UV-C irradiation-based inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 in contaminated porous and non-porous surfaces.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic emphasized effective cleaning and disinfection of common spaces as an essential tool to mitigate viral transmission. To address this problem, decontamination technologies based on UV-C light are being used. Our aim was to generate coherent and translational datasets of effective UV-C-based SARS-CoV-2 inactivation protocols for the application on surfaces with different compositions. Virus infectivity after UV-C exposure of several porous (bed linen, various types of upholstery, synthetic leather, clothing) and non-porous (types of plastic, stainless steel, glass, ceramics, wood, vinyl) materials was assessed through plaque assay using a SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate. Studies were conducted under controlled environmental conditions with a 254-nm UV-C lamp and irradiance values quantified using a 254 nm-calibrated sensor. From each material type (porous/non-porous), a product was selected as a reference to assess the decrease of infectious virus particles as a function of UV-C dose, before testing the remaining surfaces with selected critical doses. Our data show that UV-C irradiation is effectively inactivating SARS-CoV-2 on both material types. However, an efficient reduction in the number of infectious viral particles was achieved much faster and at lower doses on non-porous surfaces. The treatment effectiveness on porous surfaces was demonstrated to be highly variable and composition-dependent. Our findings will support the optimization of UV-C-based technologies, enabling the adoption of effective customizable protocols that will help to ensure higher antiviral efficiencies.

The arrival of COVID-19 in Brazil and the impact on coronary artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: This study analyzed the arrival of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Brazil and its impact on coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated CABG in six hospitals in Brazil were divided into two periods: pre-COVID-19 (March-May 2019, N = 468) and COVID-19 era (March-May 2020, N = 182). Perioperative data were included on a dedicated REDCap platform. Patients with clinical and tomographic criteria and/or PCR (+) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were considered COVID-19 (+). Logistic regression analysis was performed to create a multiple predictive model for mortality after CABG in COVID-19 era. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, in 2020, CABG surgeries had a 2.8-fold increased mortality risk (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-7.6, p = .041), patients who evolved with COVID-19 had a 11-fold increased mortality risk (95% CI: 2.2-54.9, p < .003), rates of morbidities and readmission to the intensive care unit. The surgical volume was decreased by 60%. The model to predict mortality after CABG in the COVID-19 era was validated with good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow = 1.43) and discrimination (receiver operating characteristic = 0.78). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had an adverse impact on mortality, morbidity and volume of patients undergoing CABG.

Effect of Discontinuing vs Continuing Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Days Alive and Out of the Hospital in Patients Admitted With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether discontinuation compared with continuation of ACEIs or ARBs changed the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization (enrolled: April 9-June 26, 2020; final follow-up: July 26, 2020). Interventions: Discontinuation (n = 334) or continuation (n = 325) of ACEIs or ARBs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Secondary outcomes included death, cardiovascular death, and COVID-19 progression. Results: Among 659 patients, the median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.1-65.0 years), 14.7% were aged 70 years or older, 40.4% were women, and 100% completed the trial. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 6 days (IQR, 4-9 days) and 27.2% of patients had an oxygen saturation of less than 94% of room air at baseline. In terms of clinical severity, 57.1% of patients were considered mild at hospital admission and 42.9% were considered moderate. There was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital in patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days [SD, 8 days]) vs patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days [SD, 7.1 days]) and the mean ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01). There also was no statistically significant difference in death (2.7% for the discontinuation group vs 2.8% for the continuation group; odds ratio [OR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.52]), cardiovascular death (0.6% vs 0.3%, respectively; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.19-42.12]), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs 32.3%; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.80]). The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs 7.1%, respectively), acute myocardial infarction (7.5% vs 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs 2.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospital admission, there was no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue vs continue these medications. These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364893.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).