Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Predictors of early and long-term mortality after ICU discharge in critically ill COVID-19 patients: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To mitigate mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients, both during their Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay and following ICU discharge, it is crucial to measure its frequency, identify predictors and to establish an appropriate post-ICU follow-up strategy.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective cohort study, we included 586 critically ill COVID-19 patients.

RESULTS

We observed an overall ICU mortality of 20.1% [95%CI: 17.1% to 23.6%] (118/586) and an overall hospital mortality of 25.4% [95%CI: 22.1% to 29.1%] (149/586). For ICU survivors, 30 days (early) post-ICU mortality was 5.3% [95%CI: 3.6% to 7.8%] (25/468) and one-year (late) post-ICU mortality was 7.9% [95%CI: 5.8% to 10.8%] (37/468). Pre-existing conditions/comorbidities were identified as the main independent predictors of mortality after ICU discharge: hypertension and heart failure were independent predictors of early mortality; and hypertension, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer were independent predictors of late mortality.

CONCLUSION

Early and late post-ICU mortality exhibited an initial surge (in the first 30 days post-ICU) followed by a subsequent decline over time. Close monitoring of critically ill COVID-19 post-ICU survivors, especially those with pre-existing conditions, is crucial to prevent adverse outcomes, reduce mortality and to establish an appropriate follow-up strategy.

Rivaroxaban to prevent major clinical outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the CARE - COALITION VIII randomised clinical trial

Background

COVID-19 progression is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Randomised trials have demonstrated that anticoagulants reduce the risk of thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but a benefit of routine anticoagulation has not been demonstrated in the outpatient setting.

Methods

We conducted a randomised, open-label, controlled, multicentre study, evaluating the use of rivaroxaban in mild or moderate COVID-19 patients. Adults ≥18 years old, with probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, presenting within ≤7 days from symptom onset with no clear indication for hospitalization, plus at least 2 risk factors for complication, were randomised 1:1 either to rivaroxaban 10 mg OD for 14 days or to routine care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of venous thromboembolic events, need of mechanical ventilation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or death due to COVID-19 during the first 30 days. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04757857.

Findings

Enrollment was prematurely stopped due to sustained reduction in new COVID-19 cases. From September 29th, 2020, through May 23rd, 2022, 660 patients were randomised (median age 61 [Q1-Q3 47-69], 55.7% women). There was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and control in the primary efficacy endpoint (4.3% [14/327] vs 5.8% [19/330], RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46). There was no major bleeding in the control group and 1 in the rivaroxaban group.

Interpretation

On light of these findings no decision can be made about the utility of rivaroxaban to improve outcomes in outpatients with COVID-19. Metanalyses data provide no evidence of a benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19. These findings were the result of an underpowered study, therefore should be interpreted with caution.

Funding

COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer S.A.

Rivaroxaban in Outpatients with Mild or Moderate COVID-19: Rationale and Design of the Study CARE (CARE - Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VIII)

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated a high risk of arterial and venous thromboembolic events as a consequence of direct viral damage to endothelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 and a procoagulant milieu due to increased biomarkers, such as D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII. Although randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapies have been conducted in hospitalized patients, few have evaluated the role of thromboprophylaxis in an outpatient setting.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether antithrombotic prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduces the risk of venous or arterial thrombotic events, invasive ventilatory support, and death in COVID-19 outpatients.

METHODS

The COVID Antithrombotic Rivaroxaban Evaluation (CARE) study, a multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 14 days or local standard treatment alone to prevent adverse outcomes, is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04757857). The inclusion criteria are adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild or moderate symptoms without indication for hospitalization, within 7 days of symptom onset, and 1 risk factor for COVID-19 complication (> 65 years, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other chronic lung diseases, smoking, immunosuppression, or obesity). The primary composite endpoint, which includes venous thromboembolism, invasive mechanical ventilation, major acute cardiovascular events, and mortality within 30 days of randomization, will be assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. All patients will provide informed consent. A significance level of 5% will be used for all statistical tests.

RESULTS

Major thrombotic and bleeding outcomes, hospitalizations, and deaths will be centrally adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee blinded to the assigned treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The CARE study will provide relevant and contemporary information about the potential role of thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

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.

Justificativa e Desenho do Ensaio Clínico Randomizado COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE - Coalition V): Hidroxicloroquina vs. Placebo em Pacientes Não Hospitalizados

Fundamento

Apesar da necessidade de opções terapêuticas específicas para a doença do coronavírus 2019 (covid-19), ainda não há evidências da eficácia de tratamentos específicos no contexto ambulatorial. Há poucos estudos randomizados que avaliam a hidroxicloroquina (HCQ) em pacientes não hospitalizados. Esses estudos não indicaram benefício com o uso da HCQ; no entanto, avaliaram desfechos primários diferentes e apresentaram vieses importantes na avaliação dos desfechos.

Objetivo

Investigar se a HCQ possui o potencial de prevenir hospitalizações por covid-19 quando comparada ao placebo correspondente.

Métodos

O estudo COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE) é um ensaio clínico randomizado, pragmático, duplo-cego, multicêntrico e controlado por placebo que avalia o uso da HCQ (800 mg no dia 1 e 400 mg do dia 2 ao dia 7) ou placebo correspondente na prevenção de hospitalizações por covid-19 em casos precoces confirmados ou suspeitos de pacientes não hospitalizados. Os critérios de inclusão são adultos (≥ 18 anos) que procuraram atendimento médico com sintomas leves de covid-19, com randomização ≤ 7 dias após o início dos sintomas, sem indicação de hospitalização na triagem do estudo e com pelo menos um fator de risco para complicações (> 65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes melito, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). Todos os testes de hipótese serão bilaterais. Um valor de p < 0,05 será considerado estatisticamente significativo em todas as análises. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04466540.

Resultados

Os desfechos clínicos serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente cegado para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. O desfecho primário de eficácia será avaliado de acordo com o princípio da intenção de tratar.

Conclusão

Este estudo apresenta o potencial de responder de forma confiável a questão científica do uso da HCQ em pacientes ambulatoriais com covid-19. Do nosso conhecimento, este é o maior estudo avaliando o uso de HCQ em indivíduos com covid-19 não hospitalizados.

Convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients: an open-label, randomised clinical trial

Background

The effects of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy in hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. This study investigates the effect of CP on clinical improvement in these patients.

Methods

This is an investigator-initiated, randomised, parallel arm, open-label, superiority clinical trial. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to two infusions of CP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinical improvement 28 days after enrolment.

Results

A total of 160 (80 in each arm) patients (66.3% critically ill, 33.7% severely ill) completed the trial. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age was 60.5 (48–68) years; 58.1% were male and the median (IQR) time from symptom onset to randomisation was 10 (8–12) days. Neutralising antibody titres >1:80 were present in 133 (83.1%) patients at baseline. The proportion of patients with clinical improvement on day 28 was 61.3% in the CP+SOC group and 65.0% in the SOC group (difference −3.7%, 95% CI −18.8–11.3%). The results were similar in the severe and critically ill subgroups. There was no significant difference between CP+SOC and SOC groups in pre-specified secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality, days alive and free of respiratory support and duration of invasive ventilatory support. Inflammatory and other laboratory marker values on days 3, 7 and 14 were similar between groups.

Conclusions

CP+SOC did not result in a higher proportion of clinical improvement on day 28 in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 compared to SOC alone.

In this open-label, randomised clinical trial, two infusions of convalescent plasma therapy plus standard of care compared to standard of care did not result in higher proportion of clinical improvement on day 28 in patients with severe COVID-19https://bit.ly/2TXuB6S

Randomized clinical trial to evaluate a routine full anticoagulation Strategy in Patients with Coronavirus Infection (SARS-CoV2) admitted to hospital: Rationale and design of the ACTION (AntiCoagulaTlon cOroNavirus)-Coalition IV trial

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation.

DESIGN

ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.

SUMMARY

The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population.

METHODS

We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed.

FINDINGS

From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.

INTERPRETATION

In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

FUNDING

Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether tocilizumab improves clinical outcomes for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Randomised, open label trial.

SETTING

Nine hospitals in Brazil, 8 May to 17 July 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with confirmed covid-19 who were receiving supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation and had abnormal levels of at least two serum biomarkers (C reactive protein, D dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, or ferritin). The data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early, after 129 patients had been enrolled, because of an increased number of deaths at 15 days in the tocilizumab group.

INTERVENTIONS

Tocilizumab (single intravenous infusion of 8 mg/kg) plus standard care (n=65) versus standard care alone (n=64).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome, clinical status measured at 15 days using a seven level ordinal scale, was analysed as a composite of death or mechanical ventilation because the assumption of odds proportionality was not met.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were enrolled (mean age 57 (SD 14) years; 68% men) and all completed follow-up. All patients in the tocilizumab group and two in the standard care group received tocilizumab. 18 of 65 (28%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 13 of 64 (20%) in the standard care group were receiving mechanical ventilation or died at day 15 (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.66; P=0.32). Death at 15 days occurred in 11 (17%) patients in the tocilizumab group compared with 2 (3%) in the standard care group (odds ratio 6.42, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 43.2). Adverse events were reported in 29 of 67 (43%) patients who received tocilizumab and 21 of 62 (34%) who did not receive tocilizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab plus standard care was not superior to standard care alone in improving clinical outcomes at 15 days, and it might increase mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04403685.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Effect of Dexamethasone on Days Alive and Ventilator-Free in Patients With Moderate or Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: The CoDEX Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with substantial mortality and use of health care resources. Dexamethasone use might attenuate lung injury in these patients.

Objective

To determine whether intravenous dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days among patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted in 41 intensive care units (ICUs) in Brazil. Patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS, according to the Berlin definition, were enrolled from April 17 to June 23, 2020. Final follow-up was completed on July 21, 2020. The trial was stopped early following publication of a related study before reaching the planned sample size of 350 patients.

Interventions

Twenty mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 5 days, 10 mg of dexamethasone daily for 5 days or until ICU discharge, plus standard care (n =151) or standard care alone (n = 148).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 days, clinical status of patients at day 15 using a 6-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1, not hospitalized to 6, death), ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (range, 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater organ dysfunction) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days.

Results

A total of 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 61 [14] years; 37% women) were enrolled and all completed follow-up. Patients randomized to the dexamethasone group had a mean 6.6 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 5.0-8.2) during the first 28 days vs 4.0 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 2.9-5.4) in the standard care group (difference, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.2-4.38; P = .04). At 7 days, patients in the dexamethasone group had a mean SOFA score of 6.1 (95% CI, 5.5-6.7) vs 7.5 (95% CI, 6.9-8.1) in the standard care group (difference, -1.16; 95% CI, -1.94 to -0.38; P = .004). There was no significant difference in the prespecified secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at 28 days, ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, or the 6-point ordinal scale at 15 days. Thirty-three patients (21.9%) in the dexamethasone group vs 43 (29.1%) in the standard care group experienced secondary infections, 47 (31.1%) vs 42 (28.3%) needed insulin for glucose control, and 5 (3.3%) vs 9 (6.1%) experienced other serious adverse events.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS, use of intravenous dexamethasone plus standard care compared with standard care alone resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free of mechanical ventilation) over 28 days.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04327401.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19.

METHODS

We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278.

FINDINGS

447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19.

FUNDING

COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Cardiovascular risk and bipolar disorder: factors associated with a positive coronary calcium score in patients with bipolar disorder type 1

Objective:

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in patients with bipolar disorder. The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with positive coronary calcium score (CCS) in individuals with bipolar disorder type 1.

Methods:

Patients from the Bipolar Disorder Program at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil, underwent computed tomography scanning for calcium score measurement. Clinical and sociodemographic variables were compared between patients according to their CCS status: negative (CCS = 0) or positive (CCS > 0). Poisson regression analysis was used to examine the association of CCS with number of psychiatric hospitalizations.

Results:

Out of 41 patients evaluated, only 10 had a positive CCS. Individuals in the CCS-positive group were older (55.2±4.2 vs. 43.1±10.0 years; p = 0.001) and had more psychiatric hospitalizations (4.7±3.0 vs. 2.6±2.5; p = 0.04) when compared with CCS- negative subjects. The number of previous psychiatric hospitalizations correlated positively with CCS (p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Age and number of psychiatric hospitalizations were significantly associated with higher CCS, which might be a potential method for diagnosis and stratification of cardiovascular disease in bipolar patients. There is a need for increased awareness of risk assessment in this population.

Factors associated with hospital length of stay among cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

Purpose

This study sought to evaluate factors associated with hospital length of stay in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was performed at a single tertiary referral hospital in southern Brazil from October 2009 to August 2011. All adult cancer patients with febrile neutropenia admitted to the hematology ward were evaluated. Stepwise random-effects negative binomial regression was performed to identify risk factors for prolonged length of hospital stay.

Results

In total, 307 cases of febrile neutropenia were evaluated. The overall median length of hospital stay was 16 days (interquartile range 18 days). According to multiple negative binomial regression analysis, hematologic neoplasms (P = 0.003), high-dose chemotherapy regimens (P<0.001), duration of neutropenia (P<0.001), and bloodstream infection involving Gram-negative multi-drug-resistant bacteria (P = 0.003) were positively associated with prolonged hospital length of stay in patients with febrile neutropenia. The condition index showed no evidence of multi-collinearity effect among the independent variables.

Conclusions

Hematologic neoplasms, high-dose chemotherapy regimens, prolonged periods of neutropenia, and bloodstream infection with Gram-negative multi-drug-resistant bacteria are predictors of prolonged length hospital of stay among adult cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.

Mood disorder as a manifestation of primary hypoparathyroidism: a case report

Introduction

Primary hypoparathyroidism is a rare condition caused by parathyroid hormone deficiency and characterized by hypocalcemia. The clinical manifestations of primary hypoparathyroidism include tetany, seizures, paresthesias, dementia, and parkinsonism. Psychiatric manifestations such as mood disorders are unusual and may constitute a major diagnostic challenge, especially if the typical manifestations caused by hypocalcemia are absent.

Case presentation

The patient was a 22-year-old Caucasian man with a history of chronic omeprazole use and periodic seizures, who presented to the emergency department of a secondary hospital in Southern Brazil with symptoms of major depression (sadness, anhedonia, loss of appetite, insomnia, and fatigue) associated with paresthesias affecting his toes. The initial electrocardiogram revealed a prolonged QTc interval. A computed tomography scan of his brain revealed bilateral, nonenhancing hyperdense calcifications involving the putamen and caudate nucleus. An electroencephalogram showed generalized bursts of slow spikes. Blood laboratory study results indicated serum hypocalcemia, hypomagnesemia, and hyperphosphatemia associated with a low parathyroid hormone level. His serum levels of albumin, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, thyroid-stimulating hormone, T3 and T4 thyroid hormones, as well as the results of kidney function tests, were normal. The definitive diagnosis was primary hypoparathyroidism with psychiatric manifestations due to chronic hypomagnesemia induced by proton pump inhibitor use.

Conclusions

In some cases, to differentiate between a primary psychiatric disorder and primary hypoparathyroidism with neuropsychiatric symptoms may represent a challenge given that the classical manifestations of hypocalcemia, especially tetany, may be absent in the setting of chronic hypoparathyroidism. Clinicians and psychiatrists should consider primary hypoparathyroidism part of the differential diagnosis during the evaluation of patients with mood symptoms, especially in the context of atypical presentations associated with hypocalcemia.

Comparison of anti-anaerobic antimicrobial strategies in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia and gastrointestinal symptoms

Background

The current study sought to compare 28-day mortality rates in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms who underwent monotherapy using an antibiotic with antipseudomonal and anti-anaerobic activity (piperacillin-tazobactam or a carbapenem) and a group treated with a combination of cefepime-metronidazole.

Findings

We performed a prospective cohort study in a single tertiary hospital from October 2009 to August 2011. All consecutive adult cancer patients admitted with FN secondary to intensive chemotherapy and GI symptoms (abdominal pain, diarrhea or perianal pain) were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for calculating time-dependent occurence of death. In total, 37 patients with FN and GI symptoms were evaluated (15 in monotherapy arm and 22 in the combination therapy arm). Treatment with combination cefepime and metronidazole resulted in a lower 28-day mortality rate compared with piperacillin-tazobactam or carbapenem monotherapy (0% versus 40%; log-rank P=0.002).

Conclusions

Results of the present study suggest a significant reduction in mortality in cancer patients with FN and GI symptoms treated with combination cefepime-metronidazole therapy compared with monotherapy using agents with antipseudomonal and anti-anaerobic activity. Further randomized trials are warranted to confirm the superior results using combination therapy in patients with FN and GI symptoms.

Association between adherence to an antimicrobial stewardship program and mortality among hospitalised cancer patients with febrile neutropaenia: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Initial management of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropaenia (FN) comprises empirical therapy with a broad-spectrum antimicrobial. Currently, there is sufficient evidence to indicate which antibiotic regimen should be administered initially. However, no randomized trial has evaluated whether adherence to an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) results in lower rates of mortality in this setting. The present study sought to assess the association between adherence to an ASP and mortality among hospitalised cancer patients with FN.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study in a single tertiary hospital from October 2009 to August 2011. All adult patients who were admitted to the haematology ward with cancer and FN were followed up for 28 days. ASP adherence to the initial antimicrobial prescription was determined. The mortality rates of patients who were treated with antibiotics according to the ASP protocol were compared with those of patients treated with other antibiotic regimens. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score were used to estimate 28-day mortality risk.

RESULTS

A total of 307 FN episodes in 169 subjects were evaluated. The rate of adherence to the ASP was 53%. In a Cox regression analysis, adjusted for propensity scores and other potential confounding factors, ASP adherence was independently associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial selection is important for the initial management of patients with FN, and adherence to the ASP, which calls for the rational use of antibiotics, was associated with lower mortality rates in this setting.

Risk factors for multidrug-resistant bacteremia in hospitalized cancer patients with febrile neutropenia: a cohort study

We conducted a prospective cohort study in a single tertiary hospital with the aim of assessing predictors of multidrug-resistant bacteremia in 307 cases of febrile neutropenia in adult patients with cancer. On multivariate analysis using stepwise logistic regression, age (P = .009), duration of neutropenia (P = .022), and presence of an indwelling central venous catheter (P = .022) were associated with bloodstream infection by multidrug-resistant bacteria.