ABSTRACT
The emergence of the new Brazilian variant of concern, P.1 lineage (Gamma), raised concern about its impact on the epidemiological profile of COVID-19 cases due to its higher transmissibility rate and immune evasion ability. Using 272 whole-genome sequences combined with epidemiological data, we showed that P.1 introduction in Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil, was followed by the displacement of eight circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants and a rapid increase in prevalence two months after its first detection. Our findings support that the P.1 variant is associated with an increase in mortality risk and severity of COVID-19 cases in younger aged groups, which corresponds to the unvaccinated population at the time. Moreover, our data highlight the beneficial effects of vaccination indicated by a pronounced reduction of severe cases and deaths in immunized individuals, reinforcing the need for rapid and massive vaccination.
ABSTRACT
Brazil currently has one of the fastest growing SARS-CoV-2 epidemics in the world. Due to limited available data, assessments of the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on virus transmission and epidemic spread remain challenging. We investigate the impact of NPIs in Brazil using epidemiological, mobility and genomic data. Mobility-driven transmission models for Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro cities show that the reproduction number (Rt) reached below 1 following NPIs but slowly increased to values between 1 to 1.3 (1.0-1.6). Genome sequencing of 427 new genomes and analysis of a geographically representative genomic dataset from 21 of the 27 Brazilian states identified >100 international introductions of SARS-CoV-2 in Brazil. We estimate that three clades introduced from Europe emerged between 22 and 27 February 2020, and were already well-established before the implementation of NPIs and travel bans. During this first phase of the epidemic establishment of SARS-CoV-2 in Brazil, we find that the virus spread mostly locally and within-state borders. Despite sharp decreases in national air travel during this period, we detected a 25% increase in the average distance travelled by air passengers during this time period. This coincided with the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from large urban centers to the rest of the country. In conclusion, our results shed light on the role of large and highly connected populated centres in the rapid ignition and establishment of SARS-CoV-2, and provide evidence that current interventions remain insufficient to keep virus transmission under control in Brazil. One Sentence SummaryJoint analysis of genomic, mobility and epidemiological novel data provide unique insight into the spread and transmission of the rapidly evolving epidemic of SARS-CoV-2 in Brazil.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThere is no specific antiviral therapy recommended for the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Recent publications have drawn attention to the possible benefit of chloroquine (CQ). Our study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of two different CQ dosages in patients with established severe COVID-19. MethodsWe performed a parallel, double-blinded, randomized, phase IIb clinical trial, aiming to assess safety and efficacy of two different CQ dosages as adjunctive therapy of hospitalized patients with SARS in Manaus, Brazilian Amazon. Eligible participants were allocated to receive orally or via nasogastric tube high dose CQ (600mg CQ twice daily for 10 days or total dose 12g); or low dose CQ (450mg for 5 days, twice daily only on the first day, or total dose 2.7g). In addition, all patients received ceftriaxone and azithromycin. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04323527. FindingsOut of a pre-defined 440 patients sample size, 81 patients were enrolled. The high dosage CQ arm presented more QTc>500ms (18.9%), and a trend toward higher lethality (39%) than the lower dosage. Fatality rate until day 13 was 27% (95%CI=17.9-38.2%), overlapping with the CI of historical data from similar patients not using CQ (95%CI=14.5-19.2%). In 27 patients with paired samples, respiratory secretion at day 4 was negative in only six patients (22%). InterpretationPreliminary findings suggest that the higher CQ dosage (10-day regimen) should not be recommended for COVID-19 treatment because of its potential safety hazards. Such results forced us to prematurely halt patient recruitment to this arm. Given the enormous global push for the use of CQ for COVID-19, results such as the ones found in this trial can provide robust evidence for updated COVID-19 patient management recommendations. FundingThis study was funded by the Government of the Amazonas State, Farmanguinhos (Fiocruz), SUFRAMA, CAPES, FAPEAM, and federal funds granted by a coalition of Brazilian senators. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSBefore the CloroCovid-19 trial began, to our knowledge, there were no published reports of robust clinical studies on the safety and/or efficacy of chloroquine (CQ) and/or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of COVID-19 during the recent 2020 pandemic. We searched PubMed and also MedRxiv.org (pre-print server for health sciences, without peer review), without any language restrictions and including Chinese publications, for studies published between Dec 2019 and April 5, 2020, using the search terms COVID-19, coronavirus, SARS-Cov-2. We found three non-randomized studies with limited sample sizes in which (1) HCQ use led to a decrease in SARS-Cov-2 detected in respiratory secretions five days after treatment, together with azithromycin (France, 36 patients); (2) HCQ use shortened time to clinical recovery (China, 62 patients); and (3) CQ was superior to control treatment in inhibiting the exacerbation of pneumonia, improving lung imaging findings, and promoting virus-negative conversion and shortening the disease course (China, 100 patients). We found no published studies comparing different dosages of CQ/HCQ and their thorough safety assessment. Added value of this studyIn a larger patient population, we found that a higher dosage of CQ for 10 days presented toxicity red flags, particularly affecting QTc prolongation. The limited sample size recruited so far does not allow to show any benefit regarding treatment efficacy, however the higher fatality associated with the higher dosage by day 13 of follow-up resulted in a premature halting of this arm. This is the first double-blinded, randomized clinical trial addressing different dosages of CQ for the treatment of severe patients with COVID-19 in the absence of a control group using placebo. Due to the impossibility of not using the drug recommended at the national level, we used historical data from the literature to infer comparisons for lethality endpoints. Follow-up until day 28 is ongoing with a larger sample size, in which long-term lethality will be better estimated. Implications of all the available evidenceThe preliminary findings from CloroCovid-19 trial suggest that the higher dosage of CQ (12 g total dose over 10 days) in COVID-19 should not be recommended because of safety concerns regarding QTc prolongation and increased lethality, in the Brazilian population, and more often in older patients in use of drugs such as azithromycin and oseltamivir, which also prolong QTc interval. Among patients randomized to the lower dosage group (5 days of treatment, total dose 2.7 g), given the limited number of patients so far enrolled, it is still not possible to estimate a clear benefit of CQ in patients with severe ARDS. Preliminary data on viral clearance in respiratory secretions in our confirmed cases are also indicative of little effect of the drug at high dosage. More studies initiating CQ prior to the onset of the severe phase of the disease are urgently needed.
