Dataset Information

COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator: A parallel analysis to describe the use of Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant global threat. However, despite urgent need, there remains uncertainty surrounding best practices for pharmaceutical interventions to treat COVID-19. In particular, conflicting evidence has emerged surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, alone or in combination, for COVID-19. The COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator convened by the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, in collaboration with Friends of Cancer Research, assembled experts from the health systems research, regulatory science, data science, and epidemiology to participate in a large parallel analysis of different data sets to further explore the effectiveness of these treatments.

Methods

Electronic health record (EHR) and claims data were extracted from seven separate databases. Parallel analyses were undertaken on data extracted from each source. Each analysis examined time to mortality in hospitalized patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and the two in combination as compared to patients not treated with either drug. Cox proportional hazards models were used, and propensity score methods were undertaken to adjust for confounding. Frequencies of adverse events in each treatment group were also examined.

Results

Neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin, alone or in combination, were significantly associated with time to mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No treatment groups appeared to have an elevated risk of adverse events.

Conclusion

Administration of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and their combination appeared to have no effect on time to mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Continued research is needed to clarify best practices surrounding treatment of COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Stewart M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7968637 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHydroxychloroquine 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsAmong 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.).

Project description:RationaleThe COVID-19 pandemic struck an immunologically naïve, globally interconnected population. In the face of a new infectious agent causing acute respiratory failure for which there were no known effective therapies, rapid, often pragmatic trials were necessary to evaluate potential treatments, frequently starting with medications that are already marketed for other indications. Early in the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were two such candidates.ObjectiveAssess the relative efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a randomized clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Treatment was 5 days of study medication. The primary endpoint was the COVID Ordinal Outcomes scale at day 14. Secondary endpoints included hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days at day 28. The trial was stopped early after enrollment of 85 patients when a separate clinical trial concluded that a clinically important effect of hydroxychloroquine over placebo was definitively excluded. Comparisons were made a priori using a proportional odds model from a Bayesian perspective.ResultsWe enrolled 85 patients at 13 hospitals over 11 weeks. Adherence to study medication was high. The estimated odds ratio for less favorable status on the ordinal scale for hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin from the primary analysis was 1.07, with a 95% credible interval from 0.63 to 1.83 with a posterior probability of 60% that hydroxychloroquine was worse than azithryomycin. Secondary outcomes displayed a similar, slight preference for azithromycin over hydroxychloroquine. QTc prolongation was rare and did not differ between groups. The twenty safety outcomes were similar between arms with the possible exception of post-randomization onset acute kidney injury, which was more common with hydroxychloroquine (15% vs. 0%). Patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm received remdesivir more often than in the azithromycin arm (19% vs. 2%). There was no apparent association between remdesivir use and acute kidney injury.ConclusionsWhile early termination limits the precision of our results, we found no suggestion of substantial efficacy for hydroxychloroquine over azithromycin. Acute kidney injury may be more common with hydroxychloroquine than azithromycin, although this may be due to the play of chance. Differential use of remdesivir may have biased our results in favor of hydroxychloroquine. Our results are consistent with conclusions from other trials that hydroxychloroquine cannot be recommended for inpatients with COVID-19; azithromycin may merit additional investigation.Clinical trial registrationThis trial was prospectively registered (NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.

Project description:ImportanceAdministration of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pneumonia carries increased risk of corrected QT (QTc) prolongation and cardiac arrhythmias.ObjectiveTo characterize the risk and degree of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19 in association with their use of hydroxychloroquine with or without concomitant azithromycin.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cohort study performed at an academic tertiary care center in Boston, Massachusetts, of patients hospitalized with at least 1 positive COVID-19 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction test result and clinical findings consistent with pneumonia who received at least 1 day of hydroxychloroquine from March 1, 2020, through April 7, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresChange in QT interval after receiving hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin; occurrence of other potential adverse drug events.ResultsAmong 90 patients given hydroxychloroquine, 53 received concomitant azithromycin; 44 (48.9%) were female, and the mean (SD) body mass index was 31.5 (6.6). Hypertension (in 48 patients [53.3%]) and diabetes mellitus (in 26 patients [28.9%]) were the most common comorbid conditions. The overall median (interquartile range) baseline QTc was 455 (430-474) milliseconds (hydroxychloroquine, 473 [454-487] milliseconds vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, 442 [427-461] milliseconds; P?<?.001). Those receiving concomitant azithromycin had a greater median (interquartile range) change in QT interval (23 [10-40] milliseconds) compared with those receiving hydroxychloroquine alone (5.5 [-15.5 to 34.25] milliseconds; P?=?.03). Seven patients (19%) who received hydroxychloroquine monotherapy developed prolonged QTc of 500 milliseconds or more, and 3 patients (8%) had a change in QTc of 60 milliseconds or more. Of those who received concomitant azithromycin, 11 of 53 (21%) had prolonged QTc of 500 milliseconds or more and 7 of 53 (13 %) had a change in QTc of 60 milliseconds or more. The likelihood of prolonged QTc was greater in those who received concomitant loop diuretics (adjusted odds ratio, 3.38 [95% CI, 1.03-11.08]) or had a baseline QTc of 450 milliseconds or more (adjusted odds ratio, 7.11 [95% CI, 1.75-28.87]). Ten patients had hydroxychloroquine discontinued early because of potential adverse drug events, including intractable nausea, hypoglycemia, and 1 case of torsades de pointes.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, patients who received hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of pneumonia associated with COVID-19 were at high risk of QTc prolongation, and concurrent treatment with azithromycin was associated with greater changes in QTc. Clinicians should carefully weigh risks and benefits if considering hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, with close monitoring of QTc and concomitant medication usage.

Project description:BackgroundHydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials.MethodsIn this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.ResultsThe enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine.ConclusionsAmong patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.).