RESUMEN
Background: Predicting the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is important for the allocation of human and technological resources, improvement of surveillance, and use of effective therapeutic measures. This study aimed (i) to assess whether the ABC2-SPH score is able to predict the receipt of IMV in COVID-19 patients; (ii) to compare its performance with other existing scores; (iii) to perform score recalibration, and to assess whether recalibration improved prediction. Methods: Retrospective observational cohort, which included adult laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted in 32 hospitals, from 14 Brazilian cities. This study was conducted in two stages: (i) for the assessment of the ABC2-SPH score and comparison with other available scores, patients hospitalized from July 31, 2020, to March 31, 2022, were included; (ii) for ABC2-SPH score recalibration and also comparison with other existing scores, patients admitted from January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022, were enrolled. For both steps, the area under the receiving operator characteristic score (AUROC) was calculated for all scores, while a calibration plot was assessed only for the ABC2-SPH score. Comparisons between ABC2-SPH and the other scores followed the Delong Test recommendations. Logistic recalibration methods were used to improve results and adapt to the studied sample. Results: Overall, 9,350 patients were included in the study, the median age was 58.5 (IQR 47.0-69.0) years old, and 45.4% were women. Of those, 33.5% were admitted to the ICU, 25.2% received IMV, and 17.8% died. The ABC2-SPH score showed a significantly greater discriminatory capacity, than the CURB-65, STSS, and SUM scores, with potentialized results when we consider only patients younger than 80 years old (AUROC 0.714 [95% CI 0.698-0.731]). Thus, after the ABC2-SPH score recalibration, we observed improvements in calibration (slope = 1.135, intercept = 0.242) and overall performance (Brier score = 0.127). Conclusion: The ABC2-SPHr risk score demonstrated a good performance to predict the need for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 hospitalized patients under 80 years of age.
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
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.
