RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a surge in clinical trials evaluating investigational and approved drugs. Retrospective analysis of drugs taken by COVID-19 inpatients provides key information on drugs associated with better or worse outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 10 741 patients testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection within 3 days of admission to compare risk of 30-day all-cause mortality in patients receiving ondansetron using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, adverse events such as ischemic cerebral infarction, and subsequent positive COVID-19 tests were measured. RESULTS: Administration ofâ ≥8 mg of ondansetron within 48 hours of admission was correlated with an adjusted hazard ratio for 30-day all-cause mortality of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.70; Pâ <â .001) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.31-0.87; Pâ =â .012) for all and intensive care unit-admitted patients, respectively. Decreased lengths of stay (9.2 vs 11.6; Pâ <â .001), frequencies of subsequent positive SARS-CoV-2 tests (53.6% vs 75.0%; Pâ =â .01), and long-term risks of ischemic cerebral ischemia (3.2% vs 6.1%; Pâ <â .001) were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: If confirmed by prospective clinical trials, our results suggest that ondansetron, a safe, widely available drug, could be used to decrease morbidity and mortality in at-risk populations.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: With the limited availability of testing for the presence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and concerns surrounding the accuracy of existing methods, other means of identifying patients are urgently needed. Previous studies showing a correlation between certain laboratory tests and diagnosis suggest an alternative method based on an ensemble of tests. METHODS: We have trained a machine learning model to analyze the correlation between SARS-CoV-2 test results and 20 routine laboratory tests collected within a 2-day period around the SARS-CoV-2 test date. We used the model to compare SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients. RESULTS: In a cohort of 75 991 veteran inpatients and outpatients who tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the months of March through July 2020, 7335 of whom were positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or antigen testing, and who had at least 15 of 20 lab results within the window period, our model predicted the results of the SARS-CoV-2 test with a specificity of 86.8%, a sensitivity of 82.4%, and an overall accuracy of 86.4% (with a 95% confidence interval of [86.0%, 86.9%]). CONCLUSIONS: Although molecular-based and antibody tests remain the reference standard method for confirming a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, their clinical sensitivity is not well known. The model described herein may provide a complementary method of determining SARS-CoV-2 infection status, based on a fully independent set of indicators, that can help confirm results from other tests as well as identify positive cases missed by molecular testing.