RESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1130218.].
RESUMEN
Objectives: To assess the ABC2-SPH score in predicting COVID-19 in-hospital mortality, during intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and to compare its performance with other scores (SOFA, SAPS-3, NEWS2, 4C Mortality Score, SOARS, CURB-65, modified CHA2DS2-VASc, and a novel severity score). Materials and methods: Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs of 25 hospitals, located in 17 Brazilian cities, from October 2020 to March 2022, were included. Overall performance of the scores was evaluated using the Brier score. ABC2-SPH was used as the reference score, and comparisons between ABC2-SPH and the other scores were performed by using the Bonferroni method of correction. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: ABC2-SPH had an area under the curve of 0.716 (95% CI 0.693-0.738), significantly higher than CURB-65, SOFA, NEWS2, SOARS, and modified CHA2DS2-VASc scores. There was no statistically significant difference between ABC2-SPH and SAPS-3, 4C Mortality Score, and the novel severity score. Conclusion: ABC2-SPH was superior to other risk scores, but it still did not demonstrate an excellent predictive ability for mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Our results indicate the need to develop a new score, for this subset of patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite no evidence showing benefits of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine with or without azithromycin for COVID-19 treatment, these medications have been largely prescribed in Brazil. OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, electrocardiographic abnormalities, hospital length-of-stay, admission to the intensive care unit, and need for dialysis and mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and to compare outcomes between those patients and their matched controls. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort study that included consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients from 37 Brazilian hospitals from March to September 2020. Propensity score was used to select matching controls by age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, and in-hospital use of corticosteroid. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From 7,850 COVID-19 patients, 673 (8.6%) received hydroxychloroquine and 67 (0.9%) chloroquine. The median age in the study group was 60 years (46 - 71) and 59.1% were women. During hospitalization, 3.2% of patients presented side effects and 2.2% required therapy discontinuation. Electrocardiographic abnormalities were more prevalent in the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine group (13.2% vs. 8.2%, p=0.01), and the long corrected QT interval was the main difference (3.6% vs. 0.4%, p<0.001). The median hospital length of stay was longer in the HCQ/CQ + AZT group than in controls (9.0 [5.0, 18.0] vs. 8.0 [4.0, 14.0] days). There was no statistical differences between groups in intensive care unit admission (35.1% vs. 32.0%; p=0.282), invasive mechanical ventilation support (27.0% vs. 22.3%; p=0.074) or mortality (18.9% vs. 18.0%; p=0.682). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had a longer hospital length of stay, when compared to matched controls. Intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, dialysis and in-hospital mortality were similar.
FUNDAMENTO: Apesar da ausência de evidência mostrando benefícios da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina combinadas ou não à azitromicina no tratamento da covid-19, esses medicamentos têm sido amplamente prescritos no Brasil. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar desfechos, incluindo moralidade hospitalar, alterações eletrocardiográficas, tempo de internação, admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva, e necessidade de diálise e de ventilação mecânica em pacientes hospitalizados com covid-19 que receberam cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina, e comparar os desfechos entre aqueles pacientes e seus controles pareados. MÉTODOS: Estudo multicêntrico retrospectivo do tipo coorte que incluiu pacientes com diagnóstico laboratorial de covid-19 de 37 hospitais no Brasil de março a setembro de 2020. Escore de propensão foi usado para selecionar controles pareados quanto a idade, sexo, comorbidades cardiovasculares, e uso de corticosteroides durante a internação. Um valor de p<0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. RESULTADOS: Dos 7850 pacientes com covid-19, 673 (8,6%) receberam hidroxicloroquina e 67 (0,9%) cloroquina. A idade mediana no grupo de estudo foi 60 (46-71) anos e 59,1% eram mulheres. Durante a internação, 3,2% dos pacientes apresentaram efeitos adversos e 2,2% necessitaram de interromper o tratamento. Alterações eletrocardiográficas foram mais prevalentes no grupo hidroxicloroquina/cloroquina (13,2% vs. 8,2%, p=0,01), e o prolongamento do intervalo QT corrigido foi a principal diferença (3,6% vs. 0,4%, p<0,001). O tempo mediano de internação hospitalar foi maior no grupo usando CQ/HCQ em relação aos controles (9,0 [5,0-18,0] vs. 8,0 [4,0-14,0] dias). Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos quanto a admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva (35,1% vs. 32,0%; p=0,282), ventilação mecânica invasiva (27,0% vs. 22,3%; p=0,074) ou mortalidade (18,9% vs. 18,0%; p=0,682). CONCLUSÃO: Pacientes com covid-19 tratados com cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina apresentaram maior tempo de internação hospitalar, em comparação aos controles. Não houve diferença em relação a admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva, necessidade de ventilação mecânica e mortalidade hospitalar.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Cloroquina , Hidroxicloroquina , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Arritmias Cardíacas/tratamiento farmacológico , Azitromicina/uso terapéutico , Brasil/epidemiología , Cloroquina/efectos adversos , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19 , Hidroxicloroquina/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Scientific data regarding the prevalence of COVID-19 neurological manifestations and prognosis in Latin America countries is still lacking. Therefore, the study aims to understand neurological manifestations of SARS-CoV 2 infection and outcomes in the Brazilian population. METHODS: This study is part of the Brazilian COVID-19 Registry, a multicentric cohort, including data from 37 hospitals. For the present analysis, patients were grouped according to the presence of reported symptoms (i.e., headache; anosmia and ageusia; syncope and dizziness) vs. clinically-diagnosed neurological manifestations (clinically-defined neurological syndrome: neurological signs or diagnoses captured by clinical evaluation) and matched with patients without neurological manifestations by age, sex, number of comorbidities, hospital of admission, and whether or not patients had underlying neurological disease. RESULTS: From 6,635 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, 30.8% presented reported neurological manifestations, 10.3% were diagnosed with a neurological syndrome and 60.1% did not show any neurological manifestations. In patients with reported symptoms, the most common ones were headache (20.7%), ageusia (11.1%) and anosmia (8.0%). In patients with neurological syndromes, acute encephalopathy was the most common diagnosis (9.7%). In the matched analysis, patients with neurological syndromes presented more cases of septic shock (17.0 vs. 13.0%, p = 0.045), intensive care unit admission (45.3 vs. 38.9%, p = 0.023), and mortality (38.7 vs. 32.6%, p = 0.026; and 39.2 vs. 30.3%, p < 0.001) when compared to controls. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 in-hospital patients with clinically defined neurological syndromes presented a higher incidence of septic shock, ICU admission and death when compared to controls.
Asunto(s)
Ageusia , COVID-19 , Choque Séptico , Humanos , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/epidemiología , Ageusia/epidemiología , Ageusia/etiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Anosmia , Choque Séptico/complicaciones , Brasil/epidemiología , Cefalea/epidemiología , Cefalea/etiología , HospitalesRESUMEN
Resumo Fundamento Apesar da ausência de evidência mostrando benefícios da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina combinadas ou não à azitromicina no tratamento da covid-19, esses medicamentos têm sido amplamente prescritos no Brasil. Objetivos Avaliar desfechos, incluindo moralidade hospitalar, alterações eletrocardiográficas, tempo de internação, admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva, e necessidade de diálise e de ventilação mecânica em pacientes hospitalizados com covid-19 que receberam cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina, e comparar os desfechos entre aqueles pacientes e seus controles pareados. Métodos Estudo multicêntrico retrospectivo do tipo coorte que incluiu pacientes com diagnóstico laboratorial de covid-19 de 37 hospitais no Brasil de março a setembro de 2020. Escore de propensão foi usado para selecionar controles pareados quanto a idade, sexo, comorbidades cardiovasculares, e uso de corticosteroides durante a internação. Um valor de p<0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. Resultados Dos 7850 pacientes com covid-19, 673 (8,6%) receberam hidroxicloroquina e 67 (0,9%) cloroquina. A idade mediana no grupo de estudo foi 60 (46-71) anos e 59,1% eram mulheres. Durante a internação, 3,2% dos pacientes apresentaram efeitos adversos e 2,2% necessitaram de interromper o tratamento. Alterações eletrocardiográficas foram mais prevalentes no grupo hidroxicloroquina/cloroquina (13,2% vs. 8,2%, p=0,01), e o prolongamento do intervalo QT corrigido foi a principal diferença (3,6% vs. 0,4%, p<0,001). O tempo mediano de internação hospitalar foi maior no grupo usando CQ/HCQ em relação aos controles (9,0 [5,0-18,0] vs. 8,0 [4,0-14,0] dias). Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os grupos quanto a admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva (35,1% vs. 32,0%; p=0,282), ventilação mecânica invasiva (27,0% vs. 22,3%; p=0,074) ou mortalidade (18,9% vs. 18,0%; p=0,682). Conclusão Pacientes com covid-19 tratados com cloroquina ou hidroxicloroquina apresentaram maior tempo de internação hospitalar, em comparação aos controles. Não houve diferença em relação a admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva, necessidade de ventilação mecânica e mortalidade hospitalar.
Abstract Background Despite no evidence showing benefits of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine with or without azithromycin for COVID-19 treatment, these medications have been largely prescribed in Brazil. Objectives To assess outcomes, including in-hospital mortality, electrocardiographic abnormalities, hospital length-of-stay, admission to the intensive care unit, and need for dialysis and mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and to compare outcomes between those patients and their matched controls. Methods A retrospective multicenter cohort study that included consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients from 37 Brazilian hospitals from March to September 2020. Propensity score was used to select matching controls by age, sex, cardiovascular comorbidities, and in-hospital use of corticosteroid. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results From 7,850 COVID-19 patients, 673 (8.6%) received hydroxychloroquine and 67 (0.9%) chloroquine. The median age in the study group was 60 years (46 - 71) and 59.1% were women. During hospitalization, 3.2% of patients presented side effects and 2.2% required therapy discontinuation. Electrocardiographic abnormalities were more prevalent in the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine group (13.2% vs. 8.2%, p=0.01), and the long corrected QT interval was the main difference (3.6% vs. 0.4%, p<0.001). The median hospital length of stay was longer in the HCQ/CQ + AZT group than in controls (9.0 [5.0, 18.0] vs. 8.0 [4.0, 14.0] days). There was no statistical differences between groups in intensive care unit admission (35.1% vs. 32.0%; p=0.282), invasive mechanical ventilation support (27.0% vs. 22.3%; p=0.074) or mortality (18.9% vs. 18.0%; p=0.682). Conclusion COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had a longer hospital length of stay, when compared to matched controls. Intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, dialysis and in-hospital mortality were similar.