a
similar result. Patients in the baricitinib arm were less likely to require initiation of mechanical
ventilation or ECMO through day 29 (10% vs. 15.2%; RR: 0.66; 95% CI 0.46, 0.93; Low CoE). In
summary, it appeared that patients requiring supplemental oxygen or non-invasive ventilation
at baseline benefitted most from baricitinib; the benefit was less clear in patients already on
mechanical ventilation.
Harms
The risk of serious adverse events in patients receiving baricitinib was not greater than
those not receiving baricitinib (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.65, 1.03; Moderate CoE).
In ACTT-2, patients receiving baricitinib and remdesivir had a lower risk of developing
any serious adverse events through day 28 (16% vs. 21%; RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59, 0.99; Moderate
CoE) whether or not thought to be related to the study drug. In this trial, the overall rate of new
infections was lower in the baricitinib plus remdesivir group compared with remdesivir alone
Version 4.4.1
103
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
(30 patients [5.9%] versus 57 patients [11.2%]) [167]. However, patients who received
concomitant glucocorticoids had a higher incidence of serious or non-serious infections as
compared with those who did not: 25.1% and 5.5%, respectively. It was not specified what
proportion of these patients in the study were in the baricitinib combination group versus the
control group.
Other considerations
Baricitinib
The panel agreed on the overall certainty of evidence as moderate due to concerns with
imprecision, as currently, only one pre-print RCT is available and some outcomes have concerns
with fragility. The guideline panel recognized the resource implications based on the dose and
duration reported in the trial (4 mg daily up to 14 days).
The panel agreed that the overall certainty of evidence was low due to concerns with
risk of bias, driven by the use of data from post-hoc analyses and imprecision, which recognized
the limited events and concerns with fragility in the group who likely benefited most (those
requiring supplemental oxygen or non-invasive ventilation). The guideline panel noted the
importance of suggesting baricitinib plus remdesivir as an option for persons unable to receive
corticosteroids.
The guideline panel suggests baricitinib in addition to standard of care for patients
hospitalized with severe COVID-19. The guideline panel suggests baricitinib with remdesivir for
persons for whom corticosteroids are indicated but who cannot receive them due to a
contraindication. Baricitinib plus remdesivir should be reserved for patients who cannot take
corticosteroids because dexamethasone has been proven to reduce mortality in patients
hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation and,
for this reason, dexamethasone is recommended by the panel for this group. It is uncertain
Version 4.4.1
104
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
whether baricitinib plus remdesivir will have the same benefit as dexamethasone. We need
long term data especially 60-day mortality from COV-BARRIER study. This is particularly because
despite having a reduction in 28-day mortality with baricitinib compared to placebo, there was
still no statically significant difference between arms for the composite endpoint of progression
to needing high flow oxygen, non-invasive & invasive mechanical ventilation, ECMO or death
(Table s2). As of the time of this narrative, there were no head-to-head trials evaluating either
the combination of baricitinib plus tocilizumab or evaluating baricitinib compared to
tocilizumab.
Version 4.4.1
105
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
106
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
107
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Clinical recovery - hospitalized requiring supplemental O2/receiving noninvasive ventilation or high-flow O2 (ordinal 5+6) (assessed with: Ordinal scale <4)
11 randomized serious b not serious not serious serious c none 344/391 316/389 RR 1.08 65 more CRITICAL
trials (88.0%) (81.2%) (1.02 to 1.15) per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
LOW
(from 16
more to
122 more)
Clinical recovery - receiving noninvasive ventilation or high-flow O2, invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO (ordinal 6+7; stratified) (assessed with: Ordinal scale <4)
11 randomized not serious not serious not serious serious e none 122/176 114/191 HR 1.29 93 more CRITICAL
trials d (69.3%) (59.7%) (1.00 to 1.66) per 1,000
⨁⨁⨁◯
MODERATE
d (from 0
fewer to
182 more)
New use of mechanical ventilation or ECMO (follow up: 29 days)
11 randomized serious f not serious not serious serious g none 46/461 70/461 RR 0.66 52 fewer CRITICAL
trials (10.0%) (15.2%) (0.46 to 0.93) per 1,000
⨁⨁◯◯
LOW
(from 82
fewer to
11 fewer)
Serious adverse events (follow up: 28 days)
Version 4.4.1
108
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
109
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Ivermectin
Recommendation 18: In hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests
against ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial. (Conditional recommendation,
very low certainty of evidence)
Recommendation 19: In ambulatory persons with COVID-19, the IDSA panel suggests against
ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial. (Conditional recommendation, very low
certainty of evidence)
Our search identified nine studies in patients with COVID-19 with ages ranging between
8 and 86 years that reported on the outcomes of mortality, symptom resolution, viral
clearance, and adverse events, and informed the evidence review for inpatients and
outpatients [170-181]. Eligible studies compared treatment with ivermectin against a placebo
or standard of care. Studies comparing ivermectin to a non-placebo, active comparison (i.e., a
Version 4.4.1
110
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
different agent considered a possible treatment for COVID-19 infection by clinicians) or that did
not provide a comparison arm were not included in these analyses. Several studies did not
meet eligibility for inclusion in this review. Four trials compared ivermectin to
hydroxychloroquine (comparison to treatment with evidence of harm) [182-185]; two trials
examined ivermectin as prophylactic treatment [186, 187]; and three trials did not provide
study data in a peer-reviewed, published or pre-print manuscript [185, 188, 189].
The studies that informed the recommendations for hospitalized patients included
seven RCTs [170-172, 174, 175, 180, 181] and two non-randomized studies [173, 176]. Five
RCTs [172, 174, 177-179] informed the recommendation for ambulatory persons. Each of them
compared an active treatment arm of ivermectin to an inactive comparison (e.g., standard of
care with or without placebo). Studies that compared ivermectin to other therapy (e.g., HCQ)
were excluded, as the presence of a non-placebo comparator may bias the effectiveness of
ivermectin.
The evidence informing the recommendations for hospitalized and ambulatory persons
reported on the use of a range of doses (100 mcg/kg/day to 400 mcg/kg/day) and durations
(one day up to seven days) of treatment with ivermectin. Among studies reporting on
hospitalized patients, substantial heterogeneity was observed, introduced by one study (Figure
s8c) [170]. Ahmed 2021 treated patients with ivermectin for a duration of five days, rather than
one day as used by the remaining studies. This may explain the heterogeneity between studies;
however, excluding Ahmed 2021, any meaningful reduction in viral clearance was still not
demonstrated by the summary estimate (Figure s8c). Heterogeneity was not observed for other
outcomes reported for hospitalized or ambulatory persons.
Among the RCTs, the risk of bias was high in two trials because of unsuccessful
randomization into treatment and control groups. Hashim et al (2020) inadequately
randomized participants by allocating them to respective treatment arms on odd and even
days, as well as assigning all critically ill patients to the ivermectin arm, and Podder et al (2020)
allocated participants based on odd or even registration numbers. In addition, across many
RCTs, there were concerns due to lack of blinding of study personnel, which may lead to over-
Version 4.4.1
111
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Benefits
Inpatients
The evidence is very uncertain, but studies suggested that ivermectin may decrease
mortality among persons with COVID-19 (RR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.90; very low CoE). Persons
receiving treatment with ivermectin rather than no ivermectin may trend toward increased
symptom resolution and viral clearance (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.69, 1.65; very low CoE and RR: 1.25;
95% CI: 0.72, 2.15; very low CoE, respectively).
Outpatients
The evidence is very uncertain, but ivermectin may reduce the time to recovery among
outpatients with COVID-19 (mean difference: 2.02 days fewer; 95% CI: 2.16 to 1.89 days fewer;
very low CoE). Similarly, the evidence is very uncertain; however, there may be a trend toward
mortality reduction, avoidance of progression to severe disease, and viral clearance at day
seven (RR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.58; very low CoE, RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.15, 1.26; very low CoE,
and RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.37; very low CoE, respectively).
Harms
In doses typically used for the treatment of parasitic infections, ivermectin is well-
tolerated. We are unable to exclude the potential for adverse events in hospitalized and serious
adverse events in non-hospitalized persons with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin rather than
no ivermectin, (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.39, 1.67; low CoE and RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.14, 6.96; low CoE,
respectively).
Other considerations
Version 4.4.1
112
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
the available evidence consisted mostly of positive trials of smaller size. The guideline panel
made a conditional recommendation against treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin outside of
the context of a clinical trial for both patients with COVID-19 hospitalized or in the outpatient
setting.
The guideline panel suggests against ivermectin for the treatment of hospitalized
patients with COVID-19, unless in the context of a clinical trial. The guideline panel suggests
against ivermectin for the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, unless in the context of a
clinical trial. Well-designed, adequately powered, and well-executed clinical trials are needed to
inform decisions on treating COVID-19 with ivermectin (Table s2).
Version 4.4.1
113
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Mortality (NRS)
5 1,2,3,4,5 observational serious a not serious not serious serious b none 28/378 35/309 RR 0.57 49 fewer ⨁◯◯◯ CRITICAL
studies (7.4%) (11.3%) (0.36 to per 1,000 VERY LOW
0.90) (from 72
fewer to
11 fewer)
Symptom resolution (follow up: 7 days)
16 randomized serious c not serious not serious very serious b none 16/25 15/25 RR 1.07 42 more ⨁◯◯◯ CRITICAL
trials (64.0%) (60.0%) (0.69 to per 1,000 VERY LOW
1.65) (from 186
fewer to
390 more)
Version 4.4.1
114
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
115
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Mortality (NRS)
5 1,2,3,4,5 randomized serious a not serious not serious very serious b none 0/365 (0.0%) 5/365 (1.4%) RR 0.19 11 fewer ⨁◯◯◯ CRITICAL
trials (0.02 to 1.58) per 1,000 VERY LOW
(from 13
fewer to 8
more)
Progression to severe disease (assessed with: need for invasive ventilation)
4 1,2,4,5 randomized serious c not serious not serious very serious b none 5/315 (1.6%) 12/315 RR 0.44 21 fewer ⨁◯◯◯ CRITICAL
trials (3.8%) (0.15 to 1.26) per 1,000 VERY LOW
(from 32
fewer to
10 more)
Viral clearance at day 7 (RCT) (follow up: range 6 days to 29 days)
3 2,3,4 randomized serious c not serious serious d,e very serious b none 33/117 36/119 RR 0.93 21 fewer ⨁◯◯◯ IMPORTANT
trials (28.2%) (30.3%) (0.63 to 1.37) per 1,000 VERY LOW
(from 112
fewer to
112 more)
Version 4.4.1
116
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
15 randomized not serious not serious not serious very serious i none 2/200 (1.0%) 2/198 (1.0%) RR 0.99 0 fewer ⨁⨁◯◯ CRITICAL
trials (0.14 to 6.96) per 1,000 LOW
(from 9
fewer to
60 more)
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Risk of bias: Study limitations
Inconsistency: Unexplained heterogeneity across study findings
Indirectness: Applicability or generalizability to the research question
Imprecision: The confidence in the estimate of an effect to support a particular decision
Publication bias: Selective publication of studies
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference
Explanations
a. Concerns with unmeasured and residual confounding. Gorial 2020 single arm with historical control. Hashim 2020 used even vs. odd days to place subjects into treatment
groups with critical patients not included in the placebo group. In Rajter, corticosteroids were used in 19.6% of usual care patients vs. 39.8% of ivermectin patients.
b. The 95% CI includes the potential for both appreciable benefit as well as the potential for harm. Few events reported do not meet the optimal information size and suggest
fragility of the estimate.
c. Open label trial may lead to bias with measurement of subjective outcomes.
d. Viral clearance is a surrogate for clinical improvement, such as hospitalization, need for ICU care and mechanical ventilation.
e. Ravikirti 2021 reported viral clearance at day 6.
f. High heterogeneity I2=97%.
g. Ivermectin was combined with doxycycline.
h. Number of events is less than the optimal information size, which may suggest fragility in the estimate of effect.
i. The 95% CI cannot exclude the potential of increased SAEs in the treatment arm. Few events suggest fragility in the estimate
References
1. Hashim HA, Maulood MF, Rasheed AM, Fatak DF, Kabah KK, Abdulamir AS. Controlled randomized clinical trial on using Ivermectin with Doxycycline for treating COVID-19
patients in Baghdad, Iraq. medRxiv 2020: Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345 [Preprint 27 October 2020].
2. Chaccour C, Casellas A, Blanco-Di Matteo A, et al. The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe
COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. EClinicalMedicine 2021; 32: 100720.
3. Bukhari SKHS, Asghar A, Perveen N, et al. Efficacy of Ivermectin in COVID-19 Patients with Mild to Moderate Disease. medRxiv 2021: Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.02.21250840 [Preprint 5 February 2021].
Version 4.4.1
117
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
4. Ravikirti, Roy R, Pattadar C, et al. Ivermectin as a potential treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19–A double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. medRxiv 2021:
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.05.21249310 [Preprint 9 January 2021].
5. Lopez-Medina E, Lopez P, Hurtado IC, et al. Effect of Ivermectin on Time to Resolution of Symptoms Among Adults With Mild COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA 2021; 325(14): 1426-35.
Version 4.4.1
118
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
In addition to the clinical questions addressed above, the panel identified several
treatments currently undergoing evaluation for which additional data are needed to rate
recommendations. Narrative summaries for these treatments are provided below.
HIV antivirals
Version 4.4.1
119
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
interferon beta have been shown to have modest in-vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV
and MERS-CoV [59, 191]. Lopinavir-ritonavir or interferon beta-1b has been shown to reduce
viral load of MERS-CoV and improve lung pathology in a nonhuman primate model of common
marmoset [61].
Subcutaneous injection of interferon β-1a was used for the treatment of 42 severe
COVID-19 adult patients in an open-label randomized clinical trial in Iran. Although there was
no significant improvement in time to clinical response in the interferon-treated group, the
overall mortality at 28 days was reduced in the interferon-treated then the control group (19%
vs. 43.6%, p= 0.015) [194].
Version 4.4.1
120
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Ribavirin
There are only in vitro data available on the activity of ribavirin on SARS-CoV-2 currently.
The EC50 (half maximal effective concentrations) was significantly higher than for chloroquine
and remdesivir, so it appears less potent in vitro compared to these agents [16]. There are
limited clinical studies in SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV infections. In a systematic review of
ribavirin treatment in patients infected with SARS-CoV-1, 26 studies were classified as
inconclusive, and four showed possible harm [204]. In a retrospective observational study in
patients with MERS-CoV infection, the combination of ribavirin and interferon, compared to no
antiviral treatment, was not associated with improvement in the 90-day mortality or more
rapid MERS-CoV RNA clearance [205].
Version 4.4.1
121
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Oseltamivir
Intravenous immunoglobulin
One open-label trial randomized patients with COVID-19 (SpO2 ≤96% on ≥4 liters O2 by
nasal cannula but not on mechanical ventilation) to either three days of IVIg (n=16) or no IVIg
(n=17) [211]. During the study period (30 days or hospital discharge), two patients in the IVIg
arm and seven in the standard of care arm required mechanical ventilation, one patient in the
IVIg arm and three patients in the standard of care arm died. No adverse events were reported
in the IVIg arm. Co-treatments with remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and corticosteroids were
balanced across arms at baseline; however, methylprednisolone was provided with each IVIg
Version 4.4.1
122
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
dose in the treatment arm, and co-interventions provided during the treatment period were
unbalanced. One retrospective cohort reported on 58 patients who received IVIg; however, the
study did not identify a standard of care group and multiple co-treatments were provided
[212]. Two case series reported on eight patients [210, 213] with severe COVID-19 who
received IVIg for five consecutive days. All patients were discharged from the hospital.
A case-control study from Italy published in May 2020 did not demonstrate an increased
risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those taking NSAIDs chronically (adjusted OR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.98,
1.15) [219]. In April 2020, the WHO produced a scientific brief detailing a systematic review that
included 73 studies in patients with acute respiratory infections. While no direct studies for
patients with MERS, SARS or SARS-CoV-2 were available for analysis, there was no evidence of
adverse events [220]. In a large registry trial that included data from five hospitals in
Version 4.4.1
123
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Massachusetts, there was a lower risk of hospitalization in those with SARS-CoV-2 prescribed
naproxen or ibuprofen, however it is difficult to determine if these patients were actively taking
these medications at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis [221]. Randomized controlled trials are
currently underway to better understand the safety of NSAIDs in the management of patients
with COVID-19 [222, 223].
Should ACE inhibitors and ARBs for hypertension be stopped in patients with
COVID-19?
Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2 on human
cells. Animal experiments have shown mixed findings on the effect of angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on ACE2 levels and activity,
leading to two contrasting hypotheses in COVID-19 [224-226]. The harmful hypothesis is that
ACEIs and ARBs may increase the risk of infection and severity of COVID-19 via increased ACE2
expression. On the contrary, infection with other coronaviruses have been shown to decrease
ACE2 levels in vitro [227], which may lead to increased angiotensin II activity resulting in
pulmonary, cardiovascular and other end organ damage in patients with COVID-19 [224, 228].
This has led to speculation about a beneficial hypothesis that ACEI and ARBs may have a
therapeutic role in COVID-19, by inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis.
There have been several recent observational studies on the effects of ACEIs and ARBs
in patients tested for and diagnosed with COVID1-19. A multi-center retrospective study [229]
evaluated 1,128 patents admitted to nine hospitals in Hubei province, China with COVID-19
including 188 (17%), who were on an ACEI or ARB. The risk of 28-day all-cause mortality was
lower in ACEI/ARB group vs non-ACEI/ARB group (IRD: -0.24; 95% CI: -0.43, -0.05). After
adjusting the all-cause mortality was still lower in the ACEI/ARB group compared to the non-
ACEI/ARB group (HR: 0.42; 95% CI 0.15, 0.89). Another single center retrospective study [230]
among 1178 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, had 362 patients with hypertension and 115
were on ACEI/ARBs. There was no difference between those with severe vs non-severe illness in
Version 4.4.1
124
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
use of ACEIs (9.2% vs 10.1%; P = .80), and ARBs (24.9% vs 21.2%; P = 0.40). There was also no
difference between non-survivors and survivors in use of ACEIs (9.1% vs 9.8%; P = 0.85) and
ARBs (19.5% vs 23.9%; P = 0.42).
Another study [231] among 1200 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in two hospitals in
London, UK observed that chronic ACEI/ARB use was not associated with an increase in severity
of COVID-19. Within their cohort of 1200 patients, 399 (33.3%) were on an ACEI/ARB and while
unadjusted odds of critical care admission or death within 21 days were not significantly
different between patients on ACEI/ARB vs not (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.64, 1.07), adjustment for age,
sex and co-morbidities presented an OR of 0.63 (95% CI 0.47, 0.84, p<0.01) for the composite
outcomes in patients on ACEI/ARB. An observational study from Italy [232] evaluated multiple
predictors of in-hospital mortality in 311 patients with hypertension and COVID-19. The
patients in this study were significantly older, with a higher BMI, comorbidities, and severity of
disease. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis chronic use of ACEI and ARBs (aHR, 0.97; 95%
CI: 0.68, 1.39; P = .88) were not associated with an increase in in-hospital mortality.
A population-based case-control study [219] from Lombardy, Italy compared 6272 COVID-19
patients with 30,759 controls matched on sex, age, and municipality of residence. In a logistic-
regression multivariate analysis, use of ARBs or ACEI did not show an association with COVID-19
among cases (aOR, 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05 for ARBs and 0.96, 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07 for ACEI). It
also did not show an association with severe or fatal disease (for ARBs, aOR 0.83; 95% CI 0.63,
1.10; for ACEI, aOR 0.91; 95% CI 0.69, 1.21). Reynolds et al [233] analyzed data available for
patients tested for COVID-19, available in the electronic medical records for New York
University Langone Health system. In the study, 12,594 patients were tested, 5,894 (46.8%)
were positive and 1,002 of these patients (17.0%) had severe illness. They performed
propensity score matching and a Bayesian analysis to assess the relationship between various
classes of antihypertensives including ACEI and ARBs and the likelihood of a positive COVID-19
test and severe disease. The study did not show a positive association for ACEI and ARBs with
having a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 or developing severe infection. A retrospective cohort
study using data from Danish national administrative registries, had an unadjusted 30-day
mortality of 18.1% in the group with ACEI/ARB use compared to the 7.3% in the nonuser group,
Version 4.4.1
125
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
but the association was not significant after adjustment for age, sex and medical history (aHR
0.83; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.03). In that study, ACEI/ARB use compared with other antihypertensive
agents was not significantly associated with higher incidence of COVID-19 (a HR 1.05 95% CI
0.80–1.36) [234]. One retrospective cohort study done in severe COVID-19 patient's showed
ACEI/ARB use, after adjusting for other variables, to be independently associated with elevated
creatinine >10.1 mg/L (OR 3.22; 95% CI: 2.28, 4.54). Consistent ACEI/ARB use was
independently associated with AKI stage >1 (ALT ratio 3.28; 95% CI: 2.17, 4.94) [235].
Data from these observational studies suggest that ACEI and ARBs do not increase the
risk of acquiring COVID-19, developing severe disease or death. One study showed possible
increase risk of renal dysfunction in severe COVID-19. There are limitations though inherent to
retrospective observational studies, especially differences in unmeasured prognostic factors
between the compared groups that might be responsible for the difference in outcomes and
not treatment with ACEI or ARBs. Most professional scientific and medical societies have
recommended that ACEI or ARBs be continued in people who have an indication for these
medications [236-238].
Patients with COVID-19 often present to hospitals with viral pneumonia with
accompanying febrile illness and respiratory symptoms. Differential diagnoses may include
bacterial pneumonia, for which antibiotics are prescribed. Concerns for bacterial
superinfections also exist. Studies performed early in the COVID-19 pandemic reported high
percentages of antibiotic use in China (58-95%) [1, 206, 239], Spain (74%) [240], and New York
(65%) [241]. These studies are not granular and do not report if they describe co-infection at
presentation or the development of superinfection, limiting the ability to ascertain the reasons
for antibiotic use.
Data reporting co-infection in patients presenting with COVID-19 for care is sparse.
Rawson and colleagues reviewed 18 studies of human coronavirus infections reporting co-
Version 4.4.1
126
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
infections, of which nine were COVID-19 [242]. These cumulatively reported a bacterial and
fungal co-infection rate of 8% (62/806). The studies evaluated were heterogeneous. One brief
report of 393 patients in New York reported a bacteremia rate of 5.6%, which varied
significantly between patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (15/126 [11.9%]) and
those who were not (4/222 [1.8%]) [243]. Another study looked at 88,201 blood cultures
performed during March 2020 in New York, comparing order volume, positivity, and etiologies
between patients with COVID-19 and others during the time period [244]. The study found a
significantly lower rate of bacteremia in COVID-19 patients (3.8%) than either COVID-19
negative (8%) or untested (7.1%) (p<0.001). When commensal skin organisms were excluded,
the positivity rate in COVID-19 patients was 1.6% [244]. A study in Texas reviewed the use of
antibiotics and incidence of coinfections in 147 PCR-positive COVID-19 patients [245]. Eighty-
seven (59%) patients received empiric antibiotics, though none of the 47 (32%) patients with
respiratory cultures had positive results. 112 patients (76%) had blood cultures collected also,
and while nine were positive, eight of those were considered contaminants [245].
The apparent discordance between bacterial and fungal co-infection in patients with
COVID-19 at presentation and the use of antibacterial therapy has potential negative effects,
namely in antimicrobial resistance. Publications report on patients with severe and critical
COVID-19 patients treated with immunomodulatory therapies, including corticosteroids, IL-6
antagonists, IL-1 antagonists, and others [246]. In one preprint examining outcomes of in a
cohort of 154 patients receiving invasive mechanically ventilation, mortality was reduced in
patients treated with tocilizumab (IPTW-adjusted model, HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33, 0.90); however,
superinfections were more commonly reported (54% vs 26%, p<0.001), primarily due to
ventilator-associated pneumonia [110]. Initiating and continuing empiric antibiotics at the time
of admission may lead to superinfections that are antibiotic resistant [247].
Favipiravir
Last reviewed and updated 9/4/2020
Favipiravir is a purine analogue that inhibits the RNA dependent RNA polymerase of
influenza and other RNA viruses [248]. The drug is approved in Japan for treatment of influenza.
Version 4.4.1
127
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
However, because of its teratogenicity risk, favipiravir should not be given during pregnancy
and there are substantial concerns about its use in women in child-bearing potential.
In terms of its potential role in COVID-19, favipiravir has in vitro activity against SARS-
CoV-2 [16]. However, it is uncertain whether adequate drug levels can be achieved in vivo to
inhibit SARS-CoV-2. There have been small clinical trials with this drug in people with COVID-19.
In a non-randomized, open-label study in China [249], oral favipiravir was associated with
shorter time to viral clearance and greater improvement in chest imaging than
lopinavir/ritonavir (in both groups, the oral antiviral was given with aerosolized alpha-
interferon). However, because the study was small and not randomized, it was not possible to
conclude that favipiravir is effective in treating COVID-19. A randomized, open-label trial
compared favipiravir to umifenovir, an antiviral approved in Russia and China, in people with
COVID-19 [250]. The clinical recovery rate at day seven was not significantly different between
the two groups. There appeared to be an impact of favipiravir in the sub-group of people who
did not have critical illness, but more data are needed. An exploratory clinical trial, also
conducted in China, randomized 30 hospitalized adults with COVID-19 into a baloxavir marboxil,
favipiravir or control group. There was no apparent effect of favipiravir (or baloxivir) on viral
clearance [251]. There are ongoing clinical trials assessing favipiravir for treatment of COVID-19.
Immunomodulatory agents
Some patients with COVID-19 develop a hyperinflammatory state that may incorporate
elements of cytokine release syndrome seen in conditions such as secondary hemophagocytic
lymphohistiocytosis (sHLH). The etiology is unclear, but patients who develop significantly
elevated CRP, ferritin, and D-dimer levels with the syndrome have an increased risk of
mortality, associated with respiratory failure, multiorgan dysfunction, and hypercoagulability.
Numerous immunomodulatory agents are under investigation to address this immunologic
complication.
Version 4.4.1
128
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
IL-1 inhibitors: Anakinra is an FDA approved IL-1-beta inhibitor that is currently FDA-approved
for rheumatoid arthritis and Neonatal-Onset Multisystem Inflammatory Disease. High- and low-
dose anakinra was investigated in a recent retrospective cohort study in Italian patients with
COVID-19, moderate to severe ARDS, and hyperinflammation. Patients receiving anakinra were
compared to a historical control group with COVID-19 who fulfilled eligibility criteria for
anakinra. The low-dose anakinra group was stopped early due to lack of effect. In the high-dose
anakinra group, 3/29 (10%) patients died vs. 7/16 (44%) in the historical control group, however
there was no difference in the rates of mechanical ventilation-free survival [252]. Anakinra is
being investigated in numerous trials including this randomized placebo-controlled trial [253].
Canakinumab is another IL-1-beta antagonist with limited human data for COVID-19 that is
being studied in a phase III clinical trial [254, 255].
Janus kinase inhibitors: Baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor (anti-JAK) currently FDA-approved
for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is being investigated in multiple studies for COVID-19.
The proposed benefits of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 are two-fold as it has both
anti-inflammatory and likely antiviral activity. Janus kinase mediates cytokine signaling which
contributes to inflammation, which may reduce risk of the associated hyperinflammatory
syndrome and ARDS. Baricitinib inhibits AAK1 and also binds GAK, both thought to play a role in
receptor mediated endocytosis of many viruses including SARS-CoV-2 [157]. In an open-label
non-randomized study from Italy, baricitinib with lopinavir/ritonavir (n=12) were compared to
lopinavir/ritonavir (n=12) alone at one institution over two consecutive time periods. After two
weeks in the baricitinib group, no patients required ICU transfer and 7/12 (58%) were
discharged. In the lopinavir/ritonavir group, 4/12 (33%) required ICU transfer and only 1/12
patients were discharged by day 14. No serious adverse events or infections occurred in the
baricitinib group [158]. In the ACTT-2 trial, baricitinib is being compared to remdesivir and
numerous other RCTs are currently underway to better understand the role of baricitinib in the
management of COVID-19 [256-260].
GM-CSF inhibitors: Monoclonal antibodies that bind to GM-CSF are under investigation for the
treatment of hyperinflammation associated with COVID-19. GM-CSF inhibitors are postulated
Version 4.4.1
129
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Treatment
Compared with adults, children generally have milder illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection
[266, 267]. However, severe illness does occur in children, even those with no predisposing
factors [267, 268]. Among children admitted to the hospital for COVID-19, one-third are
Version 4.4.1
130
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
admitted to intensive care [267]. Despite this, clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for
COVID-19 have almost exclusively focused on adult patients. For example, in the first of two
recent studies of the antiviral remdesivir [269, 270], patients younger than 18 years were
excluded [271], and the number of children between 12 and 18 years included in the analysis
for the second paper was not reported [133]. These studies led to FDA EUA of remdesivir for
both adults and children [272], with no published data available on either safety or efficacy in
children under 12 years. A phase II/III open label study in this population has started (the
“CARAVAN” trial [135]). Future studies of both therapeutics and vaccines will need to include
children to assure their safety and efficacy in this population.
Patients with Kawasaki disease also present with fever and symptoms including rash,
conjunctivitis, peripheral extremity changes, lymphadenopathy, and oral mucosal changes such
as red, cracked lips and “strawberry tongue.” However, while Kawasaki disease and MIS-C share
some similarities, there are also key differences [288]. Both are hyperinflammatory syndromes,
both have findings of medium vessel vasculitis and both can present with the signs/symptoms
described for Kawasaki disease. MIS-C is more likely to affect older children (average age 8-11
years vs. younger than five years in Kawasaki disease), cause more severe disease (more
patients presenting with shock), present frequently with gastrointestinal symptoms, includes
some neurologic involvement, and more commonly causes cardiac myocarditis and ventricular
dysfunction leading to hypotension or arrhythmias. In contrast, Kawasaki disease more
commonly causes coronary artery dilatation. A small study of cytokine profiles in children
Version 4.4.1
131
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
distinguished MIS-C from severe COVID-19 based on a higher level of the combination of TNF-α
and IL-10 in MIS-C patients [289].
Future research should focus on how and why the immune system responds to SARS-
CoV-2 causing a spectrum of illness in children, identifying genetic or environmental risk factors
for MIS-C, and discovering optimum treatment for children with MIS-C. Multidisciplinary,
collaborative approaches to data registries and clinical trials that promote evidence-based care
for these children are needed.
Version 4.4.1
132
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Table 23. Case definitions for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) and
Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome (PMIS)
MIS-C (CDC 2020)1 PMIS (Royal College of Paediatrics and
Child Health 2020)2
Includes Age <21 years presenting with: A child presenting with:
• Fever (>38.0°C for ≥24 hours, or report • Persistent fever >38.5°C
of subjective fever lasting ≥24 hours) • Laboratory evidence of inflammation
• Laboratory evidence of inflammation (neutrophilia, elevated CRP and
(including, but not limited to, one or lymphopenia)
more of the following: an elevated C- • Evidence of single or multi-organ
reactive protein, erythrocyte dysfunction (shock, cardiac,
sedimentation rate, fibrinogen, respiratory, renal, gastrointestinal or
procalcitonin, d-dimer, ferritin, lactic neurological disorder) with additional
acid dehydrogenase, or interleukin 6, features (listed in Appendix of
elevated neutrophils, reduced reference)
lymphocytes and low albumin),
• Evidence of clinically severe illness
requiring hospitalization, with
multisystem (>2) organ involvement
(cardiac, renal, respiratory,
hematologic, gastrointestinal,
dermatologic or neurological)
Excludes Patients with alternative plausible Patients with any other microbial cause,
diagnoses including bacterial sepsis, staphylococcal
or streptococcal shock syndromes,
infections associated with myocarditis such
as enterovirus
Other Positive for current or recent SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing may be positive or
criteria infection by RT-PCR, serology, or antigen negative
test; OR COVID-19 exposure within the 4
weeks prior to the onset of symptoms
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C)
Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Available at:
https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2020/han00432.asp. Accessed 24 May 2020.
2. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Guidance: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome
temporally associated with COVID-19, 2020.
Version 4.4.1
133
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Discussion
During epidemics like the current COVID-19 pandemic, when there are no clinically
proven treatments, the tendency is to use drugs based on in vitro antiviral activity, or on anti-
inflammatory effects or based on limited observational studies. It is commendable that
observational studies are done during an epidemic, but often they do not have concurrent
controls, have a significant risk of bias, and use surrogate outcomes like viral clearance rather
than patient-important outcomes. Medications that were thought to be effective based on in
vitro studies and observational studies for other diseases were later proven to be ineffective in
clinical trials [290].
Despite these limitations, the recommendations in this guideline are based on evidence
from the best available clinical studies with patient-important endpoints. The panel determined
that when an explicit trade-off between the highly uncertain benefits (e.g., the panel was
unable to confirm that HCQ increases viral cure or reduces mortality) and the known putative
harms (QT prolongation and drug-drug interactions) were considered, a net positive benefit
was not reached and could possibly be negative (risk of excess harm). The safety of drugs used
Version 4.4.1
134
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
We acknowledge that enrolling patients in RCTs might not be feasible for many frontline
providers due to limited access and infrastructure. Should lack of access to clinical trials exist,
we encourage setting up local or collaborative registries to systematically evaluate the efficacy
and safety of drugs to contribute to the knowledge base. Without such evaluations we often
attribute success to drugs and failure to disease (COVID-19) [290]. During such a pandemic,
barriers to conducting studies and enrolling patients in trials for already overburdened front
line providers should be minimized while ensuring the rights and safety of patients [294].
Version 4.4.1
135
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
endpoint should be prevention of infection and for therapeutic trials patient centered
outcomes like reduction of mortality (both short term and long term) [296]. Trials should also
study treatments in high risk populations or special populations like immunosuppressed
patients, people with HIV, patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and pregnant women. The
panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which
would provide much needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for
COVID-19.
This is a living guideline that will be frequently updated as new data emerges. Updates
and changes to the guideline will be posted to the IDSA website.
Version 4.4.1
136
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Acknowledgement: The expert panel thanks the Infectious Diseases Society of America for
supporting guideline development, and specifically Cindy Sears, Dana Wollins, Genet Demisashi,
and Rebecca Goldwater for their continued support throughout the guideline process. The
panel would also like to acknowledge Haya Waseem, Kapeena Sivakumaran, and Nicholas J.
Newman for supporting the evidence base for this guideline.
Financial Support: This project was funded in part by a cooperative agreement with the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (grant number 6 NU50CK000477-04-01). The CDC is
an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this
guideline do not necessarily represent the policy of CDC or HHS and should not be considered
an endorsement by the Federal Government.
COI Summary: The following list is a reflection of what has been reported to the IDSA. To
provide thorough transparency, the IDSA requires full disclosure of all relationships, regardless
of relevancy to the guideline topic. Evaluation of such relationships as potential conflicts of
interest is determined by a review process which includes assessment by the Board of Directors
liaison to the Standards and Practice Guideline Committee and, if necessary, the Conflicts of
Interest (COI) and Ethics Committee. The assessment of disclosed relationships for possible COI
is based on the relative weight of the financial relationship (i.e., monetary amount) and the
relevance of the relationship (i.e., the degree to which an association might reasonably be
interpreted by an independent observer as related to the topic or recommendation of
consideration). The reader of these guidelines should be mindful of this when the list of
disclosures is reviewed. L.B. receives research funding from the National Institutes of
Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
and Wellcome Trust, and serves as chair of the Antimicrobial Drug Advisory Committee of the
Food and Drug Administration. V.C. receives research funding from the Health and Medical
Research Fund. K. E. serves as a scientific advisor for Merck, Bionet, IBM, Sanofi, X4
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Seqirus, Inc., Moderna, Inc. and Pfizer, and receives research funding
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. R. G.
Version 4.4.1
137
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
has served on a scientific advisory board for Gilead Sciences, Inc., serves on a scientific advisory
board for Merck, and receives research funding from the NIH. J.G. serves in an advisory role for
Qpex and Shionogi; receives research funding from Merk; previously served in an advisory role
for Acceletrate, Achaogen, Astellas, Melinta, Nabriva, Paratek, scPharmaceutic, Spero and
Tetraphase; and previously served on the speakers bureau for Astellas, Melinta, Merck and
Shiongi. M.H.M receives research funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, the Endocrine Society, the Society for Vascular Surgery and The American Society of
Hematology and is a Board member for the Evidence Foundation. W.J.M. serves in an advisory
role for Seqirus, Inc. and receives research funding from Ansun Biopharma, Astellas Pharma,
AstraZeneca, Abbott Laboratories, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Karius, Merck, Melinta Therapeutics, Nabriva Therapeutics, Roche and
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals. S.S. serves as an advisory board member for Amplyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; as an advisor/consultant to ReViral Ltd.; receives research funding from
Ansun BioPharma, F2G, Shire (now Takeda), University of Nebraska, Cidara Therapeutics; and
has served as an advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica and Acidophil. A.H.S. receives research
funding from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Y.F.Y. receives honoraria for evidence
reviews and teaching from the Evidence Foundation, honoraria for evidence reviews for the
American Gastroenterological Association, and serves as a Director for the Evidence Foundation
and for the U.S. GRADE Network. All other authors: no disclosures reported. All authors have
submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the
editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed. All other
authors: no disclosures reported.
Version 4.4.1
138
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
References
Version 4.4.1
139
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
10. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for
assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
BMJ 2016; 355: i4919.
11. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1.
Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings
tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64(4): 383-94.
12. GRADEpro GDT. GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool
[Software]. McMaster University, 2015 (developed by Evidence
Prime, Inc.). Available at: https://gradepro.org/.
13. Ben-Zvi I, Kivity S, Langevitz P, Shoenfeld Y. Hydroxychloroquine:
from malaria to autoimmunity. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2012;
42(2): 145-53.
14. Keyaerts E, Vijgen L, Maes P, Neyts J, Van Ranst M. In vitro
inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus by
chloroquine. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004; 323(1): 264-8.
15. Dyall J, Coleman CM, Hart BJ, et al. Repurposing of clinically
developed drugs for treatment of Middle East respiratory
syndrome coronavirus infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2014; 58(8): 4885-93.
16. Wang M, Cao R, Zhang L, et al. Remdesivir and chloroquine
effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-
nCoV) in vitro. Cell Res 2020; 30(3): 269-71.
17. Yao X, Ye F, Zhang M, et al. In Vitro Antiviral Activity and
Projection of Optimized Dosing Design of Hydroxychloroquine for
the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus
2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clin Infect Dis 2020.
18. Vincent MJ, Bergeron E, Benjannet S, et al. Chloroquine is a
potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Virol J
2005; 2: 69.
19. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and
azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label
non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 56(1):
105949.
Version 4.4.1
140
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
141
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
142
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
143
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
144
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
145
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
146
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
147
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
148
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
149
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
150
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
151
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
152
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
125. Joyner MJ, Bruno KA, Klassen SA, et al. Safety Update: COVID-19
Convalescent Plasma in 20,000 Hospitalized Patients. Mayo Clin
Proc 2020; 95(9): 1888-97.
126. Lo MK, Jordan R, Arvey A, et al. GS-5734 and its parent nucleoside
analog inhibit Filo-, Pneumo-, and Paramyxoviruses. Sci Rep 2017;
7: 43395.
127. Sheahan TP, Sims AC, Graham RL, et al. Broad-spectrum antiviral
GS-5734 inhibits both epidemic and zoonotic coronaviruses. Sci
Transl Med 2017; 9(396).
128. Warren TK, Jordan R, Lo MK, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of the
small molecule GS-5734 against Ebola virus in rhesus monkeys.
Nature 2016; 531(7594): 381-5.
129. Williamson BN, Feldmann F, Schwarz B, et al. Clinical benefit of
remdesivir in rhesus macaques infected with SARS-CoV-2. Nature
2020.
130. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the
Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med 2020; 383(19):
1813-26.
131. Spinner CD, Gottlieb RL, Criner GJ, et al. Effect of Remdesivir vs
Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With
Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2020;
324(11): 1048-57.
132. Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe
COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled,
multicentre trial. Lancet 2020; 395(10236): 1569-78.
133. Goldman JD, Lye DCB, Hui DS, et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in
Patients with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 1827-37.
134. Goldman DL, Aldrich ML, Hagmann SHF, et al. Compassionate Use
of Remdesivir in Children With Severe COVID-19. Pediatrics 2021;
147(5).
135. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability,
Pharmacokinetics, and Efficacy of Remdesivir (GS-5734™) in
Participants From Birth to < 18 Years of Age With Coronavirus
Version 4.4.1
153
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
154
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
143. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fact Sheet for Health Care
Providers: Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of Casirivimab and
Imdevimab. Available at:
https://www.fda.gov/media/143892/download. Accessed 9 April
2021.
144. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Frequently Asked Questions
on the Emergency Use Authorization of Sotrovimab. Available at:
https://www.fda.gov/media/149535/download. Accessed 13 June
2021.
145. ACTIV-3/TICO LY-CoV555 Study Group, Grund B, Barkauskas CE, et
al. A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients
with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 905-14.
146. Chen P, Nirula A, Heller B, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody
LY-CoV555 in Outpatients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2021;
384(3): 229-37.
147. Weinreich DM, Sivapalasingam S, Norton T, et al. REGN-COV2, a
Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19. N
Engl J Med 2021; 384(3): 238-51.
148. Gupta A, Gonzalez-Rojas Y, Juarez E, et al. Early Covid-19
Treatment With SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab.
medRxiv 2021: Available at:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.27.21257096
v1 [Preprint 28 May 2021].
149. Dougan M, Nirula A, Azizad M, et al. The Impact of Bamlanivimab
+ Etesevimab Neutralizing Antibody Combination Treatment on
Hospitalization Rates and Deaths Among High-Risk Patients
Presenting With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Illness. 2021: [Under
review].
150. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. SARS-CoV-2 Variant
Classifications and Definitions. Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-
info.html. Accessed 15 June 2021.
Version 4.4.1
155
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
151. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fact Sheet for Health Care
Providers: Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of Bamlanivimab
and Etesevimab. Available at:
https://www.fda.gov/media/145802/download. Accessed 9 April
2021.
152. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fact Sheet for Health Care
Providers: Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of Regen-CoV™
(casirivimab with imdevimab). Available at:
https://www.fda.gov/media/145611/download. Accessed 9 April
2021.
153. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fact
Sheet for Healthcare Providers: Emergency Use Authorization
(EUA) of Sotrovimab. Available at:
https://www.fda.gov/media/149534/download. Accessed 15 June
2021.
154. Jorgensen SCJ, Tse CLY, Burry L, Dresser LD. Baricitinib: A Review
of Pharmacology, Safety, and Emerging Clinical Experience in
COVID-19. Pharmacotherapy 2020; 40(8): 843-56.
155. Bekerman E, Neveu G, Shulla A, et al. Anticancer kinase inhibitors
impair intracellular viral trafficking and exert broad-spectrum
antiviral effects. J Clin Invest 2017; 127(4): 1338-52.
156. Neveu G, Ziv-Av A, Barouch-Bentov R, Berkerman E, Mulholland J,
Einav S. AP-2-associated protein kinase 1 and cyclin G-associated
kinase regulate hepatitis C virus entry and are potential drug
targets. J Virol 2015; 89(8): 4387-404.
157. Richardson P, Griffin I, Tucker C, et al. Baricitinib as potential
treatment for 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease. Lancet 2020;
395(10223): e30-e1.
158. Cantini F, Niccoli L, Matarrese D, Nicastri E, Stobbione P, Goletti D.
Baricitinib therapy in COVID-19: A pilot study on safety and clinical
impact. J Infect 2020; 81(2): 318-56.
159. Titanji BK, Farley MM, Mehta A, et al. Use of Baricitinib in Patients
with Moderate and Severe COVID-19. Clin Infect Dis 2020.
Version 4.4.1
156
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
157
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
FDA warning, two letters to the editor and the authors' responses.
Antiviral Res 2020; 178: 104805.
170. Ahmed S, Karim MM, Ross AG, et al. A five-day course of
ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the
duration of illness. Int J Infect Dis 2020; 103: 214-6.
171. Chachar AZK, Khan KA, Asif M, Tanveer K, Khaqan A, Basri R.
Effectiveness of Ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Patients. Int J
Sci 2020; 9(09): 31-5.
172. Chaccour C, Casellas A, Blanco-Di Matteo A, et al. The effect of
early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and
humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot,
double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.
EClinicalMedicine 2021; 32: 100720.
173. Gorial FI, Mashhadani S, Sayaly HM, et al. Effectiveness of
ivermectin as add-on therapy in COVID-19 management (pilot
trial). medRxiv 2020: Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.07.20145979 [Epub ahead of
print 8 July 2020].
174. Hashim HA, Maulood MF, Rasheed AM, Fatak DF, Kabah KK,
Abdulamir AS. Controlled randomized clinical trial on using
Ivermectin with Doxycycline for treating COVID-19 patients in
Baghdad, Iraq. medRxiv 2020: Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.26.20219345 [Preprint 27
October 2020].
175. Podder CS, Chowdhury N, Sina MI, Ul Haque WMM. Outcome of
ivermectin treated mild to moderate COVID-19 cases: a single-
centre, open-label, randomised controlled study. IMC J Med SCi
2020; 14(2): 002. [Epub ahead of print 3 September 2020].
176. Rajter JC, Sherman MS, Fatteh N, Vogel F, Sacks J, Rajter JJ. Use of
Ivermectin Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Hospitalized
Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Ivermectin in COVID
Nineteen Study. Chest 2021; 159(1): 85-92.
Version 4.4.1
158
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
159
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-109670/v1 [Preprint 24
November 2020].
185. Rezaie S. COVID-19 Update: Ivermectin. Available at:
https://rebelem.com/covid-19-update-ivermectin/. Accessed 10
February 2021.
186. Shoumann WM, Hegazy AA, Nafae RM, et al. Use of Ivermectin as
a Potential Chemoprophylaxis for COVID-19 in Egypt: A
Randomized Clinical Trial. JCDR 2021; 15(2): OC27-OC32.
187. Peral de Bruno MdlA, Chala RE. Prophylaxis Covid-19 in
Healthcare Agents by Intensive Treatment With Ivermectin and
Iota-carrageenan (Ivercar-Tuc). Available at:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04701710.
188. Raad H. In vivo use of ivermectin (IVR) for treatment for corona
virus infected patients (COVID-19): a randomized controlled trial.
Available at:
http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=54707.
189. Mahmud R. Clinical Trial of Ivermectin Plus Doxycycline for the
Treatment of Confirmed Covid-19 Infection. Available at:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04523831.
190. Lu H. Efficacy and Safety of Darunavir and Cobicistat for
Treatment of Pneumonia Caused by 2019-nCoV (DACO-nCoV).
Available at:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04252274?id=NCT0425227
4.
191. Chan JF, Chan KH, Kao RY, et al. Broad-spectrum antivirals for the
emerging Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. J Infect
2013; 67(6): 606-16.
192. Kim JW, Kim EJ, Kwon HH, et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir versus
hydroxychloroquine for viral clearance and clinical improvement
in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019.
Korean J Intern Med 2020.
Version 4.4.1
160
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
161
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
162
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
163
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
164
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
165
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
166
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
167
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
168
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
169
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
272. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Letter of FDA Emergency Use
Authorization to Ashley Rhodes dated May 1, 2020. In: Rhoades A,
Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2020.
273. Belhadjer Z, Méot M, Bajolle F, et al. Acute heart failure in
multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in the
context of global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Circulation 2020; 142(5):
429-36.
274. Deza Leon MP, Redzepi A, McGrath E, et al. COVID-19-Associated
Pediatric Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome. J Pediatric Infect
Dis Soc 2020; 9(3): 407-8.
275. Riphagen S, Gomez X, Gonzalez-Martinez C, Wilkinson N,
Theocharis P. Hyperinflammatory shock in children during COVID-
19 pandemic. Lancet (London, England) 2020; 395(10237): 1607-8.
276. Verdoni L, Mazza A, Gervasoni A, et al. An outbreak of severe
Kawasaki-like disease at the Italian epicentre of the SARS-CoV-2
epidemic: an observational cohort study. The Lancet 2020;
395(10239): 1771-8.
277. Blondiaux E, Parisot P, Redheuil A, et al. Cardiac MRI of Children
with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C) Associated
with COVID-19: Case Series. Radiology 2020: 202288.
278. Greene AG, Saleh M, Roseman E, Sinert R. Toxic shock-like
syndrome and COVID-19: A case report of multisystem
inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Am J Emerg Med
2020.
279. Pouletty M, Borocco C, Ouldali N, et al. Paediatric multisystem
inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2
mimicking Kawasaki disease (Kawa-COVID-19): a multicentre
cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2020; 79(8): 999-1006.
280. Chiotos K, Bassiri H, Behrens EM, et al. Multisystem Inflammatory
Syndrome in Children During the Coronavirus 2019 Pandemic: A
Case Series. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2020; 9(3): 393-8.
281. Cabrero-Hernandez M, Garcia-Salido A, Leoz-Gordillo I, et al.
Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children With Suspected Acute
Version 4.4.1
170
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
171
Last updated June 25, 2021 and posted online at www.idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.
Please check website for most updated version of these guidelines.
Version 4.4.1
172