Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
The New Zealand Medical Journal (Online) ; 134(1544):113-128, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1505350


Within 30 years, the global number of deaths from AMR-associated infections is predicted to increase from ~700,000 to ~10 million people annually, if we do not act now.1 The Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) response to the current COVID-19 pandemic has been lauded internationally-found-ed in science, responsive to expert advice, implemented with clear leadership and communication, and subject to ongoing critical evaluation and improvement. AMR-associated infections and related care (eg, time off work or school to travel to hospital for treatment) will disproportionately impact the most socioeconomically disadvantaged among us, those living in rural or remote settings, and Maori and Pacific populations who shoulder a greater infection and AMR burden and have increased reliance on antimicrobial therapy.6'7 One of the biggest drivers for AMR is antimicrobial use, which is high in human health in NZ compared with many developed countries.8'9 Most of our antimicrobial use (95%) is in the community9 and up to 50% may be inappropriate.2 The NZ community antibacterial consumption rate increased 49% between 2006 and 2014;in 2013, it exceeded that of 22 out of 29 European countries.8 A subsequent modest 14% decrease occurred across 2015 to 2018, mainly due to reductions in under 5 year olds,10 which is pleasing as antimicrobial use in childhood may create reservoirs of resistant pathogens impacting communities cross-generationally. In 2013, the Health Quality and Safety Commission (HQSC) published a scoping report that offered insight into what was needed to progress AMS in NZ.14 Key recommendations were to establish: * National leadership and coordination of AMS activities * National antimicrobial prescribing guidelines * Quality improvement tools and measures In the near decade that has followed this report, none of these recommendations have been achieved. The NCAMS should provide access to (and support use of) quality improvement tools (eg, auditing systems for between facility benchmarking), develop initiatives to improve antimicrobial use (including those involving consumers), monitor performance against quality markers, and establish clinical care standards with the oversight of NAMSEG.

Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 867-886, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305144


PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.

COVID-19 , Ritonavir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Drug Combinations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
N Engl J Med ; 384(16): 1491-1502, 2021 04 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101727


BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP number, NCT02735707.).

Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial