Risks Of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia And Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis In Patients With Viral Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Related or Not To Coronavirus 19 Disease (preprint)

Background: The goal of this study was to assess risk factors of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: . We conducted a monocenter retrospective study comparing the prevalence of VAP and invasive aspergillosis between patients with COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) and those with non-SARS-CoV-2 viral ARDS (NC-ARDS). Results: . We assessed 90 C-ARDS and 82 NC-ARDS patients, who were mechanically ventilated for more than 48 hours. At ICU admission, there were significantly fewer bacterial coinfections documented in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS: 14 (16%) vs 38 (48%), p<0.01. Conversely, significantly more patients developed at least one VAP episode in C-ARDS as compared with NC-ARDS : 58 (64%) vs. 36 (44%), p=0.007. The probability of VAP was significantly higher in C-ARDS after adjusting on death and ventilator weaning [sub-hazard ratio = 1.72 (1.14-2.52), p<0.01].The prevalence of multi-drug resistant bacteria (MDR) related VAP was significantly higher in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS: 21 (23%) vs. 9 (11%), p=0.03. Carbapenem was more used in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS: 48 (53%), vs 21 (26%), p<0.01. According to AspICU algorithm, there were fewer cases of putative aspergillosis in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS [2 (2%) vs. 12 (15%), p=0.003], but there was no difference in Aspergillus colonization. Conclusions: . In this retrospective case-control study, we evidenced a higher prevalence of VAP and MDR-VAP in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS, and a lower risk for invasive aspergillosis in the former group.

No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial (preprint)

Background Treatments are urgently needed to prevent respiratory failure and deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has received worldwide attention because of positive results from small studies. Methods We used data collected from routine care of all adults in 4 French hospitals with documented SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and requiring oxygen [≥] 2 L/min to emulate a target trial aimed at assessing the effectiveness of HCQ at 600 mg/day. The composite primary endpoint was transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) within 7 days from inclusion and/or death from any cause. Analyses were adjusted for confounding factors by inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results This study included 181 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia; 84 received HCQ within 48 hours of admission (HCQ group) and 97 did not (no-HCQ group). Initial severity was well balanced between the groups. In the weighted analysis, 20.2% patients in the HCQ group were transferred to the ICU or died within 7 days vs 22.1% in the no-HCQ group (16 vs 21 events, relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.47-1.80). In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients died within 7 days vs 4.6% in the no-HCQ group (3 vs 4 events, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.13-2.89), and 27.4% and 24.1%, respectively, developed acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (24 vs 23 events, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65-2.00). Eight patients receiving HCQ (9.5%) experienced electrocardiogram modifications requiring HCQ discontinuation. Interpretation These results do not support the use of HCQ in patients hospitalised for documented SARS-CoV-2-positive hypoxic pneumonia.