Effect of the implementation of clinical guidelines on management of candidemia in elderly patients.

INTRODUCTION: Mortality from candidemia is higher in elderly population than in younger patients, which may be related to suboptimal management. The aim of the present study is to evaluate adherence to the recommendations for the clinical management of candidemia in a population over 75 years before and after implementing specific training. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recorded retrospectively data from candidemia episodes in elderly patients during two periods of time: 2010-2015 years (before training) and 2017-2022 years (after training), as well as adherence to the recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines, mortality and consultation to infectious disease specialists. RESULTS: Forty-five episodes of candidemia were recorded in the first period and 29 episodes in the second period. A better compliance to the recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines was observed in the second period: echocardiogram performance (75.9% vs. 48.9% p = .021), fundoscopy (65.5% vs. 44.4% p = .076), follow-up blood cultures (72.4% vs. 42.2% p = .011), removal of central venous catheter (80% vs. 52.9% p = .080) and adequate antifungal treatment (82.6% vs. 52.6% p = .018). A trend towards lower mortality was observed during the second period (27.6% vs. 44.4% p = .144). CONCLUSION: The improvement of knowledge of clinical guidelines on candidemia and the participation of infectious disease specialists may increase the quality of care in elderly patients with candidemia. It would be necessary to enlarge the sample size to evaluate the real impact of this intervention on mortality.

Evaluation of convalescent plasma versus standard of care for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients: study protocol for a phase 2 randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and causes substantial morbidity and mortality. At the time this clinical trial was planned, there were no available vaccine or therapeutic agents with proven efficacy, but the severity of the condition prompted the use of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. It has long been hypothesized that the use of convalescent plasma (CP) from infected patients who have developed an effective immune response is likely to be an option for the treatment of patients with a variety of severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) of viral etiology. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma in adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS/DESIGN: The ConPlas-19 study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label controlled trial. The study has been planned to include 278 adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 infection not requiring mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive). Subjects are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (139 per treatment arm), stratified by center, to receive intravenously administered CP (single infusion) plus SOC or SOC alone, and are to be followed for 30 days. The primary endpoint of the study is the proportion of patients that progress to category 5, 6, or 7 (on the 7-point ordinal scale proposed by the WHO) at day 15. Interim analyses for efficacy and/or futility will be conducted once 20%, 40%, and 60% of the planned sample size are enrolled and complete D15 assessment. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma for the treatment of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The results of this study are expected to contribute to establishing the potential place of CP in the therapeutics for a new viral disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345523 . Registered on 30 March, 2020. First posted date: April 14, 2020.

Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial

BackgroundPassive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 for which evidence from controlled clinical trials is lacking. MethodsWe conducted a multi-center, randomized clinical trial in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. All patients received standard of care treatment, including off-label use of marketed medicines, and were randomized 1:1 to receive one dose (250-300 mL) of CP from donors with IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5, 6 or 7 of the COVID-19 ordinal scale at day 15. ResultsThe trial was stopped after first interim analysis due to the fall in recruitment related to pandemic control. With 81 patients randomized, there were no patients progressing to mechanical ventilation or death among the 38 patients assigned to receive plasma (0%) versus 6 out of 43 patients (14%) progressing in control arm. Mortality rates were 0% vs 9.3% at days 15 and 29 for the active and control groups, respectively. No significant differences were found in secondary endpoints. At inclusion, patients had a median time of 8 days (IQR, 6-9) of symptoms and 49,4% of them were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. ConclusionsConvalescent plasma could be superior to standard of care in avoiding progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The strong dependence of results on a limited number of events in the control group prevents drawing firm conclusions about CP efficacy from this trial. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III; NCT04345523).

Evaluation of Convalescent Plasma versus Standard of Care for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalazed Patients: study protocol for a phase 2 randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter trial

BackgroundCOVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and causes substantial morbidity and mortality. At the time this clinical trial was planned, there were no available vaccine or therapeutic agents with proven efficacy, but the severity of the condition prompted the use of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. It has long been hypothesized that the use of convalescent plasma (CP) from infected patients who have developed an effective immune response is likely to be an option for the treatment of patients with a variety of severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) of viral etiology. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma in adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods/DesignThe ConPlas-19 study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label controlled trial. The protocol has been prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. The study has been planned to include 278 adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 infection not requiring mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive). Subjects are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (139 per treatment arm), stratified by center, to receive intravenously administered CP (single infusion) plus SOC or SOC alone, and are to be followed for 30 days. The primary endpoint of the study is the proportion of patients that progress to categories 5, 6 or 7 (on the 7-point ordinal scale proposed by the WHO) at day 15. Interim analyses for efficacy and/or futility will be conducted once 20%, 40%, and 60% of the planned sample size are enrolled and complete D15 assessment. DiscussionThis clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma for the treatment of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The results of this study are expected to contribute to establishing the potential place of CP in the therapeutics for a new viral disease. Trial registrationTrial registration at clinicaltrials.gov; Registration Number: NCT04345523; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04345523; Registered on 30 March, 2020. First posted date: April 14, 2020.

Hospital readmissions of discharged patients with COVID-19

BackgroundCOVID-19 infection has led to an overwhelming effort by health institutions to meet the high demand for hospital admissions. AimTo analyse the clinical variables associated with readmission of patients who had previously been discharged after admission for COVID-19. Design and methodsWe studied a retrospective cohort of patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted and subsequently discharged alive. We then conducted a nested case-control study paired (1:1 ratio) by age, sex and period of admission. ResultsOut of 1368 patients who were discharged during the study period, 61 patients (4.4%) were readmitted. Immunocompromised patients were at increased risk for readmission. There was also a trend towards a higher probability of readmission in hypertensive patients (p=0.07). Cases had had a shorter hospital stay and a higher prevalence of fever during the 48 hours prior to discharge. There were no significant differences in oxygen levels measured at admission and discharge by pulse oximetry intra-subject or between the groups. Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio at hospital admission tended to be higher in cases than in controls (p=0.06). The motive for readmission in 10 patients (16.4%), was a thrombotic event in venous or arterial territory (p<0.001). Neither glucocorticoids nor anticoagulants prescribed at hospital discharge were associated with a lower readmission rate. ConclusionsThe rate of readmission after discharge from hospital for COVID-19 was low. Immunocompromised patients and those presenting with fever during the 48 hours prior to discharge are at greater risk of readmission to hospital.

IMPACT OF GLUCOCORTICOID TREATMENT IN SARS-COV-2 INFECTION MORTALITY: A RETROSPECTIVE CONTROLLED COHORT STUDY

ObjectiveWe aim to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 pneumonia in-hospital mortality. DesignWe performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study. SettingA University hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March 2020. ParticipantsPatients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. ExposuresPatients treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids. A propensity-score for steroid treatment was developed. Different steroid regimens were also compared, and adjusted with a second propensity score. Main Outcomes and MeasuresTo determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, univariable and multivariable analyses were performed, and adjusted including the propensity score as a covariate. Survival times were compared using a log-rank test. ResultsDuring the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) consecutive patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were assigned to the control cohort. Global mortality was 15.1%. Median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (IQR 8 to13). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67], OR 0.51 [0.27 to 0.96], p= 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0,42 [0.048 to 0.65). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone (or equivalent) versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86], OR 0.880 [0.449-1.726], p=0.710). ConclusionsOur results show that survival of patients with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. In-hospital mortality was not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone or equivalent and glucocorticoid pulses. These results support the use of glucocorticoids in SARS-CoV2 infection. SummaryWe investigated in-hospital mortality of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a large series of patients treated with steroids compared to controls, and adjusted using a propensity score. Our results show a beneficial impact of steroid treatment in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.