Pharmacoepidemiology, Machine Learning and COVID-19: An intent-to-treat analysis of hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, and COVID-19 outcomes amongst hospitalized US Veterans.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gerlovin H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8384407 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to characterize corrected QT (QTc) prolongation in a cohort of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) who were treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).BackgroundHCQ/AZM is being widely used to treat COVID-19 despite the known risk of QT interval prolongation and the unknown risk of arrhythmogenesis in this population.MethodsA retrospective cohort of COVID-19 hospitalized patients treated with HCQ/AZM was reviewed. The QTc interval was calculated before drug administration and for the first 5 days following initiation. The primary endpoint was the magnitude of QTc prolongation, and factors associated with QTc prolongation. Secondary endpoints were incidences of sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and all-cause mortality.ResultsAmong 415 patients who received concomitant HCQ/AZM, the mean QTc increased from 443 ± 25 ms to a maximum of 473 ± 40 ms (87 [21%] patients had a QTc ?500 ms). Factors associated with QTc prolongation ?500 ms were age (p < 0.001), body mass index <30 kg/m2 (p = 0.005), heart failure (p < 0.001), elevated creatinine (p = 0.005), and peak troponin (p < 0.001). The change in QTc was not associated with death over the short period of the study in a population in which mortality was already high (hazard ratio: 0.998; p = 0.607). No primary high-grade ventricular arrhythmias were observed.ConclusionsAn increase in QTc was seen in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with HCQ/AZM. Several clinical factors were associated with greater QTc prolongation. Changes in QTc were not associated with increased risk of death.
| S-EPMC7406234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite limited and conflicting evidence, hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with azithromycin, is widely used in COVID-19 therapy.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of electronic health records of patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in US Veterans Health Administration medical centers between March 9, 2020 and April 29, 2020. Patients hospitalized within 24 h of diagnosis were classified based on their exposure to hydroxychloroquine alone (HC) or with azithromycin (HC+AZ) or no HC as treatments. The primary outcomes were mortality and use of mechanical ventilation.FindingsA total of 807 patients were evaluated. Compared to the no HC group, after propensity score adjustment for clinical characteristics, the risk of death from any cause was higher in the HC group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.89; p = 0.009), but not in the HC+AZ group (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.15; p = 0.28). Both the propensity-score-adjusted risks of mechanical ventilation and death after mechanical ventilation were not significantly different in the HC group (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.78-1.82; p = 0.42 and aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.96-4.62; p = 0.06, respectively) or in the HC+AZ group (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.72-1.66; p = 0.69 and aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.59-2.68; p = 0.56, respectively) compared to the no HC group.ConclusionsAmong patients hospitalized with COVID-19, this retrospective study did not identify any significant reduction in mortality or in the need for mechanical ventilation with hydroxychloroquine treatment with or without azithromycin.FundingUniversity of Virginia Strategic Investment Fund.
| S-EPMC7274588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is an urgent need for treatments that can shorten hospitalization and lower the risk of secondary infection and death in patients with corona disease. The ProPac-COVID trial evaluates whether combination therapy with macrolide azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine via anti-inflammation/immune modulation, antiviral efficacy, and pre-emptive treatment of supra-infections can shorten hospitalization duration and reduce the risk of non-invasive ventilation, treatment in the intensive care unit, and death in patients with acute hospital admission and a positive test for 2019-nCoV and symptoms of COVID-19 disease.MethodsThe ProPAC-COVID is a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial. The primary outcome is number of days spent alive and out of hospital within 14 days from randomization. Randomization will be in blocks of unknown size, and the final allocation will be stratified for age, site of recruitment, and whether the patient has any chronic lung diseases. Data is analyzed using intention-to-treat (ITT) principles, and main analyses will also be subject to modified ITT analysis and per protocol analysis.DiscussionThis paper describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the evaluation of primary and secondary endpoints of the ProPAC-COVID study. Enrolment of patients to the ProPAC-COVID study is still ongoing. The purpose of this paper is to provide primary publication of study results to prevent selective reporting of outcomes, data-driven analysis, and to increase transparency.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04322396 . Registered on 26 March 2020.
| S-EPMC7573513 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8009003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin (HCQ/AZI) has initially been used against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this retrospective study, we assessed the clinical effects of HCQ/AZI, with a 28-days follow-up.MethodsIn a registry-study which included patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 15 and April 2, 2020, we compared patients who received HCQ/AZI to those who did not, regarding a composite outcome of mortality and mechanical ventilation with a 28-days follow-up. QT was monitored for patients treated with HCQ/AZI. Were excluded patients in intensive care units, palliative care and ventilated within 24 hours of admission. Three analyses were performed to adjust for selection bias: propensity score matching, multivariable survival, and inverse probability score weighting (IPSW) analyses.ResultsOverall, 203 patients were included: 60 patients treated by HCQ/AZI and 143 control patients. During the 28-days follow-up, 32 (16.3%) patients presented the primary outcome and 23 (12.3%) patients died. Propensity-score matching identified 52 unique pairs of patients with similar characteristics. In the matched cohort (n = 104), HCQ/AZI was not associated with the primary composite outcome (log-rank p-value = 0.16). In the overall cohort (n = 203), survival and IPSW analyses also found no benefit from HCQ/AZI. In the HCQ/AZI group, 11 (18.3%) patients prolonged QT interval duration, requiring treatment cessation.ConclusionsHCQ/AZI combination therapy was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality and mechanical ventilation rate, with a 28-days follow-up. In the HCQ/AZI group, 18.3% of patients presented a prolonged QT interval requiring treatment cessation, however, control group was not monitored for this adverse event, making comparison impossible.
| S-EPMC8189518 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsElectronic 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.ResultsNeither 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.ConclusionAdministration 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.
| S-EPMC7968637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chloroquine or its derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) combined with or without azithromycin (AZ) have been widely investigated in observational studies as a treatment option for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The network meta-analysis aims to summarize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if AZ or HCQ is associated with improved clinical outcomes. PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to March 7, 2021. We included published RCTs that investigated the efficacy of AZ, HCQ, or its combination among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and the use of mechanical ventilation. The pooled odds ratio was calculated using a random-effect model. A total of 10 RCTs were analyzed. Participant's mean age ranged from 40.4 to 66.5 years. There was no significant effect on mortality associated with AZ plus HCQ (odds ratio [OR] = 0.562 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.168-1.887]), AZ alone (OR = 0.965 [95% CI: 0.865-1.077]), or HCQ alone (OR = 1.122 [95% CI: 0.995-1.266]; p = 0.06). Similarly, based on pooled effect sizes derived from direct and indirect evidence, none of the treatments had a significant benefit in decreasing the use of mechanical ventilation. No heterogeneity was identified (Cochran's Q = 1.68; p = 0.95; τ2 = 0; I2 = 0% [95% CI: 0%-0%]). Evidence from RCTs suggests that AZ with or without HCQ was not associated with a significant effect on the mortality or mechanical ventilation rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. More research is needed to explore therapeutics agents that can effectively reduce the mortality or severity of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8427058 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7834540 | biostudies-literature
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.).
| S-EPMC7397242 | biostudies-literature
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.).
| S-EPMC7556338 | biostudies-literature