RESUMEN
BackgroundSecondary infection (SI) diagnosis in COVID-19 is challenging, due to overlapping clinical presentations, practical limitations in obtaining samples from the lower respiratory tract (LRT), and low sensitivity of microbiologic cultures. Research QuestionCan metagenomic sequencing of plasma microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA-Seq) help diagnose SIs complicating COVID-19? Study Design and MethodsWe enrolled 42 inpatients with COVID-19 classified as microbiologically-confirmed SI (Micro-SI, n=8), clinically-diagnosed SI (Clinical-SI, n=13, i.e. empiric antimicrobials), or no clinical suspicion for SI (No-Suspected-SI, n=21) at time of enrollment. From baseline and follow-up plasma samples (days 5 and 10 post-enrollment), we quantified mcfDNA for all detected microbes by mcfDNA sequencing and measured nine host-response biomarkers. From LRT samples among intubated subjects, we quantified bacterial burden with 16S rRNA gene quantitative PCR. ResultsWe performed mcfDNA-Seq in 82 plasma samples. Sequencing was successful in 60/82 (73.2%) samples, which had significantly lower levels of human cfDNA than failed samples (p<0.0001). McfDNA detection was significantly higher in Micro-SI (15/16 [94%]) compared to Clinical-SI samples (8/14 [57%], p=0.03), and unexpectedly common in No-Suspected-SI samples (25/30 [83%]), similar to detection rate in Micro-SI. We detected culture-concordant mcfDNA species in 13/16 Micro-SI samples (81%) and mcfDNA levels tracked with SI outcome (resolution or persistence) under antibiotic therapy. McfDNA levels correlated significantly with LRT bacterial burden (r=0.74, p=0.02) as well as plasma biomarkers of host response (white blood cell count, IL-6, IL-8, and SPD, all p<0.05). Baseline mcfDNA levels were predictive of worse 90-day survival (hazard ratio 1.30 [1.02-1.64] for each log10 mcfDNA, p=0.03). InterpretationHigh circulating levels of mcfDNA in a substantial proportion of patients with COVID-19 without clinical suspicion for SI suggest that SIs may often remain undiagnosed. McfDNA-Seq, when clinically available, can offer a non-invasive diagnostic tool for pathogen identification, with prognostic value on host inflammatory response and clinical outcomes.
RESUMEN
Plasma SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) levels are predictive of COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients, but whether plasma vRNA reflects lower respiratory tract (LRT) vRNA levels is unclear. We compared plasma and LRT vRNA levels in simultaneously collected longitudinal samples from mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19. LRT and plasma vRNA levels were strongly correlated at first sampling (r=0.83, p<10-8) and then declined in parallel except in non-survivors who exhibited delayed vRNA clearance in LRT samples. Plasma vRNA measurement may offer a practical surrogate of LRT vRNA burden in critically ill patients, especially early in severe disease.
RESUMEN
Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aimed to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We conducted a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality was extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses included patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine was 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I2=0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I2=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine was associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there was no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.
