Early combination therapy with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin reduces mortality in 10,429 COVID-19 outpatients

Outcomes after early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: An analysis of a database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients

Background

Many studies have evaluated the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. Most retrospective observational studies demonstrate a benefit of using HCQ on mortality, but not most randomized clinical trials.

Methods

We analyzed raw data collected from a cohort of 30,423 patients with COVID-19 cared for at IHU Méditerranée Infection in Marseille France and extracted from the DRYAD open data platform. We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regressions with all-cause mortality within six weeks. Multivariable logistic regressions were adjusted for sex, age group (<50, 50-69, 70-89 and ​> ​89 years), periods (or variants), and type of patient management.

Results

Among 30,202 patients for whom information on treatment was available, 191/23,172 (0.82%) patients treated with HCQ-AZ died, compared to 344/7030 (4.89%) who did not receive treatment with HCQ-AZ. HCQ-AZ therapy was associated with a lower mortality than treatment without HCQ-AZ (odds ratio (OR) 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14-0.19). After adjustment for sex, age, period, and patient management, HCQ-AZ was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.68). On a subsample of 21,664 patients with available variant information, results remained robust after adjustment on sex, age, patient management and variant (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.44-0.69). On a subsample of 16,063 patients, HCQ-AZ was still associated with a significantly lower mortality rate (aOR 0.47, 95%CI 0.29-0.75) after adjustment for sex, age, period, patient management, vaccination status and comorbidities.

Conclusion

Analysis of this large online database showed that HCQ-AZ was consistently associated with the lowest mortality.

Pre-Hospital Management of Patients with COVID-19 and the Impact on Hospitalization

Background and Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patient care was mainly organized around the hospital. Pre-hospital care has, to our knowledge, never been evaluated. We aimed to study the impact of pre-hospital pathways on hospitalization during the last part of the pandemic. Materials and Methods: This was a monocentric, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected medical records. Data from patients admitted to our institute between 1 February and 7 March 2022 were analyzed. The primary outcomes were defined as the number of hospitalizations, resuscitations, and deaths at the time of interview and in the subsequent 30 days. The main explanatory variables were times from onset of symptoms to care, age, gender, News2 score, comorbidities, and pre-hospital pathways and their duration. Results: Three pre-hospital pathways were identified: a pathway in which the patient consults a general practitioner for a test (PHP1); a pathway in which the patient consults for care (PHP2); and no pre-hospital pathway and direct admission to hospital (PHP3). Factors independently associated with outcome (hospitalization) were being male (OR 95% CI; 2.21 (1.01-4.84), p = 0,04), News2 score (OR 95% CI; 2.04 (1.65-2.51), p < 0.001), obesity (OR 95% CI; 3.45 (1.48-8.09), p = 0.005), D-dimers > 0.5 µg/mL (OR 95% CI; 3.45 (1.47-8.12), p = 0.005), and prolonged time from symptoms to hospital care (PHP duration) (OR 95% CI; 1.07 (1.01-1.14), p = 0.03). All things being equal, patients with a "PHP2" pre-hospital pathway had a higher probability of hospitalization compared to those with a "PHP3" pre-hospital pathway (OR 95% CI; 4.31 (1.48-12.55), p = 0.007). Conclusions: Along with recognized risk factors such as gender, News 2 score, and obesity, the patient's pre-hospital pathway is an important risk factor associated with hospitalization.

Persistent Exhausted T-Cell Immunity after Severe COVID-19: 6-Month Evaluation in a Prospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Severe COVID-19 can result in a significant and irreversible impact on long-term recovery and subsequent immune protection. Understanding the complex immune reactions may be useful for establishing clinically relevant monitoring.

METHODS

Hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2 between March/October 2020 (n = 64) were selected. Cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and plasma samples were obtained at hospitalization (baseline) and 6 months after recovery. Immunological components' phenotyping and SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell response were studied in PBMCs by flow cytometry. Up to 25 plasma pro/anti-inflammatory cytokines/chemokines were assessed by LEGENDplex immunoassays. The SARS-CoV-2 group was compared to matched healthy donors.

RESULTS

Biochemical altered parameters during infection were normalized at a follow-up time point in the SARS-CoV-2 group. Most of the cytokine/chemokine levels were increased at baseline in the SARS-CoV-2 group. This group showed increased Natural Killer cells (NK) activation and decreased CD16^high NK subset, which normalized six months later. They also presented a higher intermediate and patrolling monocyte proportion at baseline. T cells showed an increased terminally differentiated (TemRA) and effector memory (EM) subsets distribution in the SARS-CoV-2 group at baseline and continued to increase six months later. Interestingly, T-cell activation (CD38) in this group decreased at the follow-up time point, contrary to exhaustion markers (TIM3/PD1). In addition, we observed the highest SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell magnitude response in TemRA CD4 T-cell and EM CD8 T-cell subsets at the six-months time point.

CONCLUSIONS

The immunological activation in the SARS-CoV-2 group during hospitalization is reversed at the follow-up time point. However, the marked exhaustion pattern remains over time. This dysregulation could constitute a risk factor for reinfection and the development of other pathologies. Additionally, high SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cells response levels appear to be associated with infection severity.

Antihistamines as an early treatment for Covid-19

Infection with SARs-COV-2 results in COVID-19 disease. Between March 2020 and August 2021, 468 COVID-19 patients confirmed by PCR or antigen test, in Yepes, Spain, received early treatment with antihistamines, adding azithromycin in selected cases. The primary endpoint is the hospitalization rate of COVID-19 patients, and the secondary endpoints are ICU admission and mortality rates. All endpoints are compared with the official Spanish rates during the time period of the study. There were 20 hospital admissions (hospitalization rate 4,3%), 5 ICU admissions (ICU admission rate 1,1%) and 3 deaths (fatality rate of 0,6%). No patients in the study required follow up treatment, which suggest they did not develop long COVID. Results from this retrospective trail indicate that early treatment of SARS-COV-2 positive patients with antihistamines may reduce the odds of hospitalization (OR: 0.490, CI: 0.313-0.767, p-value: 0.001). Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the effects of early antihistamine treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients to prevent hospitalization, ICU admission, mortality and long-covid.

Cardiovascular Safety of Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin in 424 COVID-19 Patients

Background and Objectives: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) combined with azithromycin (AZM) has been widely administered to patients with COVID-19 despite scientific controversies. In particular, the potential of prolong cardiac repolarization when using this combination has been discussed. Materials and Methods: We report a pragmatic and simple safety approach which we implemented among the first patients treated for COVID-19 in our center in early 2020. Treatment contraindications were the presence of severe structural or electrical heart disease, baseline corrected QT interval (QTc) > 500 ms, hypokalemia, or other drugs prolonging QTc that could not be interrupted. Electrocardiogram and QTc was evaluated at admission and re-evaluated after 48 h of the initial prescription. Results: Among the 424 consecutive adult patients (mean age 46.3 ± 16.1 years; 216 women), 21.5% patients were followed in conventional wards and 78.5% in a day-care unit. A total of 11 patients (2.6%) had contraindications to the HCQ-AZ combination. In the remaining 413 treated patients, there were no arrhythmic events in any patient during the 10-day treatment regimen. QTc was slightly but statistically significantly prolonged by 3.75 ± 25.4 ms after 2 days of treatment (p = 0.003). QTc prolongation was particularly observed in female outpatients <65 years old without cardiovascular disease. Ten patients (2.4%) developed QTc prolongation > 60 ms, and none had QTc > 500 ms. Conclusions: This report does not aim to contribute to knowledge of the efficacy of treating COVID-19 with HCQ-AZ. However, it shows that a simple initial assessment of patient medical history, electrocardiogram (ECG), and kalemia identifies contraindicated patients and enables the safe treatment of COVID-19 patients with HCQ-AZ. QT-prolonging anti-infective drugs can be used safely in acute life-threatening infections, provided that a strict protocol and close collaboration between infectious disease specialists and rhythmologists are applied.

Evaluation of patients treated by telemedicine in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in São Paulo, Brazil: A non-randomized clinical trial preliminary study

We performed a pilot open-label, non-randomized controlled clinical trial in a clinic in São Paulo, Brazil in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. "This medical pilot project was carried out during the pandemic of a new and unknown agent. It was necessary to find a new and safe therapeutic approach for pathogens with high potential for severity and contamination. The repositioning of safe and accessible pre-existing and approved medications and the telemedicine approach improved treated covid patients' symptoms and reduced the risk of disease transmission. The emergency application of a new medical technology was the major limitation of the study. This innovative care model is a low-cost safe strategy, and we understand that applicability can be expanded to other regions in emergency situations." The 187 patients of the study (mean age of 37.6 ± 15,6 years) were divided into four groups: (1) asymptomatic, (2) mild symptoms, (3) moderate symptoms and (4) severe symptoms and were followed up for five days. A drug intervention was performed in group 3 and the patients of Group 4 were oriented to seek hospital care. Of all the patients, 23.0% were asymptomatic, 29.4% reported mild symptoms, 43.9% moderate symptoms and 3.7% severe symptoms. Three patients were hospitalized and discharged after recovery. Our results indicate that the use of telemedicine with diagnosis and drug treatment is a safe and effective strategy to reduce overload of health services and the exposure of healthcare providers and the population. The patients that initiated the treatment in the early stages of the disease presented satisfactory clinical response, reducing the need of face-to-face consultations and hospitalizations. The patients who followed the protocol treatment for COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for five days presented statistically significant improvement of clinical symptoms when compared to moderate patients who opted for not following the protocol (p < 0.05) and to all no treatment patients (p < 0.001).

Establishing COVID-19 trials at scale and pace: Experience from the RECOVERY trial

The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) Trial was set up in March 2020 to evaluate treatments for people hospitalised with COVID-19. To maximise recruitment it was designed to fit into routine clinical care throughout the UK, and as a result it has enrolled more patients than any other COVID-19 treatment trial. RECOVERY has shown four drugs to be life-saving - dexamethasone, tocilizumab, baricitinib and casirivimab-imdevimab - and a further six have been shown to be of little or no benefit. In each case, results from RECOVERY were clear enough to rapidly influence global practice. Some of the reasons for this success relate to its particular setting in the UK during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but many are generalisable to other contexts. In particular, its focus on recruiting large numbers of patients to identify or rule out moderate but worthwhile benefits of treatment, and the design decisions that followed from this. Similar large streamlined trials could produce similarly clear answers about the treatment of many other common diseases.

The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19

Background:

The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal. Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1/financial; 2/to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.

Methods:

Pharmaceutical industry techniques for manipulating science and COVID-19 reporting were reviewed. Several sources of official documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical companies; policy documents; national newspapers and news agencies; and books by prominent professionals (scientific and legal). A few studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they have been conducted by reputable scientists in their respective fields.

Results:

Since the beginning of COVID-19, we can list the following methods of information manipulation which have been used: falsified clinical trials and inaccessible data; fake or conflict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines’ short-term side effects and total lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations under conflicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative effective treatments; unscientific and liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose confinements, masks, and vaccine acceptance; scientific censorship by the media.

Conclusion:

By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conflicts of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientifically validated vaccination laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.

Early Outpatient Treatment of COVID-19: A Retrospective Analysis of 392 Cases in Italy

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020. The knowledge of COVID-19 pathophysiology soon provided a strong rationale for the early use of both anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic drugs; however, its evidence was slowly and partially incorporated into institutional guidelines. The unmet needs of COVID-19 outpatients were taken care of by networks of physicians and researchers. We analyse the characteristics, management and outcomes in COVID-19 outpatients who were taken care of by physicians within the IppocrateOrg Association. In this observational retrospective study, volunteering doctors provided data on 392 COVID-19 patients. The mean age of patients was 48.5 years (range: 0.5–97), and patients were taken care of in COVID-19 stage 0 (15.6%), stage 1 (50.0%), stage 2a (28.8%) and stage 2b (5.6%). Many patients were overweight (26%) or obese (11.5%), with chronic comorbidities (34.9%), mainly cardiovascular (23%) and metabolic (13.3%). The most frequently prescribed drugs included: vitamins and supplements (98.7%), aspirin (66.1%), antibiotics (62%), glucocorticoids (41.8%), hydroxychloroquine (29.6%), enoxaparin (28.6%), colchicine (8.9%), oxygen therapy (6.9%), and ivermectin (2.8%). Hospitalization occurred in 5.8% of cases, mainly in stage 2b (27.3%). A total of 390 patients (99.6%) recovered; one patient was lost at follow up, and one patient died after hospitalization. This is the first real-world study describing the behaviours of physicians caring for COVID-19 outpatients, and the outcomes of COVID-19 early treatment. The lethality in this cohort was 0.2%, while overall, and over the same period, the COVID-19 lethality in Italy was over 3%. The drug use described in this study appears effective and safe. The present evidence should be carefully considered by physicians and political decision makers.

Sequential Appearance and Isolation of a SARS-CoV-2 Recombinant between Two Major SARS-CoV-2 Variants in a Chronically Infected Immunocompromised Patient

Genetic recombination is a major evolutionary mechanism among RNA viruses, and it is common in coronaviruses, including those infecting humans. A few SARS-CoV-2 recombinants have been reported to date whose genome harbored combinations of mutations from different mutants or variants, but only a single patient's sample was analyzed, and the virus was not isolated. Here, we report the gradual emergence of a hybrid genome of B.1.160 and Alpha variants in a lymphoma patient chronically infected for 14 months, and we isolated the recombinant virus. The hybrid genome was obtained by next-generation sequencing, and the recombination sites were confirmed by PCR. This consisted of a parental B.1.160 backbone interspersed with two fragments, including the spike gene, from an Alpha variant. An analysis of seven sequential samples from the patient decoded the recombination steps, including the initial infection with a B.1.160 variant, then a concurrent infection with this variant and an Alpha variant, the generation of hybrid genomes, and eventually the emergence of a predominant recombinant virus isolated at the end of the patient's follow-up. This case exemplifies the recombination process of SARS-CoV-2 in real life, and it calls for intensifying the genomic surveillance in patients coinfected with different SARS-CoV-2 variants, and more generally with several RNA viruses, as this may lead to the appearance of new viruses.

Outcomes of 2111 COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients Treated with Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin and Other Regimens in Marseille, France, 2020: A Monocentric Retrospective Analysis

Objectives

We evaluated the 6-week mortality of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized patients treated using a standardized protocol in 2020 in Marseille, France.

Methods

A retrospective monocentric cohort study was conducted in the standard hospital wards at the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, between March and December 2020 in adults with SARS-CoV-2 PCR-proven infection.

Results

Of the 2111 hospitalized patients (median age, 67 [IQR 55-79] years; 1154 [54.7%] men), 271 were transferred to the intensive care unit (12.8%) and 239 died (11.3%; the mean age of patients who died was 81.2 (±9.9)). Treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (HCQ-AZ), used in 1270 patients, was an independent protective factor against death (0.68 [0.52 - 0.88]). This effect was consistent for all subgroups of age, comorbidities, severity of the disease and comedications with zinc or corticosteroids. Zinc was independently protective against death (0.39 [0.23 - 0.67]), in a subgroup analysis of patients treated with HCQ-AZ without dexamethasone. The use of high-flow oxygen therapy in elderly patients who were not eligible for intensive care unit transfer saved 19 patients (33.9%).

Conclusions

In our 2020 cohort, treating COVID-19 with HCQ-AZ was associated with lower mortality. These results need to be analyzed in the context of academic discussions about observational studies versus randomized clinical trials. More data will deserve to be analyzed in the SARS-Cov 2 variants, vaccination and post-vaccination era.

Assessment of Recovery Time, Worsening, and Death among Inpatients and Outpatients with COVID-19, Treated with Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine plus Azithromycin Combination in Burkina Faso

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to assess the statistical relationship between the use of chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (CQ/HCQ + AZ) and virological recovery, disease worsening, and death among out- and inpatients with COVID-19 in Burkina Faso.

METHODS AND DESIGNS

This was a retrospective observational study that compared outcomes in terms of time to recovery, worsening, and death in patients who received CQ/HCQ + AZ and those who did not using a multivariable Cox or Poisson model before and after propensity matching.

RESULTS

Of the 863 patients included in the study, about 50% (432/863) were home-based follow-up patients and 50% were inpatients. Of these, 83.3% (746/863) received at least 1 dose of CQ/HCQ + AZ and 13.7% (118/863) did not. There were no significant differences in associated time to recovery for patients receiving any CQ/HCQ + AZ (adjusted HR 1.44; 95% CI 0.76-2.71). Similarly, there was no significant association between CQ/HCQ + AZ use and worsening (adjusted IRR 0.80; 95% CI 0.50-1.50). However, compared with the untreated group, the treated group had a lower risk of death (adjusted HR 0.20; 95% CI 0.10-0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

The study provided valuable additional information on the use of CQ/HCQ in patients with COVID-19 and did not show any harmful outcomes of CQ/HCQ + AZ treatment.

Ofeleein i mi Vlaptin-Volume II: Immunity Following Infection or mRNA Vaccination, Drug Therapies and Non-Pharmacological Management at Post-Two Years SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

The persistence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered research into limiting transmission, morbidity and mortality, thus warranting a comprehensive approach to guide balanced healthcare policies with respect to people's physical and mental health. The mainstay priority during COVID-19 is to achieve widespread immunity, which could be established through natural contact or vaccination. Deep knowledge of the immune response combined with recent specific data indicates the potential inferiority of induced immunity against infection. Moreover, the prevention of transmission has been founded on general non-pharmacological measures of protection, albeit debate exists considering their efficacy and, among other issues, their socio-psychological burden. The second line of defense is engaged after infection and is supported by a plethora of studied agents, such as antibiotics, steroids and non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs, antiviral medications and other biological agents that have been proposed, though variability in terms of benefits and adverse events has not allowed distinct solutions, albeit certain treatments might have a role in prevention and/or treatment of the disease. This narrative review summarizes the existing literature on the advantages and weaknesses of current COVID-19 management measures, thus underlining the necessity of acting based on the classical principle of "ofeleein i mi vlaptin", that is, to help or not to harm.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Protection Against Clinical Disease: A Retrospective Study, Bouches-du-Rhône District, Southern France, 2021

From January 18th to August 13th, 2021, 13,804 unvaccinated and 1,156 patients who had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose were tested qPCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 in our center. Among vaccinated patients, 949, 205 and 2 had received a single, two or three vaccine doses, respectively. Most patients (80.3%) had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The SARS-CoV-2 variants infecting vaccinated patients varied over time, reflecting those circulating in the Marseille area, with a predominance of the Marseille-4/20A.EU2 variant from weeks 3 to 6, of the Alpha/20I variant from weeks 7 to 25, and of the Delta/21A variant from week 26. SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly more likely to occur in the first 13 days post-vaccine injection in those who received a single dose (48.9%) than two doses (27.4%, p< 10^–3). Among 161 patients considered as fully vaccinated, i.e., >14 days after the completion of the vaccinal scheme (one dose for Johnson and Johnson and two doses for Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Sputnik vaccines), 10 (6.2%) required hospitalization and four (2.5%) died. Risks of complications increased with age in a nonlinear pattern, with a first breakpoint at 54, 33, and 53 years for death, transfer to ICU, and hospitalization, respectively. Among patients infected by the Delta/21A or Alpha/20I variants, partial or complete vaccination exhibited a protective effect with a risk divided by 3.1 for mortality in patients ≥ 55 years, by 2.8 for ICU transfer in patients ≥ 34 years, and by 1.8 for hospitalization in patients ≥ 54 years. Compared to partial vaccination, complete vaccination provided an even stronger protective effect, confirming effectiveness to prevent severe forms of COVID-19.

Safety of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine Plus Azithromycin for the Treatment of COVID-19 Patients in Burkina Faso: An Observational Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Though chloroquine derivatives are used in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in many countries worldwide, doubts remain about the safety and efficacy of these drugs, especially in African communities where published data are scarce.

METHODS

We conducted an observational prospective cohort study from April 24 to September 03, 2020, in Burkina Faso to assess (as primary outcome) the clinical, biological, and cardiac (electrocardiographic) safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin administered to COVID-19 patients. The main secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and median time of viral clearance.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were enrolled and followed for 21 days. Among patients who took at least one dose of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine (90.1% [138/153]), few clinical adverse events were reported and were mainly rash/pruritus, diarrhea, chest pain, and palpitations. No statistically significant increase in hepatic, renal, and hematological parameters or electrolyte disorders were reported. However, there was a significant increase in the QTc value without exceeding 500ms, especially in those who received chloroquine phosphate. Three adverse events of special interest classified as serious (known from chloroquine derivatives) were recorded namely pruritus, paresthesia, and drowsiness. One case of death occurred. The average onset of SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity was estimated at 7.0 (95% CI: 5.0-10.0) days.

CONCLUSION

Hydroxychloroquine appeared to be well tolerated in treated COVID-19 patients in Burkina Faso. In the absence of a robust methodological approach that could generate a high level of scientific evidence, our results could at least contribute to guide health decisions that should be made based on different sources of scientific evidence including those from our study.