Search

We aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety on antibiotic exposure of a strategy combining a respiratory multiplex PCR (mPCR) with enlarged panel and daily procalcitonin (PCT) measurements, as compared with a conventional strategy, in adult patients who were critically ill with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. This multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients admitted to 13 intensive care units (ICUs) in France. Patients were assigned (1:1) to the control strategy, in which antibiotic streamlining remained at the discretion of the physicians, or interventional strategy, consisting of using mPCR and daily PCT measurements within the first 7 days of randomization to streamline initial antibiotic therapy, with antibiotic continuation encouraged when PCT was >1 ng/mL and discouraged if < 1 ng/mL or decreased by 80% from baseline. All patients underwent conventional microbiological tests and cultures. The primary end point was antibiotic-free days at day 28. Between April 20th and November 23rd 2020, 194 patients were randomized, of whom 191 were retained in the intention-to-treat analysis. Respiratory bacterial co-infection was detected in 48.4% (45/93) and 21.4% (21/98) in the interventional and control group, respectively. The number of antibiotic-free days was 12.0 (0.0; 25.0) and 14.0 (0.0; 24.0) days, respectively (difference, −2.0, (95% CI, −10.6 to 6.6), p=0.89). Superinfection rates were high (51.6% and 48.5%, respectively). Mortality rates and ICU lengths of stay did not differ between groups. In severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, the mPCR/PCT algorithm strategy did not affect 28-day antibiotics exposure nor the major clinical outcomes, as compared with routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir–interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants—lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir–IFN–β-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)—among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54–71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir–IFN–β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45–1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62–1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir–IFN–β-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]