Early Outpatient Treatment With Remdesivir in Patients at High Risk for Severe COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with remdesivir in high-risk patients, including those with immunosuppression of different causes, has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of early remdesivir treatment among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk of progression. Methods: This prospective cohort comparative study was conducted in a tertiary referral center in Mexico City. Patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression were treated with an ambulatory 3-day course of remdesivir. The primary efficacy composite outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days after symptom onset. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify associations with the primary outcome. Results: From December 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022, a total of 196 high-risk patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 126 were included in this study (43%, 54/126, received remdesivir; 57%, 72/126, did not receive remdesivir). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups; autoimmune diseases (39/126), solid organ transplant (31/126), and malignant neoplasms (24/126) were the most common immunocompromising conditions. Diabetes mellitus was strongly associated with the primary outcome in both groups. Prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection or vaccination was not independently associated with COVID-19 progression. Treatment with remdesivir significantly reduced the odds of hospitalization or death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.44; P < .01). Conclusions: Early outpatient treatment with remdesivir significantly reduces hospitalization or death by 84% in high-risk, majority immunosuppressed patients with Omicron variant COVID-19.

Correction: In-hospital mortality from severe COVID-19 in a tertiary care center in Mexico City; causes of death, risk factors and the impact of hospital saturation.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245772.].

NAFLD determined by Dallas Steatosis Index is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19 pneumonia: a cohort study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a worldwide health challenge. Liver steatosis diagnosis based on imaging studies has been implicated in poor outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia, but results are inconsistent. The Dallas Steatosis Index (DSI) is an available calculator developed to identify patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We hypothesized that it would be associated with in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission (ICU), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We conducted a retrospective cohort study on inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia between February 26 and April 11, 2020. We computed the DSI on admission, and patients with high DSI were considered with NAFLD. We employed logistic regression to study the association between NAFLD, mortality, ICU admission, and IMV. We studied the association between liver steatosis on computed tomography (CT) and these outcomes, and also between Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD) based on CT findings and risk factors and the outcomes. 470 patients were included; 359 had NAFLD according to the DSI. They had a higher frequency of type 2 diabetes (31% vs 14%, p < 0.001), obesity (58% vs 14%, p < 0.001), and arterial hypertension (34% vs 22%, p = 0.02). In univariable analysis, NAFLD was associated with mortality, ICU admission, and IMV. Liver steatosis by CT and MAFLD were not associated with any of these outcomes. In multivariable logistic regression, high DSI remained significantly associated with IMV and death. High DSI, which can be easily computed on admission, was associated with IMV and death, and its use to better stratify the prognosis of these patients should be explored. On the other hand, liver steatosis by CT and MAFLD were not associated with poor outcomes.

Territorial Strategy of Medical Units for Addressing the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City: Analysis of Mobility, Accessibility and Marginalization.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an exponential increase in the demand for medical care worldwide. In Mexico, the COVID Medical Units (CMUs) conversion strategy was implemented. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the CMU coverage strategy in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area (MCMA) by territory. MATERIALS: The CMU directory was used, as were COVID-19 infection and mobility statistics and Mexican 2020 census information at the urban geographic area scale. The degree of urban marginalization by geographic area was also considered. METHOD: Using descriptive statistics and the calculation of a CMU accessibility index, population aggregates were counted based on coverage radii. In addition, two regression models are proposed to explain (1) the territorial and temporal trend of COVID-19 infections in the MCMA and (2) the mobility of the COVID-infected population visiting medical units. RESULTS: The findings of the evaluation of the CMU strategy were (1) in the MCMA, COVID-19 followed a pattern of contagion from the urban center to the periphery; (2) given the growth in the number of cases and the overload of medical units, the population traveled greater distances to seek medical care; (3) after the CMU strategy was evaluated at the territory level, it was found that 9 out of 10 inhabitants had a CMU located approximately 7 km away; and (4) at the metropolitan level, the lowest level of accessibility to the CMU was recorded for the population with the highest levels of marginalization, i.e., those residing in the urban periphery.

Colchicine Is Safe Though Ineffective in the Treatment of Severe COVID-19: a Randomized Clinical Trial (COLCHIVID).

BACKGROUND: Colchicine is an available, safe, and effective anti-inflammatory drug and has been suggested as a COVID-19 treatment, but its usefulness in hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients has not been thoroughly demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To address the safety and efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. DESIGN: We conducted a triple-blind parallel non-stratified placebo-controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 116 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 in Mexico. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 1.5 mg of colchicine or placebo at the time of the recruitment in the study (baseline) and 0.5 mg BID PO to complete 10 days of treatment. MAIN MEASURES: The primary composite outcome was the progression to critical disease or death. Besides, we evaluated immunological features at baseline and after recovery or disease progression in 20 patients. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were allocated to colchicine and 60 patients received placebo. The study was suspended after the second interim analysis demonstrated colchicine had no effect on the primary outcome (OR 0.83, 95%CI 0.35-1.93, P = 0.67), nor in the days of ICU and hospital stays. Adverse events were similar between groups (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.66-3.88, P = 0.37). After colchicine treatment, patients had higher BUN and lower serum levels of IL-8, IL-12p70, and IL-17A. CONCLUSIONS: Colchicine is safe but not effective in the treatment of severe COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04367168.

Adverse Effects Associated With the Use of Antimalarials During The COVID-19 Pandemic in a Tertiary Care Center in Mexico City.

Background: Antimalarial drugs were widely used as experimental therapies against COVID-19 in the initial stages of the pandemic. Despite multiple randomized controlled trials demonstrating unfavorable outcomes in both efficacy and adverse effects, antimalarial drugs are still prescribed in developing countries, especially in those experiencing recurrent COVID-19 crises (India and Brazil). Therefore, real-life experience and pharmacovigilance studies describing the use and side effects of antimalarials for COVID-19 in developing countries are still relevant. Objective: To describe the adverse effects associated with the use of antimalarial drugs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at a reference center in Mexico City. Methods: We integrated a retrospective cohort with all adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia from March 13th, 2020, to May 17th, 2020. We compared the baseline characteristics (demographic and clinical) and the adverse effects between the groups of patients treated with and without antimalarial drugs. The mortality analysis was performed in 491 patients who received optimal care and were not transferred to other institutions (210 from the antimalarial group and 281 from the other group). Results: We included 626 patients from whom 38% (n = 235) received an antimalarial drug. The mean age was 51.2 ± 13.6 years, and 64% were males. At baseline, compared with the group treated with antimalarials, the group that did not receive antimalarials had more dyspnea (82 vs. 73%, p = 0.017) and cyanosis (5.3 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.009), higher respiratory rate (median of 28 vs. 24 bpm, p < 0.001), and lower oxygen saturation (median of 83 vs. 87%, p < 0.001). In the group treated with antimalarials, 120 patients had two EKG evaluations, from whom 12% (n = 16) prolonged their QTc from baseline in more than 50 ms, and six developed a ventricular arrhythmia. Regarding the trajectories of the liver function tests over time, no significant differences were found for the change in the mean value per day between the two groups. Among patients who received optimal care, the mortality was 16% (33/210) in those treated with antimalarials and 15% (41/281) in those not receiving antimalarials (RR 1.08, 95% 0.75-1.64, and adjusted RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.69-1.82). Conclusion: The adverse events in patients with COVID-19 treated with antimalarials were similar to those who did not receive antimalarials at institutions with rigorous pharmacological surveillance. However, they do not improve survival in patients who receive optimal medical care.

Large-scale screening for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among healthcare workers: Prevalence and risk factors for asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic carriers, with emphasis on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Healthcare workers (HCWs) not fulfilling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case definition underwent severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening. Risk of exposure, adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE), and symptoms were assessed. In total, 2,000 HCWs were screened: 5.5% were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). There were no differences in PPE use between SARS-CoV-2-positive and -negative HCWs (adherence, >90%). Nursing and kitchen staff were independently associated with positive SARS-CoV-2 results.

Factors Associated with COVID-19 and Asymptomatic Carriage in Healthcare Workers of a COVID-19 Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) asymptomatic carriage (AC) in healthcare workers (HCWs) have been scarcely characterized. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to study factors associated with COVID-19 and AC in HCWs of a COVID-19 academic medical center. METHODS: This is a case-control study. Cases were either symptomatic or asymptomatic HCWs with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result between March 16 and May 21 of 2020. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated by means of multivariable logistic regression. In addition, each subject was followed for 14 days to inform outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred thirty of 249 (52.2%) symptomatic HCWs had COVID-19; 10 were hospitalized but none died. Of 987 asymptomatic HCWs,37 (3.7%) were AC; 6 of the remaining 950 asymptomatic HCWs with a negative PCR test result were found to be presymptomatic COVID-19 cases the following 14 days. Nurses were more frequently present in the COVID-19 group (51.5% vs. 37.0%), but multivariable analysis rendered non-significant results. After adjustment for age, comorbidities, and working place, factors found to be associated with AC were: working in wards as a nurse (aOR = 9.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05-80.22, p = 0.045), kitchen personnel (aOR = 4.09, 95% CI = 1.55-10.83, p = 0.005), and being a physician (aOR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.03-0.54, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: HCW category was the predominant factor associated with AC of SARS-CoV-2 in this study.

CLINICAL AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH COVID-19 IN A TERTIARY CARE CENTER IN MEXICO CITY: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY.

BACKGROUND: Regional information regarding the characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 is needed for a better understanding of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study to describe the clinical features of COVID-19 patients diagnosed in a tertiary-care center in Mexico City and to assess differences according to the treatment setting (ambulatory vs. hospital) and to the need of intensive care (IC). METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort, including consecutive patients with COVID-19 from February 26, 2020 to April 11, 2020. RESULTS: We identified 309 patients (140 inpatients and 169 outpatients). The median age was 43 years (interquartile range, 33-54), 59.2% men, and 18.6% healthcare workers (12.3% from our center). The median body mass index (BMI) was 29.00 kg/m2 and 39.6% had obesity. Compared to outpatients, inpatients were older, had comorbidities, cough, and dyspnea more frequently. Twenty-nine (20.7%) inpatients required treatment in the IC unit (ICU). History of diabetes (type 1 or 2) and abdominal pain were more common in ICU patients compared to non-ICU patients. ICU patients had higher BMIs, higher respiratory rates, and lower room-air capillary oxygen saturations. ICU patients showed a more severe inflammatory response as assessed by white blood cell count, neutrophil and platelet count, C-reactive protein, ferritin, procalcitonin, and albumin levels. By the end of the study period, 65 inpatients had been discharged because of improvement, 70 continued hospitalized, and five had died. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with comorbidities, either middle-age obese or elderly complaining of fever, cough, or dyspnea, were more likely to be admitted. At admission, patients with diabetes, high BMI, and clinical or laboratory findings consistent with a severe inflammatory state were more likely to require IC.