Carbamazepine, phenytoin, fluoroquinolones and paracetamol were the major causative drugs. TEN is showing higher mortality, morbidity and economic burden than SJS.

Objectives: Convalescent plasma (CP) as a passive source of neutralizing antibodies and immunomodulators is a century-old therapeutic option used for the management of viral diseases. We investigated its effectiveness for the treatment of COVID-19. Design: Open-label, parallel-arm, phase II, multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Thirty-nine public and private hospitals across India. Participants: Hospitalized, moderately ill confirmed COVID-19 patients (PaO2/FiO2: 200-300 or respiratory rate > 24/min and SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air). Intervention: Participants were randomized to either control (best standard of care (BSC)) or intervention (CP + BSC) arm. Two doses of 200 mL CP was transfused 24 hours apart in the intervention arm. Main Outcome Measure: Composite of progression to severe disease (PaO2/FiO2<100) or all-cause mortality at 28 days post-enrolment. Results: Between 22 nd April to 14 th July 2020, 464 participants were enrolled; 235 and 229 in intervention and control arm, respectively. Composite primary outcome was achieved in 44 (18.7%) participants in the intervention arm and 41 (17.9%) in the control arm [aOR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.77]. Mortality was documented in 34 (13.6%) and 31 (14.6%) participants in intervention and control arm, respectively [aOR) 1.06 95% CI: -0.61 to 1.83]. Interpretation: CP was not associated with reduction in mortality or progression to severe COVID-19. This trial has high generalizability and approximates real-life setting of CP therapy in settings with limited laboratory capacity. A priori measurement of neutralizing antibody titres in donors and participants may further clarify the role of CP in management of COVID-19.

Background Lopinavir-ritonavir is a repurposed drug for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this study, a pooled effect of lopinavir-ritonavir on mortality, virological cure, radiological improvement and safety profile in COVID-19 patients has been evaluated. Methods The databases were searched for comparative randomized controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients. The mortality outcome was pooled as a risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. The virological cure, radiological improvement and adverse events were pooled as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were pooled using the Mantle-Hanzle method random effect model. The heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 test. Results Out of 82 full text assessed, seven studies were included in the analysis. The included studies had five different control interventions: supportive care (n = 4), umifenovir (arbidol) (n = 2), navaferon (recombinant anti-tumour and anti-virus protein) (n = 1), lopinavir-ritonavir + novaferon (n = 1) and lopinavir-ritonavir + interferon beta 1b + ribavirin (n = 1). Lopinavir-ritonavir group did not show significant difference in mortality [RD: 0.00 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.02), I 2 = 0], virological cure [RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.31), I 2 = 0%], radiological improvement [RR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05)] and adverse events [RR: 2.59 (95% CI: 0.17, 38.90), I 2 = 75%] than supportive care. Similarly, no difference was observed for any efficacy outcomes between lopinavir-ritonavir and other control interventions. We observed significantly high risk of adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir as compared to umifenovir [RR: 2.96 (95% CI: 1.42-6.18); I 2 = 0%]. Conclusion There is no benefit of the addition of lopinavir-ritonavir to the standard care in COVID-19 patients.

Antimicrobial drugs are the most commonly implicated drugs and cost of managing these adverse drug reactions is higher than other serious ADRs.

Hydroxychloroquine has been promoted for its use in treatment of COVID-19 patients based on in-vitro evidences. We searched the databases to include randomized and observational studies evaluating the effect of Hydroxychloroquine on mortality in COVID-19 patients. The outcome was summarized as odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).We used the inversevariance method with a random effect model and assessed the heterogeneity using I 2 test. We used ROBINS-I tool to assess methodological quality of the included studies. We performed the meta-analysis using 'Review manager software version 5.3'. We identified 6 observationalstudies satisfying the selection criteria. In all studies, Hydroxychloroquine was given as add on to the standard care and effect was compared with the standard care alone. A pooled analysis observed 251 deaths in 1331 participants of the Hydroxychloroquine arm and 363 deaths in 1577 participants of the control arm. There was no difference in odds of mortality events amongst Hydroxychloroquine and supportive care arm [1.25 (95% CI: 0.65, 2.38); I 2 = 80%]. A similar trend was observed with moderate risk of bias studies [0.95 (95% CI: 0.44, 2.06); I 2 = 85%]. The odds of mortality were significantly higher in patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin than supportive care alone [2.34 (95% CI: 1.63, 3.34); I 2 = 0%]. A pooled analysis of recently published studies suggests no additional benefit for reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients when Hydroxychloroquine is given as add-on to the standard care.