Remdesivir and corticosteroids in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic infection caused by the newly discovered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroids are used mainly in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. The main objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of remdesivir with and without corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. We conducted a prospective observational study, including adult patients consecutively hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure. Patients were divided according to treatment strategy: RDV alone versus RDV with corticosteroids. The primary outcome was the time to recovery in both treatment groups. We included 374 COVID-19 adult patients, 184 were treated with RDV, and 190 were treated with RDV and corticosteroid. Patients in the RDV group had a shorter time to recovery in comparison with patients in the RDV plus corticosteroids group at 28 days after admission [11 vs. 16 days (95% confidence Interval 9.7-12.8; 14.9-17.1; p = .016)]. Patients treated with RDV alone had a shorter length of hospital stay. The use of corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy of RDV was not associated with improvement in mortality of COVID-19 patients.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on heart failure management: Global experience of the OPTIMIZE Heart Failure Care network.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, reductions in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations have been widely reported, and there is an urgent need to understand how HF care has been reorganized in countries with different infection levels, vaccination rates and healthcare services. The OPTIMIZE Heart Failure Care program has a global network of investigators in 42 countries, with first-hand experience of the impact of the pandemic on HF management in different care settings. The national coordinators were surveyed to assess: 1) the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for continuity of HF care, from both a hospital and patient perspective; 2) the organizational changes enacted to ensure continued HF care; and 3) lessons learned for the future of HF care. Contributions were obtained from 37 national coordinators in 29 countries. We summarize their input, highlighting the issues raised and using the example of three very different settings (Italy, Brazil, and Taiwan) to illustrate the similarities and differences across the OPTIMIZE program.

COVID-19 and aging: Identifying measures of severity.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare clinical features of older age group and young and middle-aged patients with COVID-19 and analyze mortality predictors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of ongoing collection of prespecified data, on a single institution, including patients hospitalized consecutively due to COVID-19 infection, from March to June 2020. RESULTS: Of 195 patients, 56.9% were ⩾65 years (older age group). Older age group had multimorbidity (p < 0.001). At admission Early Warning Score-2 (p < 0.001), C-reactive protein, D-dimer, creatinine, anemia and lymphopenia were higher in older age group, as well as median time of hospitalization (14 vs 10 days, p = 0.004). Complications were more common in older age group, but there were no significant differences in admission to intensive care. There were 18 deaths, 16 in older age group. Modified Early Warning Score at admission (odds ratio = 1.60, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-1.37, p = 0.021) and C-reactive protein >5 mg/dL (odds ratio = 2.12, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-26.26, p = 0.034) were independent predictors of inhospital mortality in older age group but not in young and middle-aged. CONCLUSION: Older age group was at higher risk for complications and inhospital mortality. Identification of specific scores of severity for this population is essential to ensure that best care is provided.

A prospective, observational study to evaluate adverse drug reactions in patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine: a preliminary report.

OBJECTIVES: Since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the pressure to minimise its impact on public health has led to the implementation of different therapeutic strategies, the efficacy of which for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was unknown at the time. Remdesivir (REM) was granted its first conditional marketing authorisation in the EU in June 2020. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and local health authorities all across the EU have since strongly recommended the implementation of pharmacovigilance activities aimed at further evaluating the safety of this new drug. The objective of this study was to evaluate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) attributed to either REM or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, a Portuguese hospital centre based in Lisbon. We present the preliminary results reporting plausible adverse effects of either HCQ or REM. METHODS: An observational cohort study was carried out between 16 March and 15 August 2020. Participants were divided into two cohorts: those prescribed an HCQ regimen, and those prescribed REM. Suspected ADRs were identified using an active monitoring model and reported to the Portuguese Pharmacovigilance System through its online notification tool. The ADR cumulative incidence was compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: The study included 149 patients, of whom 101 were treated with HCQ and the remaining 48 with REM. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two cohorts. A total of 102 ADRs were identified during the study period, with a greater incidence in the HCQ cohort compared with the REM cohort (47.5% vs 12.5%; p<0.001). Causality was assessed in 81 ADRs, all of which were considered possible. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data are crucial to further establish the safety profile for REM. HCQ is no longer recommended for the treatment of COVID-19.

A Patient with Severe Malaria and COVID-19: How Do You Tell the Difference between These Infections?

Coronavirus infection, known as COVID-19, is characterized by clinical, epidemiological and biological features similar to those of malaria. In each case, fever, myalgia, fatigue, headaches and gastrointestinal symptoms may be present. Both diseases can also induce a cytokine storm and pro-coagulant states. An appropriate epidemiological approach and differential diagnosis are very important so that the right clinical intervention can be selected. Malaria remains a serious global public health issue, especially in endemic countries. Elimination campaigns are helping to control the disease, but in many countries these programs are now at risk of failure due to logistic and economic problems caused by COVID-19. The authors describe the case of a patient with co-infection with malaria and COVID-19, reminding us that during this coronavirus pandemic it is critical to consider other diagnoses, particularly in people traveling between countries. LEARNING POINTS: As far as we know, this is one of the first case reports of co-infection with COVID-19 and Plasmodium falciparum malaria.It is important to be aware of the clinical challenges of diagnosing the cause of fever in returned travellers.