Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis.
Aged
COVID-19
Coronavirus Infections
/ drug therapy
Critical Illness
Drug Combinations
Female
Humans
Hydroxychloroquine
/ therapeutic use
Lopinavir
/ therapeutic use
Male
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ drug therapy
Retrospective Studies
Ritonavir
/ therapeutic use
Standard of Care
Treatment Outcome
Hydroxychloroquine
Intensive care unit
Lopinavir/ritonavir
SARS-CoV-2
Standard of care
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 07 2020
11 07 2020
Historique:
received:
14
05
2020
accepted:
29
06
2020
entrez:
13
7
2020
pubmed:
13
7
2020
medline:
16
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients. The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7. Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7. In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients.
METHODS
The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7.
RESULTS
Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7.
CONCLUSION
In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32653015
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03117-9
pii: 10.1186/s13054-020-03117-9
pmc: PMC7351645
doi:
Substances chimiques
Drug Combinations
0
Lopinavir
2494G1JF75
Hydroxychloroquine
4QWG6N8QKH
Ritonavir
O3J8G9O825
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
418Références
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):854-887
pubmed: 32222812
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Cell Res. 2020 Mar;30(3):269-271
pubmed: 32020029
BMJ. 2007 Oct 20;335(7624):806-8
pubmed: 17947786
Thorax. 2004 Mar;59(3):252-6
pubmed: 14985565
Curr Pharm Des. 2004;10(21):2643-8
pubmed: 15320751
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 18;382(25):2411-2418
pubmed: 32379955
Lancet. 2020 Jun 6;395(10239):1763-1770
pubmed: 32442528
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):475-481
pubmed: 32105632
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 Jul;56(1):105949
pubmed: 32205204
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 7;382(19):1787-1799
pubmed: 32187464
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jun;8(6):539-541
pubmed: 32304640
Antiviral Res. 2020 May;177:104762
pubmed: 32147496
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1708-1720
pubmed: 32109013
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1824-1836
pubmed: 32282022
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):934-943
pubmed: 32167524
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004 Oct 8;323(1):264-8
pubmed: 15351731
Viruses. 2018 May 17;10(5):
pubmed: 29772762
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2012-2022
pubmed: 32227758
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jun 1;201(11):1430-1434
pubmed: 32267160
Circulation. 2020 Jul 21;142(3):303-305
pubmed: 32442023