Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 73
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
Trials ; 22(1): 796, 2021 Nov 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1518288

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The advised standard treatment for bacterial brain abscess following surgery is 6 to 8 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, but an early switch to oral antibiotic treatment has been suggested to be equally effective. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, international, multi-center, parallel group, open-label, randomized (1:1 allocation) controlled trial will examine if oral treatment after 2 weeks of IV antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to standard 6-8 weeks of IV antibiotics for bacterial brain abscess in adults (≥ 18 years of age). The study will be conducted at hospitals across Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Australia, and Sweden. Exclusion criteria are severe immunocompromise or impaired gastro-intestinal absorption, pregnancy, device-related brain abscesses, and brain abscess caused by nocardia, tuberculosis, or Pseudomonas spp. The primary objective is a composite endpoint at 6 months after randomization consisting of all-cause mortality, intraventricular rupture of brain abscess, unplanned re-aspiration or excision of brain abscess, relapse, or recurrence. The primary endpoint will be adjudicated by an independent blinded endpoint committee. Secondary outcomes include extended Glasgow Outcome Scale scores and all-cause mortality at end of treatment as well as 3, 6, and 12 months since randomization, completion of assigned treatment, IV catheter associated complications, durations of admission and antibiotic treatment, severe adverse events, quality of life scores, and cognitive evaluations. The planned sample size is 450 patients for a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and a power of 90% to exclude a difference in favor of standard treatment of more than 10%. Date of initiation of first study center was November 3, 2020, with active recruitment for 3 years and follow-up for 1 year of all patients. DISCUSSION: The results of this study may guide future recommendations for treatment of bacterial brain abscess. If early transition to oral antibiotics proves non-inferior to standard IV treatment, this will provide considerable health and costs benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04140903, first registered 28.10.2019. EudraCT number: 2019-002845-39, first registered 03.07.2019.


Subject(s)
Brain Abscess , COVID-19 , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Brain Abscess/diagnosis , Brain Abscess/drug therapy , Humans , Quality of Life , Treatment Outcome
3.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(41): e27528, 2021 Oct 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501205

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Diarrhea is one of the manifestations of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), but it also develops as a complication of massive antibiotic therapy in this disease. This study aimed to compare these types of diarrhea.We included patients with COVID-19 in a cohort study and excluded patients with chronic diarrhea, laxative use, and those who died during the first day of hospitalization.There were 89 (9.3%), 161 (16.7%), and 731 (75.7%) patients with early viral, late antibiotic-associated, and without diarrhea, respectively. Late diarrhea lasted longer (6 [4-10] vs 5 [3-7] days, P < .001) and was more severe. Clostridioides difficile was found in 70.5% of tested patients with late diarrhea and in none with early diarrhea. Presence of late diarrhea was associated with an increased risk of death after 20 days of disease (P = .009; hazard ratio = 4.7). Patients with late diarrhea had a longer hospital stay and total disease duration, and a higher proportion of these patients required intensive care unit admission. Oral amoxicillin/clavulanate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23), oral clarithromycin (OR = 3.79), and glucocorticoids (OR = 4.41) use was a risk factor for the development of late diarrhea, while ceftriaxone use (OR = 0.35) had a protective effect. Before the development of late diarrhea, decrease in C-reactive protein levels and increase in lymphocyte count stopped but the white blood cell and neutrophil count increased. An increase in neutrophils by >0.6 × 109 cells/L predicted the development of late diarrhea in the coming days (sensitivity 82.0%, specificity 70.8%, area under the curve = 0.791 [0.710-0.872]).Diarrhea in COVID-19 is heterogeneous, and different types of diarrhea require different management.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Diarrhea/chemically induced , Diarrhea/virology , Aged , Diarrhea/classification , Diarrhea/epidemiology , Humans , Length of Stay , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Ther Drug Monit ; 43(4): 451-454, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501177

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The authors report on a case of a 59-year-old man hospitalized in the intensive care unit because of severe SARS-COV-2 infection (COVID-19). BACKGROUND: The patient had several comorbidities, including liver cirrhosis. He developed ventilation-associated bacterial pneumonia for which he was administered cefepime at an initial dose of 2 g/8 hours. Therapeutic drug monitoring was performed, showing overexposure with an initial trough concentration of >60 mg/L. METHODS: Analysis of pharmacokinetic data and model-based dose adjustment was performed using BestDose software. RESULTS: The patient had unexpected pharmacokinetic parameter values. Serum creatinine was only moderately increased, whereas measured creatinine clearance based on urine collection showed impaired renal function. Bacterial minimum inhibitory concentration was also considered in the dosing decisions. After dose reduction to 0.5 g/8 hours, the cefepime trough concentration progressively declined and reached the target values by the end of the therapy. A post-hoc analysis provided a different interpretation of drug overexposure. CONCLUSION: This case report illustrates how physiological, microbiological, and drug concentration data can be used for model-based dosage individualization of cefepime in intensive care unit patients.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacokinetics , Cefepime/pharmacokinetics , Critical Illness/therapy , Drug Dosage Calculations , Precision Medicine/methods , Acute Kidney Injury/blood , Acute Kidney Injury/chemically induced , Acute Kidney Injury/prevention & control , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Cefepime/administration & dosage , Cefepime/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
5.
Am J Epidemiol ; 190(11): 2405-2419, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493668

ABSTRACT

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as an early therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after in vitro studies indicated possible benefit. Previous in vivo observational studies have presented conflicting results, though recent randomized clinical trials have reported no benefit from HCQ among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We examined the effects of HCQ alone and in combination with azithromycin in a hospitalized population of US veterans with COVID-19, using a propensity score-adjusted survival analysis with imputation of missing data. According to electronic health record data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, 64,055 US Veterans were tested for the virus that causes COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. Of the 7,193 veterans who tested positive, 2,809 were hospitalized, and 657 individuals were prescribed HCQ within the first 48-hours of hospitalization for the treatment of COVID-19. There was no apparent benefit associated with HCQ receipt, alone or in combination with azithromycin, and there was an increased risk of intubation when HCQ was used in combination with azithromycin (hazard ratio = 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 2.24). In conclusion, we assessed the effectiveness of HCQ with or without azithromycin in treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, using a national sample of the US veteran population. Using rigorous study design and analytic methods to reduce confounding and bias, we found no evidence of a survival benefit from the administration of HCQ.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Intention to Treat Analysis , Machine Learning , Male , Middle Aged , Pharmacoepidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD015025, 2021 10 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482091

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Cause of Death , Humans , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Am J Epidemiol ; 190(11): 2405-2419, 2021 11 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1393147

ABSTRACT

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as an early therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after in vitro studies indicated possible benefit. Previous in vivo observational studies have presented conflicting results, though recent randomized clinical trials have reported no benefit from HCQ among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We examined the effects of HCQ alone and in combination with azithromycin in a hospitalized population of US veterans with COVID-19, using a propensity score-adjusted survival analysis with imputation of missing data. According to electronic health record data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, 64,055 US Veterans were tested for the virus that causes COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. Of the 7,193 veterans who tested positive, 2,809 were hospitalized, and 657 individuals were prescribed HCQ within the first 48-hours of hospitalization for the treatment of COVID-19. There was no apparent benefit associated with HCQ receipt, alone or in combination with azithromycin, and there was an increased risk of intubation when HCQ was used in combination with azithromycin (hazard ratio = 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 2.24). In conclusion, we assessed the effectiveness of HCQ with or without azithromycin in treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, using a national sample of the US veteran population. Using rigorous study design and analytic methods to reduce confounding and bias, we found no evidence of a survival benefit from the administration of HCQ.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Intention to Treat Analysis , Machine Learning , Male , Middle Aged , Pharmacoepidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
9.
BMJ Open Gastroenterol ; 8(1)2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394098

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to describe community antibiotic prescribing patterns in individuals hospitalised with COVID-19, and to determine the association between experiencing diarrhoea, stratified by preadmission exposure to antibiotics, and mortality risk in this cohort. DESIGN/METHODS: Retrospective study of the index presentations of 1153 adult patients with COVID-19, admitted between 1 March 2020 and 29 June 2020 in a South London NHS Trust. Data on patients' medical history (presence of diarrhoea, antibiotic use in the previous 14 days, comorbidities); demographics (age, ethnicity, and body mass index); and blood test results were extracted. Time to event modelling was used to determine the risk of mortality for patients with diarrhoea and/or exposure to antibiotics. RESULTS: 19.2% of the cohort reported diarrhoea on presentation; these patients tended to be younger, and were less likely to have recent exposure to antibiotics (unadjusted OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97). 19.1% of the cohort had a course of antibiotics in the 2 weeks preceding admission; this was associated with dementia (unadjusted OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.49). After adjusting for confounders, neither diarrhoea nor recent antibiotic exposure was associated with increased mortality risk. However, the absence of diarrhoea in the presence of recent antibiotic exposure was associated with a 30% increased risk of mortality. CONCLUSION: Community antibiotic use in patients with COVID-19, prior to hospitalisation, is relatively common, and absence of diarrhoea in antibiotic-exposed patients may be associated with increased risk of mortality. However, it is unclear whether this represents a causal physiological relationship or residual confounding.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Diarrhea/chemically induced , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
11.
JAMA ; 326(6): 490-498, 2021 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363618

ABSTRACT

Importance: Azithromycin has been hypothesized to have activity against SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine whether oral azithromycin in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of azithromycin vs matching placebo conducted from May 2020 through March 2021. Outpatients from the US were enrolled remotely via internet-based surveys and followed up for 21 days. Eligible participants had a positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test result (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) within 7 days prior to enrollment, were aged 18 years or older, and were not hospitalized at the time of enrollment. Among 604 individuals screened, 297 were ineligible, 44 refused participation, and 263 were enrolled. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment randomization. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to a single oral 1.2-g dose of azithromycin (n = 171) or matching placebo (n = 92). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. There were 23 secondary clinical end points, including all-cause hospitalization at day 21. Results: Among 263 participants who were randomized (median age, 43 years; 174 [66%] women; 57% non-Hispanic White and 29% Latinx/Hispanic), 76% completed the trial. The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring committee for futility after the interim analysis. At day 14, there was no significant difference in proportion of participants who were symptom free (azithromycin: 50%; placebo: 50%; prevalence difference, 0%; 95% CI, -14% to 15%; P > .99). Of 23 prespecified secondary clinical end points, 18 showed no significant difference. By day 21, 5 participants in the azithromycin group had been hospitalized compared with 0 in the placebo group (prevalence difference, 4%; 95% CI, -1% to 9%; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, treatment with a single dose of azithromycin compared with placebo did not result in greater likelihood of being symptom free at day 14. These findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin for outpatient SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04332107.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Oral , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/administration & dosage , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Symptom Assessment , Treatment Failure
12.
Drug Des Devel Ther ; 15: 3349-3378, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352763

ABSTRACT

Dalbavancin is a novel, long-acting lipoglycopeptide characterized by a long elimination half-life coupled with excellent in vitro activity against multidrug-resistant Gram-positives. Although it is currently approved only for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, an ever-growing amount of evidence supports the efficacy of dalbavancin as a long-term therapy in osteomyelitis, prosthetic joint infections, endocarditis, and bloodstream infections. This article provides a critical reappraisal of real-world use of dalbavancin for off-label indications. A search strategy using specific keywords (dalbavancin, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, long-term suppressive therapy, bloodstream infection, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile) until April 2021 was performed on the PubMed-MEDLINE database. As for other novel antibiotics, a conundrum between approved indications and potential innovative therapeutic uses has emerged for dalbavancin as well. The promising efficacy in challenging scenarios (i.e., osteomyelitis, endocarditis, prosthetic joint infections), coupled with the unique pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, makes dalbavancin a valuable alternative to daily in-hospital intravenous or outpatient antimicrobial regimens in the treatment of long-term Gram-positive infections. This makes dalbavancin valuable in the current COVID-19 scenario, in which hospitalization and territorial medicine empowerment are unavoidable.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Off-Label Use , Patient Participation , Teicoplanin/analogs & derivatives , Algorithms , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacokinetics , Clinical Decision-Making , Decision Support Techniques , Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Humans , Teicoplanin/adverse effects , Teicoplanin/pharmacokinetics , Teicoplanin/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome
13.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(10): 1167-1175, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1348262

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has a widely variable clinical syndrome that is difficult to distinguish from bacterial sepsis, leading to high rates of antibiotic use. Early studies indicate low rates of secondary bacterial infections (SBIs) but have included heterogeneous patient populations. Here, we catalogue all SBIs and antibiotic prescription practices in a population of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with COVID-19 ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation from 3 Seattle, Washington hospitals in 2020. Data were obtained via electronic and manual review of the electronic medical record. We report the incidence and site of SBIs, mortality, and antibiotics per day using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We identified 126 patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS during the study period. Of these patients, 61% developed clinical infection confirmed by bacterial culture. Ventilator associated pneumonia was confirmed in 55% of patients, bacteremia in 20%, and urinary tract infection (UTI) in 17%. Staphylococcus aureus was the most commonly isolated bacterial species. A total of 97% of patients received antibiotics during their hospitalization, and patients received nearly one antibiotic per day during their hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS are at high risk for secondary bacterial infections and have extensive antibiotic exposure.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/chemically induced , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(9): 1010-1020, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331331

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580. FINDINGS: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Doxycycline/administration & dosage , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Doxycycline/adverse effects , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Minimal Clinically Important Difference , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
15.
Drug Dev Res ; 82(7): 880-882, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1330313

ABSTRACT

COVID-19's second wave had a significant impact on India, on May 7, 2021, the largest daily recorded case count was a little more than 4 million, and it has since fallen. Although the number of new cases reported has dropped, during the third week of May 2021, India accounted for about 45% of new cases identified globally and around 34% of deaths. As India maintains its present level of stability, a new urgent threat has emerged in the form of coronavirus-associated mucormycosis. Mucormycosis, an acute and deadly fungal infection caused by Mucorales-related fungal species, is a fungal emergency with a particularly aggressive propensity for contiguous spread, associated with a poor prognosis if not properly and immediately identified, and treated. Mucormycosis, sometimes referred to as the "black fungus," has increased more rapidly in India during the second wave of COVID-19 than during the first wave, with at least 14,872 cases as of May 28, 2021. Uncontrolled diabetic mellitus (DM) and other immunosuppressive diseases such as neutropenia and corticosteroid treatment have traditionally been identified as risk factors for mucormycosis. Therefore, the use of glucocorticoids or high doses of glucocorticoids in mild COVID-19 cases (without hypoxemia) should be avoided. In addition, drugs that target the immune pathway, such as tocilizumab, are not recommended without clear benefits.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Mucormycosis/epidemiology , Mucormycosis/etiology , Prescription Drug Misuse , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Emergency Medical Services , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , India , Pandemics , Prognosis , Risk Factors
16.
Rev Esp Quimioter ; 34(4): 289-297, 2021 Aug.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1329311

ABSTRACT

Oral antibiotics are among the most frequently used medications in the community. Its adverse effects are generally considered to be infrequent and mild, and include allergies, toxicities and drug interactions. Antibiotics are able to harm patients by various mechanisms, not always well known. Knowledge of the clinically relevant antibiotic-associated adverse effects can allow a judicious use based on the principle first do no harm, primun non nocere. In this review we explore the main adverse effects of oral antibiotics with specific focus on ß-lactams, macrolides, and fluoroquinolones.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Medication Therapy Management , Administration, Oral , Humans , Patient Safety
17.
BMJ Case Rep ; 14(7)2021 Jul 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1327621

ABSTRACT

We report a case of vancomycin-induced thrombocytopenia (VIT) with rapid onset after re-exposure to vancomycin. A 58-year-old man with cellulitis was initiated on vancomycin. Approximately 1 hour into the vancomycin infusion, the patient developed an infusion-related reaction. Vancomycin infusion was stopped. A complete blood count obtained 4 hours after discontinuation of the vancomycin infusion revealed a platelet count of 31 ×10-9/L. Investigations ruled out likely causes of thrombocytopenia. VIT was diagnosed based on clinical symptoms and confirmed with drug-dependent platelet antibody testing. Without complications, platelet counts recovered within 7 days after discontinuation of vancomycin. No correlation between vancomycin level and VIT was observed.


Subject(s)
Thrombocytopenia , Vancomycin , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Blood Platelets , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Count , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Thrombocytopenia/diagnosis , Thrombocytopenia/drug therapy , Vancomycin/adverse effects
18.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 77(17): 1409-1416, 2020 08 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1317900

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created unprecedented strains on healthcare systems around the world. Challenges surrounding an overwhelming influx of patients with COVID-19 and changes in care dynamics prompt the need for care models and processes that optimize care in this medically complex patient population. The purpose of this report is to describe our institution's strategy to deploy pharmacy resources and standardize pharmacy processes to optimize the management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective, descriptive report characterizes documented pharmacy interventions in the acute care of patients admitted for COVID-19 during the period April 1 to April 15, 2020. Patient monitoring, interprofessional communication, and intervention documentation by pharmacy staff was facilitated through the development of a COVID-19-specific care bundle integrated into the electronic medical record. RESULTS: A total of 1,572 pharmacist interventions were documented in 197 patients who received a total of 15,818 medication days of therapy during the study period. The average number of interventions per patient was 8. The most common interventions were regimen simplification (15.9%), timing and dosing adjustments (15.4%), and antimicrobial therapy and COVID-19 treatment adjustments (15.2%). Patients who were admitted to an intensive care unit care at any point during their hospital stay accounted for 66.7% of all interventions documented. CONCLUSION: A pharmacy department's response to the COVID-19 pandemic was optimized through standardized processes. Pharmacists intervened to address a wide scope of medication-related issues, likely contributing to improved management of COVID-19 patients. Results of our analysis demonstrate the vital role pharmacists play as members of multidisciplinary teams during times of crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Medication Therapy Management/organization & administration , Pharmacists/organization & administration , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/organization & administration , Drug Therapy, Combination/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Electrolytes/administration & dosage , Electrolytes/adverse effects , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Interdisciplinary Communication , Male , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/organization & administration , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Professional Role , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
19.
JAMA ; 326(6): 490-498, 2021 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1315243

ABSTRACT

Importance: Azithromycin has been hypothesized to have activity against SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine whether oral azithromycin in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of azithromycin vs matching placebo conducted from May 2020 through March 2021. Outpatients from the US were enrolled remotely via internet-based surveys and followed up for 21 days. Eligible participants had a positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test result (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) within 7 days prior to enrollment, were aged 18 years or older, and were not hospitalized at the time of enrollment. Among 604 individuals screened, 297 were ineligible, 44 refused participation, and 263 were enrolled. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment randomization. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to a single oral 1.2-g dose of azithromycin (n = 171) or matching placebo (n = 92). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. There were 23 secondary clinical end points, including all-cause hospitalization at day 21. Results: Among 263 participants who were randomized (median age, 43 years; 174 [66%] women; 57% non-Hispanic White and 29% Latinx/Hispanic), 76% completed the trial. The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring committee for futility after the interim analysis. At day 14, there was no significant difference in proportion of participants who were symptom free (azithromycin: 50%; placebo: 50%; prevalence difference, 0%; 95% CI, -14% to 15%; P > .99). Of 23 prespecified secondary clinical end points, 18 showed no significant difference. By day 21, 5 participants in the azithromycin group had been hospitalized compared with 0 in the placebo group (prevalence difference, 4%; 95% CI, -1% to 9%; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, treatment with a single dose of azithromycin compared with placebo did not result in greater likelihood of being symptom free at day 14. These findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin for outpatient SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04332107.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Oral , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/administration & dosage , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Symptom Assessment , Treatment Failure
20.
Cardiol Rev ; 29(6): 289-291, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1310958

ABSTRACT

The ongoing coronavirus infection-2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has had devastating impacts on the global population since 2019. Cardiac complications are a well-documented sequala of COVID-19, with exposed patients experiencing complications such as myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and arrythmias. This article aims to review prominent literature regarding COVID-19 and its link with arrhythmias, as well as to discuss some of the possible mechanisms by which arrhythmogenesis may occur in patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Antirheumatic Agents/adverse effects , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/chemically induced , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/physiopathology , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/physiopathology , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...