Background: Numerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective. Methods and findings: We carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions and the level of evidence behind each treatment regimen in different clinical settings. Both published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and confounding-adjusted observational studies which met our predefined eligibility criteria were collected. We included studies investigating the effect of pharmacological management of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 management. Mild patients who do not require hospitalization or have self-limiting disease courses were not eligible for our NMA. A total of 110 studies (40 RCTs and 70 observational studies) were included. PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, SSRN, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the beginning of 2020 to August 24, 2020. Studies from Asia (41 countries, 37.2%), Europe (28 countries, 25.4%), North America (24 countries, 21.8%), South America (5 countries, 4.5%), and Middle East (6 countries, 5.4%), and additional 6 multinational studies (5.4%) were included in our analyses. The outcomes of interest were mortality, progression to severe disease (severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and/or mechanical ventilation), viral clearance rate, QT prolongation, fatal cardiac complications, and noncardiac serious adverse events. Based on RCTs, the risk of progression to severe course and mortality was significantly reduced with corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.86, p = 0.032, and OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91, p = 0.002, respectively) and remdesivir (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p < 0.001, and OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98, p = 0.041, respectively) compared to standard care for moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in non-ICU; corticosteroids were also shown to reduce mortality rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73, p < 0.001) for critically ill patients in ICU. In analyses including observational studies, interferon-alpha (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.39, p = 0.004), itolizumab (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92, p = 0.042), sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.88, p = 0.030), anakinra (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.82, p = 0.019), tocilizumab (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60, p < 0.001), and convalescent plasma (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96, p = 0.038) were associated with reduced mortality rate in non-ICU setting, while high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.49, p = 0.003), ivermectin (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, p = 0.005), and tocilizumab (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.012) were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients. Convalescent plasma was the only treatment option that was associated with improved viral clearance rate at 2 weeks compared to standard care (OR 11.39, 95% CI 3.91 to 33.18, p < 0.001). The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was shown to be associated with increased QT prolongation incidence (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.20, p = 0.003) and fatal cardiac complications in cardiac-impaired populations (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.00, p = 0.007). No drug was significantly associated with increased noncardiac serious adverse events compared to standard care. The quality of evidence of collective outcomes were estimated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The major limitation of the present study is the overall low level of evidence that reduces the certainty of recommendations. Besides, the risk of bias (RoB) measured by RoB2 and ROBINS-I framework for individual studies was generally low to moderate. The outcomes deducted from observational studies could not infer causality and can only imply associations. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020186527). Conclusions: In this NMA, we found that anti-inflammatory agents (corticosteroids, tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG), convalescent plasma, and remdesivir were associated with improved outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine did not provide clinical benefits while posing cardiac safety risks when combined with azithromycin, especially in the vulnerable population. Only 29% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is supported by moderate or high certainty and can be translated to practice and policy; the remaining 71% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.

Purpose To determine the potential associations between physical activity and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe illness from COVID-19 and COVID-19 related death using a nationwide cohort from South Korea. Methods Data regarding 212 768 Korean adults (age ≥20 years), who tested for SARS-CoV-2, from 1 January 2020 to 30 May 2020, were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service of South Korea and further linked with the national general health examination from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 to assess physical activity levels. SARS-CoV-2 positivity, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 related death were the main outcomes. The observation period was between 1 January 2020 and 31 July 2020. Results Out of 76 395 participants who completed the general health examination and were tested for SARS-CoV-2, 2295 (3.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 446 (0.58%) had severe illness from COVID-19 and 45 (0.059%) died from COVID-19. Adults who engaged in both aerobic and muscle strengthening activities according to the 2018 physical activity guidelines had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.6% vs 3.1%; adjusted relative risk (aRR), 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96), severe COVID-19 illness (0.35% vs 0.66%; aRR 0.42; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.91) and COVID-19 related death (0.02% vs 0.08%; aRR 0.24; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99) than those who engaged in insufficient aerobic and muscle strengthening activities. Furthermore, the recommended range of metabolic equivalent task (MET; 500–1000 MET min/week) was associated with the maximum beneficial effect size for reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aRR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92), severe COVID-19 illness (aRR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.90) and COVID-19 related death (aRR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.98). Similar patterns of association were observed in different sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Adults who engaged in the recommended levels of physical activity were associated with a decreased likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 related death. Our findings suggest that engaging in physical activity has substantial public health value and demonstrates potential benefits to combat COVID-19.

Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) varies significantly in incidence and prevalence across countries and regions. We aimed to examine global, regional, and national trends in incidence and prevalence of AIH from 1970 to 2022. We conducted a thorough search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases from database inception to August 9, 2023, using the search term “autoimmune hepatitis” in combination with “incidence,” “prevalence,” or “trend.” Only general population-based observational studies with larger samples sizes were considered for inclusion. Studies that recruited convenience samples, and those with fewer than 50 participants were excluded. Summary data were extracted from published reports. A random effects model was used and pooled estimates with 95% CI were used to calculate the incidence and prevalence of AIH. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023430138. A total of 37 eligible studies, encompassing more than 239 million participants and 55,839 patients with AIH from 18 countries across five continents, were included in the analysis. Global pooled incidence and prevalence of AIH were found to be 1.28 cases per 100,000 inhabitant-years (95% CI, 1.01–1.63, I² = 99·51%; number of studies, 33; sample population, 220,673,674) and 15.65 cases per 100,000 inhabitants (95% CI, 13.42–18.24, I² = 99·75%; number of studies, 26; sample population, 217,178,684), respectively. The incidence of AIH was greater in countries with high Human Development Index (>0.92), in North America and Oceania (compared with Asia), among females, adults (compared with children), and high latitude (>45°). Similar patterns in AIH prevalence were observed. Pooled AIH prevalence increased gradually from 1970 to 2019 (1970–1999; 9.95 [4.77–15.13], I² = 95·58% versus 2015–2022; 27.91 [24.86–30.96], I² = 99·32%; cases per 100,000 inhabitants). The overall incidence and prevalence of AIH, as well as some subgroup analyses of the studies, displayed asymmetry in the funnel plots, suggesting potential evidence of publication bias. AIH incidence and prevalence have increased significantly and exhibit substantial variation across regions worldwide. Further research is required to assess the incidence and prevalence of AIH, specifically in South America and Africa. 10.13039/501100003725 National Research Foundation of Korea .

As mounting evidence suggests a higher incidence of adverse consequences, such as disruption of the immune system, among patients with a history of COVID-19, we aimed to investigate post-COVID-19 conditions on a comprehensive set of allergic diseases including asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and food allergy. We used nationwide claims-based cohorts in South Korea (K-CoV-N; n = 836,164; main cohort) and Japan (JMDC; n = 2,541,021; replication cohort A) and the UK Biobank cohort (UKB; n = 325,843; replication cohort B) after 1:5 propensity score matching. Among the 836,164 individuals in the main cohort (mean age, 50.25 years [SD, 13.86]; 372,914 [44.6%] women), 147,824 were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the follow-up period (2020−2021). The risk of developing allergic diseases, beyond the first 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19, significantly increased (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13−1.27), notably in asthma (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.80−2.83) and allergic rhinitis (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.15−1.32). This risk gradually decreased over time, but it persisted throughout the follow-up period (≥6 months). In addition, the risk increased with increasing severity of COVID-19. Notably, COVID-19 vaccination of at least two doses had a protective effect against subsequent allergic diseases (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68−0.96). Similar findings were reported in the replication cohorts A and B. Although the potential for misclassification of pre-existing allergic conditions as incident diseases remains a limitation, ethnic diversity for evidence of incident allergic diseases in post-COVID-19 condition has been validated by utilizing multinational and independent population-based cohorts.

Some data suggest a higher incidence of diagnosis of autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) among patients with a history of COVID-19 compared with uninfected patients. However, these studies had methodological shortcomings. To investigate the effect of COVID-19 on long-term risk for incident AIRD over various follow-up periods. Binational, longitudinal, propensity-matched cohort study. Nationwide claims-based databases in South Korea (K-COV-N cohort) and Japan (JMDC cohort). 10 027 506 Korean and 12 218 680 Japanese patients aged 20 years or older, including those with COVID-19 between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021, matched to patients with influenza infection and to uninfected control patients. The primary outcome was onset of AIRD (per appropriate codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) 1, 6, and 12 months after COVID-19 or influenza infection or the respective matched index date of uninfected control patients. Between 2020 and 2021, among the 10 027 506 Korean participants (mean age, 48.4 years [SD, 13.4]; 50.1% men), 394 274 (3.9%) and 98 596 (0.98%) had a history of COVID-19 or influenza, respectively. After propensity score matching, beyond the first 30 days after infection, patients with COVID-19 were at increased risk for incident AIRD compared with uninfected patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.18 to 1.31]) and influenza-infected control patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.30 [CI, 1.02 to 1.59]). The risk for incident AIRD was higher with more severe acute COVID-19. Similar patterns were observed in the Japanese cohort. Referral bias due to the pandemic; residual confounding. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk for incident AIRD compared with matched patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection or with influenza infection. The risk for incident AIRD was higher with greater severity of acute COVID-19. National Research Foundation of Korea.