RESUMO
Background: Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540. Findings: From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]). Interpretation: In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The pathophysiologic role of coronary reserve impairment in hypertensive cardiac dysfunction is still debated. Previously, we demonstrated that satisfactory coronary vasodilatation may coexist with ventricular systolic dysfunction. It is conceivable that coronary reserve might otherwise be inappropriate for enhanced myocardial oxygen demand and may thus affect cardiac performance negatively. HYPOTHESIS: Myocardial supply-demand imbalance contributes to the severity of ventricular dysfunction in hypertension (HTN). METHODS: Fractional shortening (%) and end-systolic stress (10(3) x dyn x cm(-2)) were determined using echocardiography, and coronary reserve was calculated using transesophageal Doppler echocardiography. Coronary reserve/stress (cm2 x dyn(-1)) was utilized as a measure of supply-demand. Groups NL (20 healthy subjects), HTN1 (15 patients, fractional shortening > or = 30), HTN2 (19 patients, 20 < or = fractional shortening < 30), and HTN3 (21 patients, fractional shortening < 20) were constituted. RESULTS: Compared with NL and HTN1, groups HTN2 and HTN3 had significantly (p < 0.05) greater end-systolic stress (NL = 72 +/- 16, HTN1 = 72 +/- 23, HTN2 = 143 +/- 32, HTN3 = 186 +/- 70). Coronary reserve was impaired in HTN3 alone (NL = 3.5 +/- 0.6, HTN1 = 3.4 +/- 1.0, HTN2 = 3.1 +/- 1.0, HTN3 = 2.6 +/- 1.1), but coronary reserve/stress was reduced in both HTN2 and HTN3 (NL = 50 +/- 12, HTN1 = 53 +/- 21, HTN2 = 22 +/- 7, HTN3 = 15 +/- 7). Stepwise regression analysis identified diastolic internal dimension, end-systolic stress, and coronary reserve/stress as independently associated with fractional shortening. CONCLUSION: The imbalance between supply-demand explains the severity of hypertensive cardiac dysfunction and adds information to cardiac enlargement and elevated wall stress.
