The ongoing pandemic coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a matter of global concern. Environmental factors such as air pollution and smoking and comorbid conditions (hypertension, diabetes mellitus and underlying cardio-respiratory illness) likely increase the severity of COVID-19.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. Methods: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre-and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. Results: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). Conclusion: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.

Int J Rheum Dis. 2020;23:613-619. | 613 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/apl 1 | INTRODUC TI ON The present world is experiencing a pandemic (coronavirus disease-19 or COVID-19) caused by a novel strain of coronavirus, called SARS-CoV-2, previously called 2019-CoV. At the time of writing this article, 3 72 757 cases spanning over 195 countries and territories and 1 international conveyance have been reported. 1 This could be an underestimate due to the lower number of diagnostic tests and case identification partly due to poor health services in most countries. The mortality rate stands at 0.5-4.4% 2 ;however, this could be an overestimate as the exact denominator of actual number of cases is underreported. Diversion of all healthcare facilities toward the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to increase the morbidity and mortality due to other health problems. AbstractObjective: The pandemic coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has pushed the global healthcare system to a crisis and amounted to a huge economic burden. Different drugs for prophylaxis against COVID-19 including chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been tried. This study was performed to systematically review the role of CQ and HCQ in preventing the spread of COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies that evaluated the prophylactic role of CQ or HCQ on SARS-CoV-2 (pre-clinical studies) or COVID-19 (clinical studies) until 30 March 2020. The available literature was critically appraised. Results: A total of 45 articles were screened and 5 (3 in vitro pre-clinical studies and 2 clinical opinions) were included. The pre-clinical studies showed the prophylactic effects of CQ and HCQ against SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, the clinical opinions advocated the prophylactic use of CQ and HCQ against COVID-19. However, no original clinical studies on the prophylactic role of CQ or HCQ on COVID-19 were available.Conclusion: Although pre-clinical results are promising, to date there is a dearth of evidence to support the efficacy of CQ or HCQ in preventing COVID-19. Considering potential safety issues and the likelihood of imparting a false sense of security, prophylaxis with CQ or HCQ against COVID-19 needs to be thoroughly evaluated in observational studies or high-quality randomized controlled studies. K E Y W O R D Schloroquine, COVID-19, high-risk, hydroxychloroquine, prevention, SARS-CoV-2

No abstract

The pharmacotherapy of Takayasu arteritis (TAK) with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is an evolving area. A systematic review of Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed Central, clinical trial databases and recent international rheumatology conferences for interventional and observational studies reporting the effectiveness of DMARDs in TAK identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs, with another longer-term follow-up of one RCT) and 63 observational studies. The identified trials had some concern or high risk of bias. Most observational studies were downgraded on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale due to lack of appropriate comparator groups. Studies used heterogenous outcomes of clinical responses, angiographic stabilization, normalization of inflammatory markers, reduction in vascular uptake on positron emission tomography, reduction in prednisolone doses and relapses. Tocilizumab showed benefit in a RCT compared to placebo in a secondary per-protocol analysis but not the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Abatacept failed to demonstrate benefit compared to placebo for preventing relapses in another RCT. Pooled data from uncontrolled observational studies demonstrated beneficial clinical responses and angiographic stabilization in nearly 80% patients treated with tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors, tocilizumab or leflunomide. Certainty of evidence for outcomes from RCTs ranged from moderate to very low and was low to very low for all observational studies. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to guide the pharmacotherapy of TAK. Future observational studies should attempt to include appropriate comparator arms. Multicentric, adequately powered RCTs assessing both clinical and angiographic responses are necessary in TAK. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10067-021-05743-2.