A short therapeutic regimen based on hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 in patients with moderate disease. A strategy associated with a reduction in hospital admissions and complications

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

The new SARS-CoV-2 infection named COVID-19 has severely hit our Health System. At the time of writing this paper no medical therapy is officially recommended or has shown results in improving the outcomes in COVID-19 patients. With the aim of diminishing the impact in Hospital admissions and reducing the number of medical complications, we implemented a strategy based on a Hospital Home-Care Unit (HHCU) using an easy-to-use treatment based on an oral administration regimen outside the hospital with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plus azithromycin (AZM) for a short period of 5 days.

Patients and methods

Patients ≥ 18 years old visiting the emergency room at the Hospital Universitario San Pedro de Logroño (La Rioja) between March, 31 st and April, 12 th diagnosed with COVID-19 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by a specific PCR, as follows: Patients with pneumonia (CURB ≤ 1) who did not present severe comorbidities and had no processes that contraindicated this therapeutic regime. Olygosimptomatic patients without pneumonia aged ≥ 55 years. Patients ≥ 18 years old without pneumonia with significant comorbidities. We excluded patients with known allergies to some of the antimicrobials used and patients treated with other drugs that increase the QTc or with QTc >450msc. The therapeutic regime was: HCQ 400 mg every twice in a loading dose followed by 200 mg twice for 5 days, plus AZM 500 mg on the first day followed by 250 mg daily for 5 days. A daily telephone follow-up was carried out from the hospital by the same physician.

The end-points of our study were: 1.- To measure the need for hospital admission within 15 days after the start of treatment. 2.- To measure the need to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 15 days after the start of the treatment. 3.- To describe the severity of the clinical complications developed. 4.- To measure the mortality within 30 days after starting treatment (differentiating if the cause is COVID-19 or something else). 5.-To describe the safety and adverse effects of the therapeutic regime.

Results

During the 13 days studied a total of 502 patients were attended in the emergency room due to COVID-19. Forty-two were sent at home; 80 were attended by the HHCU (patients on this study) and 380 were admitted to the Hospital. In our series there were a group of 69 (85.18%) patients diagnosed with pneumonia (37 males and 32 females). Most of them, 57 (82.60%) had a CURB65 score of <1 (average age 49) and 12 (17.40%) a CURB score of 1 (average age 63). Eighteen (22.50%) of the pneumonia patients also had some morbidity as a risk factor. 11 patients (13.75%) without pneumonia were admitted to the HHCU because comorbidities or age ≥ 55 years. Six patients with pneumonia had to be hospitalized during the observation period, 3 of them because side effects and 3 because of worsening. One of these patients, with morbid obesity and asthma, had clinical worsening needing mechanical ventilation at ICU and developed acute distress respiratory syndrome. With the exception of the patient admitted to the ICU, the rest of the patients were discharged at home in the following 8 days (3 to 8 days).

Twelve patients (15%), 11 of whom had pneumonia, experienced side effects affecting mainly the digestive. In another patient a QTc interval prolongation (452 msc) was observed. In total 3 of these patients had to be admitted in the Hospital, 2 because of vomiting and 1 because a QTc interval lengthening. None of the patients needed to stop the HCQ or AZM and all the 80 patients finished the therapeutic strategy. From the group without pneumonia only a patient developed diarrhea that did not require hospitalization or stop the medication.

Conclusions

Our strategy has been associated with a reduction in the burden of hospital pressure, and it seems to be successful in terms of the number of patients who have developed serious complications and / or death. None of the patients died in the studied period and only 6 have to be admitted in conventional hospitalization area.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.10.20101105: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.10.20101105: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.RandomizationHCQ was also analysed in a randomized clinical trial in China in which HCQ was eprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.10.20101105.this version posted June 12, 2020.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variableIn our series there were a group of 69 (85.18%) patients diagnosed with pneumonia (37 males and 32 females).

    Table 2: Resources


    Results from OddPub: We did not find a statement about open data. We also did not find a statement about open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.