RESUMO
BACKGROUNDA recently published randomized trial (Boulware et al., 2020, NCT04308668) of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for post-exposure prophylaxis found a reduction in Covid-19 of 17%. In the context of ambitious powering to detect a 50% reduction, this non-statistically significant finding could translate to a reduction of 22,000/130,828 cases (CDC 8/12/20) among US health care workers (HCW), impacting trajectory and resource utilization models that drive decisions on lockdowns and social distancing. Data found only in the appendix of Boulware et al. suggested greater differences in the effect HCQ among sub-groups. There were reductions (36%) in younger (<35 years) and increases (110%) in older (>50 years) subjects. Our preliminary analysis revealed a significant negative correlation (slope -0.211, CI -0.328-0.094, p=0.016) between treatment lag and disease reduction, reaching 49% when initiated within one day (RR 0.51, CI 0.176-1.46, p=0.249). There were also differences in disease reduction by HCQ by type of exposure (HCW - 8% vs. household contacts - 31%; RR 0.691, CI 0.398-1.2). The definitions of exposure severity did not discriminate between the numbers or duration (> 10 minutes) of exposures. Differences between exposure types may result from younger HCW and higher risks in less trained household contacts with little access to advanced PPE. The ex-protocol use of zinc and ascorbic acid were likely confounders, as was the possibly active folate placebo. Exploratory reanalysis of the raw dataset may inform an age- and stage- nuanced approach to COVID-19 using HCQ testable by prospective studies and may provide insight into the various proposed mechanisms of HCQ. OBJECTIVESTo conduct an exploratory re-analysis of the de-identified raw dataset from a randomized study of the use of HCQ for post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 with view to further defining: a) The time dependent effect of HCQ, b) The age dependent effect of HCQ; c) The sub-stratification of time- and age-dependent effects by exposure type and risk level, as well as by the use of zinc and ascorbic acid. d) The design of future clinical trials to test the hypotheses generated by this study. METHODSShould granularity of data (by age, time-lag, level and type of exposure) be greater than that originally reported, Fisher Exact test will be used to compare the incidence of COVID-19 in HCQ- and control groups, for each sub-group stratification. Since the degree of loss of data granularity due to de-identification is yet unknown, exploratory analyses involving other demographic characteristics cannot be planned. Where sufficient data granularity exists, univariate regression analyses will be conducted to examine the effect of age- and time lag on any effect of HCQ. The possibility will be explored of conducting multivariate Cox regression analyses with propensity score matching to examine observational data relating to the use of zinc and ascorbic acid. This analysis will be expanded should a dataset from a similarly designed study (Mitja et al., 2020, NCT04304053), with directionally similar results, become available. This protocol was devised using the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) incorporating the WHO Trial Registration Data Set. Study StatusProtocol version 1.1 (August 19 2020) Protocol registered at: OSF Registries August 19 2020 Registration doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9RPYT
RESUMO
ImportanceTreatment options for Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited with no clarity on the efficacy and safety profiles. ObjectiveTo assess if the effect estimate of any intervention improves the outcomes and safety profile. Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central were searched from December 1, 2019 to May 11, 2020. Study selectionAny prospective/retrospective clinical study on SARS-CoV-2 patients [≥]18 years of age with report on therapeutic interventions. Data synthesis and extractionData was screened and extracted by two independent investigators. Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were rates of mechanical ventilation, viral clearance, adverse events, discharge, progression to severe disease, median time for clinical recovery and anti-viral clearance. Pooled rates and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. ResultsA total of 29 studies with 5207 participants were included in the analysis. The pooled all-cause in-hospital mortality rate was 12.8% (95%CI: 8.1%-17.4%) in intervention arm. There was no significant difference in mortality between both arms overall (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.97-1.89). The mortality was significantly higher in the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) group compared to control: (1.86, 95% CI: 1.38 - 2.50). The need for mechanical ventilation in patients with mild-moderate disease was 13.5% vs 9.8% in intervention and control groups, with no significant difference (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 0.60 - 4.15).The median duration for viral clearance in the intervention arm was 6.1 (IQR: 4.3 - 8.8) days and control arm was 9 (IQR: 4.5 - 14) days, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.37). There was no significant difference between pooled adverse event rates in intervention and control groups: 34% vs 29.5% (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.70 - 2.94), respectively. However, incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in HCQ sub-group (OR: 3.88, 95% CI: 1.60 - 9.45, I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion and relevanceThe use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with increased mortality and adverse event rates. No other therapeutic intervention including Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Remdesivir or Tocilizumab seem to alter the natural course of the disease. There is a further need for well-designed randomized clinical trials. Article summary lineThe use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with increased mortality and adverse event rates in Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 infection and other therapeutic interventions did not show any difference in outcomes
RESUMO
BackgroundThere is no proven antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy for COVID-19. The disease progression associated with the pro-inflammatory host response prompted us to examine the role of early corticosteroid therapy in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. MethodsWe conducted a single pre-test, single post-test quasi-experiment in a multi-center health system in Michigan from March 12 to March 27, 2020. Adult patients with confirmed moderate to severe COVID were included. A protocol was implemented on March 20, 2020 using early, short-course, methylprednisolone 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/day divided in 2 intravenous doses for 3 days. Outcomes of pre and post-corticosteroid groups were evaluated. A composite endpoint of escalation of care from ward to ICU, new requirement for mechanical ventilation, and mortality was the primary outcome measure. All patients had at least 14 days of follow-up. ResultsWe analyzed 213 eligible subjects, 81 (38%) and 132 (62%) in pre-and post-corticosteroid groups, respectively. The composite endpoint occurred at a significantly lower rate in post-corticosteroid group compared to pre-corticosteroid group (34.9% vs. 54.3%, p=0.005). This treatment effect was observed within each individual component of the composite endpoint. Significant reduction in median hospital length of stay was observed in the post-corticosteroid group (8 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated an independent reduction in the composite endpoint at 14-days controlling for other factors (aOR: 0.45; 95% CI [0.25 - 0.81]). ConclusionAn early short course of methylprednisolone in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 reduced escalation of care and improved clinical outcomes. SummaryIn this multi-center quasi-experimental study of 213 patients, we demonstrate early short course of methylprednisolone in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients reduced the composite endpoint of escalation of care from ward to ICU, new requirement for mechanical ventilation, and mortality.
