Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 992
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Clin Med Res ; 19(4): 179-182, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581437

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) having mild to moderate symptoms.Methods: This blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized study was conducted in the Department of Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital Rawalpindi, from June 1-15, 2020. A total of 150 hospitalized patients were enrolled after diagnoses with COVID-19 through reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). They were divided into three groups: hydroxychloroquine plus general care (HGC, n=50), chloroquine plus general care (CGC, n=50); and only general care (OGC, n=50). The HGC group received treatment with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg every 12 hours for day one and 200 mg for the next 4 days. The CGC group received treatment with chloroquine 250 mg every 12 hours for 7 days. The OGC group was kept as a control with only general care. After 12 days, the patients were screened for development of CRS through detection of interleukin 6 (IL-6) in serum samples by using Roche cobas e411 electrochemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer.Results: The mean duration from onset of symptoms to randomization was 7.65 days (SD = 3.287 days; range, 2-15 days). The mean age of patients was 37.57 (range 19-63) years. Results showed that out of a total 150 patients, only 10 patients (6%, mean=1.93; CI=1.89-1.97, P=0.651) developed CRS in all study groups. Four patients (8%) developed CRS in the HGC group, 2 patients (4%) in the CGC group, and 4 patients (8%) in the OGC group. There was no significant difference in the mean level of CRS among study groups.Conclusion: Administration of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine has no effect in reducing the development of CRS in patients with COVID-19 having mild to moderate symptoms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Chloroquine/therapeutic use , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
2.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248128, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575679

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: Electronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined. RESULTS: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Administration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control , Data Management/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects
4.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(9): 1261-1269, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1547664

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: New treatment modalities are urgently needed for patients with COVID-19. The World Health Organization (WHO) Solidarity trial showed no effect of remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) on mortality, but the antiviral effects of these drugs are not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of remdesivir and HCQ on all-cause, in-hospital mortality; the degree of respiratory failure and inflammation; and viral clearance in the oropharynx. DESIGN: NOR-Solidarity is an independent, add-on, randomized controlled trial to the WHO Solidarity trial that included biobanking and 3 months of clinical follow-up (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04321616). SETTING: 23 hospitals in Norway. PATIENTS: Eligible patients were adults hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTION: Between 28 March and 4 October 2020, a total of 185 patients were randomly assigned and 181 were included in the full analysis set. Patients received remdesivir (n = 42), HCQ (n = 52), or standard of care (SoC) (n = 87). MEASUREMENTS: In addition to the primary end point of WHO Solidarity, study-specific outcomes were viral clearance in oropharyngeal specimens, the degree of respiratory failure, and inflammatory variables. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between treatment groups in mortality during hospitalization. There was a marked decrease in SARS-CoV-2 load in the oropharynx during the first week overall, with similar decreases and 10-day viral loads among the remdesivir, HCQ, and SoC groups. Remdesivir and HCQ did not affect the degree of respiratory failure or inflammatory variables in plasma or serum. The lack of antiviral effect was not associated with symptom duration, level of viral load, degree of inflammation, or presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at hospital admittance. LIMITATION: The trial had no placebo group. CONCLUSION: Neither remdesivir nor HCQ affected viral clearance in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Clinical Therapy Research in the Specialist Health Services, Norway.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/virology , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Viral Load/drug effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Cause of Death , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Inflammation/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Norway/epidemiology , Oropharynx/virology , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Standard of Care , Treatment Outcome
5.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6760-6764, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544331

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected more than a hundred million individuals and caused more than three million deaths worldwide. Specific risk groups were defined for increased risk of mortality and morbidity in COVID-19, and renal transplant recipients are at a significantly increased risk regarding outcomes due to their immunosuppressed conditions. This study evaluated the general characteristics of kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection. Among 1257 transplant cases, 56 had COVID-19 infection, and 23 (41%) were hospitalized during the 9-month study period. Among all COVID-19 cases, 58% were male with a mean age of 45.5 (±13.2, 19-71) years, and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (70.9%) and diabetes (23.6%). Hospitalized patients were older (p = 0.03) and had higher rates of hypertension (p = 0.008), diabetes (p = 0.002), and ischemic heart disease (p = 0.03). Therapeutic management included antimetabolite withdrawal and prednisolone increase in 71%, calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal in 8% and decrease in 58%, hydroxychloroquine in 17%, tocilizumab in 3%, and antivirals in 67% of patients. Acute kidney injury and respiratory failure developed in 34% and 85%, respectively. The mortality rate was 23%. These results emphasized that the COVID-19 infection in renal transplant recipients significantly increases the risk of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, these patients should be intervened earlier and monitored closely to prevent poor outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , Immunocompromised Host/drug effects , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , Acute Kidney Injury/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Kidney/drug effects , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Transplant Recipients , Young Adult
6.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6737-6749, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544327

ABSTRACT

Chloroquine or its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) combined with or without azithromycin (AZ) have been widely investigated in observational studies as a treatment option for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The network meta-analysis aims to summarize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if AZ or HCQ is associated with improved clinical outcomes. PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to March 7, 2021. We included published RCTs that investigated the efficacy of AZ, HCQ, or its combination among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and the use of mechanical ventilation. The pooled odds ratio was calculated using a random-effect model. A total of 10 RCTs were analyzed. Participant's mean age ranged from 40.4 to 66.5 years. There was no significant effect on mortality associated with AZ plus HCQ (odds ratio [OR] = 0.562 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.168-1.887]), AZ alone (OR = 0.965 [95% CI: 0.865-1.077]), or HCQ alone (OR = 1.122 [95% CI: 0.995-1.266]; p = 0.06). Similarly, based on pooled effect sizes derived from direct and indirect evidence, none of the treatments had a significant benefit in decreasing the use of mechanical ventilation. No heterogeneity was identified (Cochran's Q = 1.68; p = 0.95; τ2 = 0; I2 = 0% [95% CI: 0%-0%]). Evidence from RCTs suggests that AZ with or without HCQ was not associated with a significant effect on the mortality or mechanical ventilation rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. More research is needed to explore therapeutics agents that can effectively reduce the mortality or severity of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Chloroquine/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Network Meta-Analysis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/methods
7.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6557-6565, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544300

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Atazanavir/Ritonavir/Dolutegravir/Hydroxychloroquine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir/Hydroxychloroquine treatment regimens in COVID-19 patients based on clinical and laboratory parameters. We prospectively evaluated the clinical and laboratory outcomes of 62 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients during a 10-day treatment plan. Patients were randomly assigned to either KH (receiving Lopinavir/Ritonavir [Kaletra] plus Hydroxychloroquine) or ADH (receiving Atazanavir/Ritonavir, Dolutegravir, and Hydroxychloroquine) groups. During this period, clinical and laboratory parameters and outcomes such as intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality rate were recorded. Compared to the KH group, after the treatment period, patients in the ADH group had higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (12, [95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.97, 17.06), p = <0.01), international normalized ratio (INR) (0.17, [95% CI: 0.07, 0.27), p = <0.01) and lower C-reactive protein (CRP) (-14.29, (95% CI: -26.87, -1.71), p = 0.03) and potassium (-0.53, (95% CI: -1.03, -0.03), p = 0.04) values. Moreover, a higher number of patients in the KH group needed invasive ventilation (6 (20%) vs. 1 (3.1%), p = 0.05) and antibiotic administration (27 (90%) vs. 21(65.6), p = 0.02) during hospitalization while patients in the ADH group needed more corticosteroid administration (9 (28.1%) vs. 2 (6.7%), p = 0.03). There was no difference in mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and hospitalization period between the study groups. Our results suggest that the Atazanavir/Dolutegravir treatment regimen may result in a less severe disease course compared to the Lopinavir/Ritonavir treatment regimen and can be considered as an alternative treatment option beside standard care. However, to confirm our results, larger-scale studies are recommended.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Atazanavir Sulfate/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring/therapeutic use , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Oxazines/therapeutic use , Piperazines/therapeutic use , Pyridones/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Atazanavir Sulfate/administration & dosage , COVID-19/pathology , Drug Combinations , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring/administration & dosage , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Lopinavir/administration & dosage , Male , Middle Aged , Oxazines/administration & dosage , Piperazines/administration & dosage , Pyridones/administration & dosage , Ritonavir/administration & dosage , Treatment Outcome
8.
J Med Virol ; 94(1): 291-297, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544344

ABSTRACT

Due to current advances and growing experience in the management of coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the outcome of COVID-19 patients with severe/critical illness would be expected to be better in the second wave compared with the first wave. As our hospitalization criteria changed in the second wave, we aimed to investigate whether a favorable outcome occurred in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with only severe/critical illness. Among 642 laboratory-confirmed hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the first wave and 1121 in the second wave, those who met World Health Organization (WHO) definitions for severe or critical illness on admission or during follow-up were surveyed. Data on demographics, comorbidities, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels on admission, and outcomes were obtained from an electronic hospital database. Univariate analysis was performed to compare the characteristics of patients in the first and second waves. There were 228 (35.5%) patients with severe/critical illness in the first wave and 681 (60.7%) in the second wave. Both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and comorbidities, other than chronic kidney disease. Median serum CRP levels were significantly higher in patients in the second wave compared with those in the first wave [109 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR]: 65-157) vs. 87 mg/L (IQR: 39-140); p < 0.001]. However, intensive care unit admission and mortality rates were similar among the waves. Even though a lower mortality rate in the second wave has been reported in previous studies, including all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found similar demographics and outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe/critical illness in the first and second wave.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Severity of Illness Index , Aged , Amides/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/pathology , Comorbidity , Drug Combinations , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Male , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Pyrazines/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Turkey/epidemiology
9.
J Med Case Rep ; 15(1): 572, 2021 Nov 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1538088

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been used for hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients because of their antiviral and anti-inflammatory function. However, little research has been published on the impact of the immunomodulatory effect of (hydroxy)chloroquine on humoral immunity. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reinfection, diagnosed 141 days after the first episode, in a 56-year-old man of Black African origin treated with hydroxychloroquine for lupus erythematosus. No anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 IgG antibodies could be detected 127 days after the initial episode of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment with hydroxychloroquine probably explains the decreased immune response with negative serology and subsequent reinfection in our patient. As humoral immunity is crucial to fight a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine is likely to have a detrimental effect on the spread of the virus. This case emphasizes that more needs to be learned about the role of antibodies in protecting against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (re)infection and the role of (hydroxy)chloroquine on humoral immunity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Reinfection , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Mol Med Rep ; 24(6)2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504040

ABSTRACT

The spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2) emerged suddenly at the end of 2019 and the disease came to be known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19). To date, there is no specific therapy established to treat COVID­19. Identifying effective treatments is urgently required to treat patients and stop the transmission of SARS­CoV­2 in humans. For the present review, >100 publications on therapeutic agents for COVID­19, including in vitro and in vivo animal studies, case reports, retrospective analyses and meta­analyses were retrieved from PubMed and analyzed, and promising therapeutic agents that may be used to combat SARS­CoV­2 infection were highlighted. Since the outbreak of COVID­19, different drugs have been repurposed for its treatment. Existing drugs, including chloroquine (CQ), its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), remdesivir and nucleoside analogues, monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, Chinese herbal medicine and natural compounds for treating COVID­19 evaluated in experimental and clinical studies were discussed. Although early clinical studies suggested that CQ/HCQ produces antiviral action, later research indicated certain controversy regarding their use for treating COVID­19. The molecular mechanisms of these therapeutic agents against SARS­CoV2 have been investigated, including inhibition of viral interactions with angiotensin­converting enzyme 2 receptors in human cells, viral RNA­dependent RNA polymerase, RNA replication and the packaging of viral particles. Potent therapeutic options were reviewed and future challenges to accelerate the development of novel therapeutic agents to treat and prevent COVID­19 were acknowledged.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Animals , Antimalarials/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , Chloroquine/therapeutic use , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
13.
BMJ ; 369: m1849, 2020 05 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1495142

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone). INTERVENTIONS: Hydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Negative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone. RESULTS: Of 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2000029868.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adult , COVID-19 , China , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Treatment Outcome
14.
Tohoku J Exp Med ; 255(1): 61-69, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496649

ABSTRACT

North Italy emerged as an epicenter of COVID-19 in the Western world. The majority of studies of patients with COVID-19 have focused on hospitalized patients, and data on early outpatient treatment are limited. This research retrospectively examines consecutive symptomatic adults who did not present to a hospital but who experience laboratory confirmed (nasopharyngeal swabs) or probable COVID-19 infection. From March 12 to April 12, 2020, 124 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection (84%) or with epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with confirmed infection (16%) were managed at home. The diagnosis of pneumonia was made with a portable ultrasound. COVID-19 treatment was based on low-dose hydroxychloroquine with or without darunavir/cobicistat or azithromycin and enoxaparine for bedridden patients. The patients were monitored by telemedicine. The primary endpoints were clinical improvement or hospitalization, and the secondary endpoints were mortality at day 30 and at day 60. Forty-seven (37.9%) patients had mild COVID-19 infection, 44 (35.5%) had moderate COVID-19 infection, and 33 (26.6%) had severe COVID-19 infection. Four patients (3.2%) were hospitalized and there were no deaths at day 30 and at day 60. Only mild side effects were reported. Early home treatment of COVID-19 patients resulted in a low hospitalization rate with no deaths, with the limitations of the small sample size and that it was conducted within a single geographic area. We believe that this model may be easily reproduced in both cities and rural areas around the world to treat COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19 Testing , Cobicistat/therapeutic use , Darunavir/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Female , Home Care Services , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Telemedicine , Young Adult
15.
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
16.
Semin Respir Crit Care Med ; 42(2): 316-326, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493288

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolism, occlusion of dialysis catheters, circuit thrombosis in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) devices, acute limb ischemia, and isolated strokes, all in the face of prophylactic and even therapeutic anticoagulation, are features of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) coagulopathy. It seems well established at this time that a COVID-19 patient deemed sick enough to be hospitalized, should receive at least prophylactic dose anticoagulation. However, should some hospitalized patients have dosage escalation to intermediate dose? Should some be considered for full-dose anticoagulation without a measurable thromboembolic event and how should that anticoagulation be monitored? Should patients receive postdischarge anticoagulation and with what medication and for how long? What thrombotic issues are related to the various medications being used to treat this coagulopathy? Is antiphospholipid antibody part of this syndrome? What is the significance of isolated ischemic stroke and limb ischemia in this disorder and how does this interface with the rest of the clinical and laboratory features of this disorder? The aims of this article are to explore these questions and interpret the available data based on the current evidence.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Ambulatory Care , Antibodies, Antiphospholipid/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Combinations , Duration of Therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombolytic Therapy , Thrombophilia/blood , Thrombophilia/etiology , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/immunology , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/immunology
17.
Drug Saf ; 43(7): 657-660, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482335

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Hydroxychloroquine was recently promoted in patients infected with COVID-19 infection. A recent experimental study has suggested an increased toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in association with metformin in mice. OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken to investigate the reality of this putative drug-drug interaction between hydroxychloroquine and metformin using pharmacovigilance data. METHODS: Using VigiBase®, the WHO pharmacovigilance database, we performed a disproportionality analysis (case/non-case study). Cases were reports of fatal outcomes with the drugs of interest and non-cases were all other reports for these drugs registered between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2019. Data with hydroxychloroquine (or metformin) alone were compared with the association hydroxychloroquine + metformin. Results are reported as ROR (reporting odds ratio) with their 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Of the 10,771 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) involving hydroxychloroquine, 52 were recorded as 'fatal outcomes'. In comparison with hydroxychloroquine alone, hydroxychloroquine + metformin was associated with an ROR value of 57.7 (23.9-139.3). In comparison with metformin alone, hydroxychloroquine + metformin was associated with an ROR value of 6.0 (2.6-13.8). CONCLUSION: Our study identified a signal for the association hydroxychloroquine + metformin that appears to be more at risk of fatal outcomes (particularly by completed suicides) than one of the two drugs when given alone.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Drug Interactions , Drug Therapy, Combination , Hydroxychloroquine , Metformin , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Adult , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Drug Therapy, Combination/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination/mortality , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacokinetics , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Hypoglycemic Agents/pharmacokinetics , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Male , Metformin/pharmacokinetics , Metformin/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Pharmacovigilance , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(10): 1395-1403, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1481181

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the use patterns of potential pharmacologic treatments of COVID-19 in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To use the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a large, multicenter, longitudinal cohort, to characterize the use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and dexamethasone, overall as well as across individuals, health systems, and time. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 43 health systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 137 870 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 28 February 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or dexamethasone. RESULTS: Among 137 870 persons hospitalized with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, 8754 (6.3%) received hydroxychloroquine, 29 272 (21.2%) remdesivir, and 53 909 (39.1%) dexamethasone during the study period. Since the release of results from the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial in mid-June, approximately 78% to 84% of people who have had invasive mechanical ventilation have received dexamethasone or other glucocorticoids. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased during March 2020, peaking at 42%, and started declining by April 2020. By contrast, remdesivir and dexamethasone use gradually increased over the study period. Dexamethasone and remdesivir use varied substantially across health centers (intraclass correlation coefficient, 14.2% for dexamethasone and 84.6% for remdesivir). LIMITATION: Because most N3C data contributors are academic medical centers, findings may not reflect the experience of community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone, an evidence-based treatment of COVID-19, may be underused among persons who are mechanically ventilated. The use of remdesivir and dexamethasone varied across health systems, suggesting variation in patient case mix, drug access, treatment protocols, and quality of care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institute on Aging.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Alanine/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Young Adult
19.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 15(9): 1257-1262, 2021 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1478145

ABSTRACT

Severe COVID-19 infection management for a recipient of kidney transplant has debatable prognosis and treatment. We described the case of a COVID-19 infected 70 year old female, previously had renal transplantation in 2017. The patient took immunosuppressive agents as routine drugs for transplant recipient status and received lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and dexamethasone daily at the hospitalization. Specific question arises about renal transplant recipients being infected by COVID-19 - whether the infection will get worse compared to those without immunosuppresive agent. In this case, author decided to stop the immunosuppressive agent followed administration of combination lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and dexamethasone that gives a good clinical impact change to patient's condition after once getting worsened and mechanically ventilated. Nevertheless, the assessment of risk and benefit in continuing immunosuppressive drugs is concurrently essential due to the prevention of transplant rejection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Aged , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Kidney Transplantation , Transplant Recipients
20.
Front Public Health ; 9: 722458, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1477891

ABSTRACT

Despite the massive distribution of different vaccines globally, the current pandemic has revealed the crucial need for an efficient treatment against COVID-19. Meta-analyses have historically been extremely useful to determine treatment efficacy but recent debates about the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients resulted in contradictory meta-analytical results. Different factors during the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted key features of conducting a good meta-analysis. Some meta-analyses did not evaluate or treat substantial heterogeneity (I 2 > 75%); others did not include additional analysis for publication bias; none checked for evidence of p-hacking in the primary studies nor used recent methods (i.e., p-curve or p-uniform) to estimate the average population-size effect. These inconsistencies may contribute to contradictory results in the research evaluating COVID-19 treatments. A prominent example of this is the use of hydroxychloroquine, where some studies reported a large positive effect, whereas others indicated no significant effect or even increased mortality when hydroxychloroquine was used with the antibiotic azithromycin. In this paper, we first recall the benefits and fundamental steps of good quality meta-analysis. Then, we examine various meta-analyses on hydroxychloroquine treatments for COVID-19 patients that led to contradictory results and causes for this discrepancy. We then highlight recent tools that contribute to evaluate publication bias and p-hacking (i.e., p-curve, p-uniform) and conclude by making technical recommendations that meta-analyses should follow even during extreme global events such as a pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pandemics , Azithromycin , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...