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 aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present 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 We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed,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 has been 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 include 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 We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients).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 is 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 is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Background: 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of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. Methods: 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 published and unpublished RCTs by September 14, 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, PubMed, Cochrane COVID-19 registry). 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/chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses included patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Results: Sixty-two trials were potentially eligible. We included 16 unpublished trials (1596 patients) and 10 publications/preprints (6317 patients). The combined summary OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine was 1.08 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.18; I-square=0%; 24 trials; 7659 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-square=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. Conclusions: We found no benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine on the survival of COVID-19 patients. For hydroxychloroquine, the confidence interval is compatible with increased mortality (OR 1.18) or negligibly reduced mortality (OR 0.99). Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Background Extended infusion (EI) dosing provides a longer time above the minimum inhibitory concentration, which is important for the clinical success of β-lactam antibiotics, especially for patients with impaired immunity. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and clinical impact of administering cefepime by EI as treatment of febrile neutropenia. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, comparative pilot study. All patients received cefepime 2 g IV every 8 h, with the first dose administered using a 30-min infusion. After the first dose, patients were randomized to receive cefepime over 30 min as a standard infusion (SI) or 3 h (EI). Patients were >18 years old with febrile neutropenia (neutrophil count <500 cells/mm and temperature >38.0ºC) and received chemotherapy or stem cell transplant as treatment for malignancy. Patients were excluded for the following: allergy to a cephalosporin, creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 50 mL/min, receipt of concurrent Gram-negative antimicrobial, sepsis, or solid tumor malignancy. The primary outcome was defervescence by 72 h. Secondary outcomes included time to defervescence, clinical success, in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and need for additional antimicrobials. Main results Sixty-three patients were enrolled: 33 in the SI arm and 30 in the EI arm. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, weight, estimated creatinine clearance, and duration of neutropenia. None of the patients in the EI arm withdrew due to practical complications of receiving EI cefepime. Twenty-three patients in the SI arm and 20 patients in the EI arm defervesced by 72 h ( p = 0.99). There were no differences in secondary outcome measures; however, patients in the EI arm appeared to have defervesced more rapidly (median 19 vs. 41 h, p = 0.305). Conclusion Administration of cefepime by EI for the treatment of febrile neutropenia is feasible. Larger clinical trials are necessary to determine if EI cefepime imparts a clinical benefit in the treatment of febrile neutropenia.

The financial impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program in operation for more than 11 years was determined by calculating the reduction in antimicrobial expenditures minus program labor costs. Depending on the method of inflation adjustment used, the program was associated with average cost savings of $920,070 to $2,064,441 per year.

BackgroundPenicillin allergy frequently impacts antibiotic choice. As beta-lactams are superior to vancomycin in treating methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia, we examined the effect of reported penicillin allergy on clinical outcomes in patients with MSSA bacteremia.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study of adults with MSSA bacteremia admitted to a large tertiary care hospital, outcomes were examined according to reported penicillin allergy. Primary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day mortality rates. Multivariable regression models were developed to quantify the effect of reported penicillin allergy on mortality while adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsFrom 2010 to 2015, 318 patients with MSSA bacteremia were identified. Reported penicillin allergy had no significant effect on adjusted 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29–1.84; P = .51). Patients with reported penicillin allergy were more likely to receive vancomycin (38% vs 11%, P < .01), but a large number received cefazolin regardless of reported allergy (29 of 66, 44%). Mortality rates were highest among nonallergic patients receiving vancomycin (22.6% vs 7.4% for those receiving beta-lactams regardless of reported allergy, P < .01). In multivariable analysis, beta-lactam receipt was most strongly associated with survival (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12–0.54).ConclusionsReported penicillin allergy had no significant effect on 30- or 90-day mortality. Non-penicillin-allergic patients receiving vancomycin for treatment of MSSA bacteremia had the highest mortality rates overall. Receipt of a beta-lactam was the strongest predictor of survival. These results underscore the importance of correct classification of patients with penicillin allergy and appropriate treatment with a beta-lactam when tolerated.