Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20173369

RESUMO

ObjectiveTo compare survival of subjects with COVID-19 treated in hospitals that either did or did not routinely treat patients with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. MethodsWe analysed data of COVID-19 patients treated in 9 hospitals in the Netherlands. Inclusion dates ranged from February 27th 2020, to May 15th, when the Dutch national guidelines no longer supported the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine. Seven hospitals routinely treated subjects with (hydroxy)chloroquine, two hospitals did not. Primary outcome was 21-day all-cause mortality. We performed a survival analysis using log-rank test and Cox-regression with adjustment for age, sex and covariates based on premorbid health, disease severity, and the use of steroids for adult respiratory distress syndrome, including dexamethasone. ResultsAmong 1893 included subjects, 21-day mortality was 23.4% in 1552 subjects treated in hospitals that routinely prescribed (hydroxy)chloroquine, and 17.0% in 341 subjects that were treated in hospitals that did not. In the adjusted Cox-regression models this difference disappeared, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.17 (95%CI 0.88-1.55). When stratified by actually received treatment in individual subjects, the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine was associated with an increased 21-day mortality (HR 1.58; 95%CI 1.25-2.01) in the full model. ConclusionsAfter adjustment for confounders, mortality was not significantly different in hospitals that routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine, compared with hospitals that did not. We compared outcomes of hospital strategies rather than outcomes of individual patients to reduce the chance of indication bias. This study adds evidence against the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine in patients with COVID-19.

2.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20139857

RESUMO

Structured abstract for full paperO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSAfter recovery from COVID-19, most patients have anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. Their convalescent plasma could be an inexpensive and widely available treatment for COVID-19. MethodsThe Convalescent-plasma-for-COVID (ConCOVID) study was a randomized trial comparing convalescent plasma with standard of care therapy in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the Netherlands. Patients were randomized 1:1 and received 300ml of plasma with anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers of at least 1:80. The primary endpoint was day-60 mortality and key secondary endpoints were hospital stay and WHO 8-point disease severity scale improvement on day 15. ResultsThe trial was halted prematurely after 86 patients were enrolled. Although symptomatic for only 10 days (IQR 6-15) at the time of inclusion, 53 of 66 patients tested had anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline. A SARS-CoV-2 plaque reduction neutralization test showed neutralizing antibodies in 44 of the 56 (79%) patients tested with median titers comparable to the 115 donors (1:160 vs 1:160, p=0.40). These observations caused concerns about the potential benefit of convalescent plasma in the study population and after discussion with the data safety monitoring board, the study was discontinued. No difference in mortality (p=0.95), hospital stay (p=0.68) or day-15 disease severity (p=0.58) was observed between plasma treated patients and patients on standard of care. ConclusionMost COVID-19 patients already have high neutralizing antibody titers at hospital admission. Screening for antibodies and prioritizing convalescent plasma to risk groups with recent symptom onset will be key to identify patients that may benefit from convalescent plasma. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04342182

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA