ABSTRACT
Background and objective: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, rates of in-hospital antimicrobial use increased due to perceived bacterial and fungal coinfections along with COVID-19. We describe the incidence of these coinfections and antimicrobial use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to help guide effective antimicrobial use in this population. Setting: This study was conducted in 3 tertiary-care referral university teaching hospitals in New York City. Methods: This multicenter retrospective observational cohort study involved all patients admitted with COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to February 1, 2021. Variables of interest were extracted from a de-identified data set of all COVID-19 infections across the health system. Population statistics are presented as median with interquartile range (IQR) or proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as indicated. Results: Among 7,209 of patients admitted with COVID-19, 663 (9.2%) had a positive culture from the respiratory tract or blood sometime during their initial hospital admission. Positive respiratory cultures occurred found in 449 (6.2%) patients, and 20% were collected within 48 hours of admission. Blood culture positivity occurred in 334 patients (4.6%), with 33.5% identified within 48 hours of admission. A higher proportion of patients received antimicrobials in the first wave than in the later pandemic period (82.4% vs 52.0%). Antimicrobials were prescribed to 70.1% of inpatients, with a median of 6 antimicrobial days per patient. Infection-free survival decreased over the course of hospitalization. Conclusions: We detected a very low incidence of coinfection with COVID-19 at admission. A longer duration of hospitalization was associated with an increased risk of coinfection. Antimicrobial use far exceeded the true incidence and detection of coinfections in these patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Effective therapies to combat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the clinical benefit of HCQ in treating COVID-19 is unclear. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of HCQ for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind randomized clinical trial of HCQ among patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to HCQ or placebo for 5 days and followed for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a severe disease progression composite end point (death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and/or vasopressor use) at day 14. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were similar between the HCQ (nâ =â 67) and placebo (nâ =â 61) arms. At day 14, 11 (16.4%) subjects assigned to HCQ and 6 (9.8%) subjects assigned to placebo met the severe disease progression end point, but this did not achieve statistical significance (Pâ =â .350). There were no significant differences in COVID-19 clinical scores, number of oxygen-free days, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, or adverse events between HCQ and placebo. HCQ was associated with a slight increase in mean corrected QT interval, an increased D-dimer, and a trend toward an increased length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, our data suggest that HCQ does not prevent severe outcomes or improve clinical scores. However, our conclusions are limited by a relatively small sample size, and larger randomized controlled trials or pooled analyses are needed.
