Search

Key Points: Question: Does 100 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 13 days, compared with placebo, shorten symptom duration among outpatient adults (aged ≥30 years) with symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19? Findings: In this platform randomized clinical trial with 1175 US participants enrolled during the time that Omicron COVID-19 subvariants were circulating, there was no reportable difference in the time to sustained recovery between fluvoxamine and placebo groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy =.40). Median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% CI, 10-11) in both the intervention and placebo group. Meaning: Fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, does not shorten the duration of symptoms in outpatient adults with mild to moderate COVID-19. Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy =.40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy =.86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530 This randomized study examines the effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine on time to sustained recovery from mild to moderate COVID-19 or progression to severe disease in nonhospitalized adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 Community Research Partnership is a population-based longitudinal syndromic and sero-surveillance study. The study includes over 17,000 participants from six healthcare systems in North Carolina who submitted over 49,000 serology results. The purpose of this study is to use these serology data to estimate the cumulative proportion of the North Carolina population that has either been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or developed a measurable humoral response to vaccination. Methods: Adult community residents were invited to participate in the study between April 2020 and February 2021. Demographic information was collected and daily symptom screen was completed using a secure, HIPAA-compliant, online portal. A portion of participants were mailed kits containing a lateral flow assay to be used in-home to test for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG antibodies. The cumulative proportion of participants who tested positive at least once during the study was estimated. A standard Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to illustrate the probability of seroconversion over time up to December 20, 2020 (before vaccines available). A separate analysis was performed to describe the influence of vaccines through February 15, 2021. Results: 17,688 participants contributed at least one serology result. 68.7% of the population were female, and 72.2% were between 18 and 59 years of age. The average number of serology results submitted per participant was 3.0 (±1.9). By December 20, 2020, the overall probability of seropositivity in the CCRP population was 32.6%. By February 15, 2021 the probability among healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers was 83% and 49%, respectively. An inflection upward in the probability of seropositivity was demonstrated around the end of December, suggesting an influence of vaccinations, especially for healthcare workers. Among healthcare workers, those in the oldest age category (60+ years) were 38% less likely to have seroconverted by February 15, 2021. Conclusions: Results of this study suggest more North Carolina residents may have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the number of documented cases as determined by positive RNA or antigen tests. The influence of vaccinations on seropositivity among North Carolina residents is also demonstrated. Additional research is needed to fully characterize the impact of seropositivity on immunity and the ultimate course of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Extended infusion (EI) dosing provides a longer time above the minimum inhibitory concentration, which is important for the clinical success of β-lactam antibiotics, especially for patients with impaired immunity. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and clinical impact of administering cefepime by EI as treatment of febrile neutropenia. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, comparative pilot study. All patients received cefepime 2 g IV every 8 h, with the first dose administered using a 30-min infusion. After the first dose, patients were randomized to receive cefepime over 30 min as a standard infusion (SI) or 3 h (EI). Patients were >18 years old with febrile neutropenia (neutrophil count <500 cells/mm3 and temperature >38.0ºC) and received chemotherapy or stem cell transplant as treatment for malignancy. Patients were excluded for the following: allergy to a cephalosporin, creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 50 mL/min, receipt of concurrent Gram-negative antimicrobial, sepsis, or solid tumor malignancy. The primary outcome was defervescence by 72 h. Secondary outcomes included time to defervescence, clinical success, in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and need for additional antimicrobials. Main results Sixty-three patients were enrolled: 33 in the SI arm and 30 in the EI arm. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, weight, estimated creatinine clearance, and duration of neutropenia. None of the patients in the EI arm withdrew due to practical complications of receiving EI cefepime. Twenty-three patients in the SI arm and 20 patients in the EI arm defervesced by 72 h (p = 0.99). There were no differences in secondary outcome measures; however, patients in the EI arm appeared to have defervesced more rapidly (median 19 vs. 41 h, p = 0.305). Conclusion Administration of cefepime by EI for the treatment of febrile neutropenia is feasible. Larger clinical trials are necessary to determine if EI cefepime imparts a clinical benefit in the treatment of febrile neutropenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]