Abstract
Introduction Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin is currently still debated as a potential treatment for the COVID-19 epidemic. Some studies showed discrepant results. However, timing for the treatment initiation and its setting (in-hospital or out-patient) are not consistent across studies.
Methods Monocentric retrospective study conducted from 2th March to 17th April 2020, in adults hospitalized in a tertiary hospital for COVID-19. Patients characteristics were compared between groups depending on the therapy received (HCQ/azithromycin taken ≥ 48 hours or other treatment). Outcomes were evaluated from admission, by the need for intensive care unit (ICU) support and/or death. Univariate analyses were performed using non-parametric tests and confirmed by a multiple logistic regression using Pearson correlation test.
Results Among 132 patients admitted for COVID-19 in the medicine ward, 45 received HCQ/azithromycin ≥ 48 hours, with a favorable outcome in 91.1% of cases (OR=6.2, p=0.002) versus others regimen (n=87). Groups were comparable at the baseline in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, extend in thoracic imaging, and severity.
Among patients that required to be transferred to ICU (n=27) (for mechanical ventilation), median delay for transfer was 2 days (IQR 1-3). We report only 1 patient that presented an adverse event (a prolonged QT interval on EKG) that required to discontinue HCQ.
Conclusion The present study suggests a potential interest of the combination therapy using HCQ/azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 in in-hospital patients.
Introduction
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is currently still debated as a potential treatment for the COVID-19 epidemic. In France, Gautret et al. [1,2] and Million et al. [3] showed in Marseille that a combination therapy using HCQ and azithromycin could potentially reduce viral shedding and locally flatten the epidemic curve by reducing the number of pneumonias associated with COVID-19. Although these studies are of interest considering the sample size (n>1000) they are partly conducted on outpatients and do lack a control group without HCQ and azithromycin.
Concomitantly, a study conducted by Mahevas et al. [4] decided to evaluate HCQ alone (600 mg per day) prescribed in an in-hospital setting within 48 hours after admission (n=84) in comparison to standard of care, and showed no difference between groups assessed by a transfer in intensive care unit (ICU) and/or death. Those findings are concordant with a recent publication issued in United States by Magagnoli et al. [5] despite some bias at baseline.
More, recently Esper et al. [6] in Brazil reported a potential interest of HCQ (using a loading dose of 800 mg followed by 600 mg during 6 days) plus azithromycin in the prevention of hospital admission in patients presenting compatible symptoms of COVID-19 (a 2.8-fold decrease if HCQ was administered within the first 7 days of symptoms).
To our knowledge, at the time being, there is no study evaluating the interest of an administration of HCQ plus azithromycin during at least 48 hours in an in-hospital setting and its impact on the admission in intensive care unit (ICU). Since the 25th of March 2020 in France, in the context of the state of health emergency, the ministerial decree #2020-314 authorized the in-hospital prescription of HCQ for COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we decided to report our own experience of this regimen in order to draw conclusions whether we pursue such combination therapy for hospitalized patients.
Methods
Setting
We conducted a monocentric and retrospective study, from 2th March 2020 to 17th April 2020, regarding adults admitted in our medicine wards in a tertiary university hospital namely Hôpital Raymond Poincaré (AP-HP), Garches, France. For decades, this hospital, and particularly the ICU, is specialized in the management of neurological impairment and infectious diseases. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, an entire building, namely Widal (in honor of Doctor Fernand Widal), was entirely dedicated to admit only COVID-19 positive patients. During the peak of the epidemic, we had a maximum capacity of 85 beds for medicine and 32 beds for ICU.
We included all the adults admitted in medicine for a COVID-19 infection confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 PCR and/or a compatible pulmonary CT-scan. Exclusion criteria were i) patients discharged from ICU to a medicine ward; ii) opposition to collect data expressed by the patient.
Data collection
The following data were collected from patient’s medical charts:
- Patient characteristics: age, sex, diabetes, cardiovascular risk factor, smoking habits, obesity, chronic pulmonary disease, Charlson comorbidity score,
- Infection characteristics: delay between onset of symptoms and admission, presence of super-infection, C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) at admission, percentage of lung injuries on CT-scan if applicable, positive PCR amplifying the betacoronavirus E gene and the SARS-CoV-2 RdRp gene on nasopharyngeal swab or sputum,
- Treatment characteristics: requiring ICU support with invasive ventilation, associated therapeutic strategies (especially HCQ and azithomycin),
- Unfavorable outcome was evaluated after admission, by the need for ICU support and/or death,
- The patients were followed-up until hospital discharge.
Treatment strategies
All patients under oxygen received systematically a beta-lactam for at least 5 days, using preferentially ceftriaxone to treat a potential super-infection.
Patients were eligible to a targeted therapy against COVID-19 considering the following indications: i) patient presenting a clinical pneumonia confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 PCR requiring oxygen therapy (independently of the CT scan findings); ii) high suspicion of COVID-19 pneumonia considering the clinical presentation and confirmed by a pulmonary CT-scan showing ground-glass opacity affecting ≥ 10% of the whole parenchyma
Before HCQ initiation, patients had systematically an EKG to evaluate the corrected QT interval using the Framingham formula, and monitored 2 times per week during 10 days. A loading dose at day 1 with 800 mg/day was administered followed by a maintenance dose of 400 mg/day up to 600 mg/day in case of obesity (body mass index (BMI) > 30) for a total 10 days. In addition, 500 mg of azithromycin was prescribed the first day, followed by 250 mg for 4 days. Patients were informed that HCQ is currently off-label for the treatment of COVID-19. In case they refused the prescription of HCQ or the latter was contraindicated, it was noted into their medical chart and patients were eligible for other therapeutic strategies.
Primary objective was to evaluate whether HCQ plus azithromycin (HI-ZY-COVID) initiated after their admission was associated with a favorable outcome. For analysis purposes, we stated that patients should receive at least 48 hours of the above combination therapy to be considered effective. Therefore, patients were divided into 2 groups: the ones who received specifically HCQ/azithromycin for 48 hours or more and the remaining.
Statistical analysis
Quantitative variables were expressed using mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate. Qualitative variables were described by percentage. Comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests with a Yates’ continuity corrected chi-square test for qualitative variables and a Mann-Whitney test for quantitative variables. Multiple logistic regression test was performed using Pearson correlation test. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism v.8.3.1 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA). Statistical significance was defined for p ≤ 0.05.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This cohort is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04364698). The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee. As data used in the study were anonymous and retrospective, the requirement for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee.
Results
Overall 132 were eligible for the analysis (see flowchart in Figure 1). Forty-five patients received HCQ plus azithromycin for more than 48 hours after admission. The remaining patients (n=87) were in the others regimen group. Of note, in patients who did not receive HCQ, 5 had cardiac contraindication and 2 refused to be treated with this molecule.
Patient characteristics between HCQ/azithromycin ≥ 48 hours and the no-HCQ/azithromycin (control group) were comparable and are detailed in Table 1. It should be noted that patients receiving HCQ/azithromycin had higher need for oxygen and higher CRP level at admission than the control group.
For analysis purposes the cohort was divided according to the outcome into 2 groups: “favorable outcome” and “unfavorable outcome” (ICU and/or death). Main findings are summarized in Table 2. Well-known comorbidities in COVID-19 (cardiovascular, respiratory, diabetes, immune deficiency, obesity) that were similar at baseline were not associated with the outcome (p>0.2). During the course of HCQ/azithromycin, we report only 1 patient that presented an adverse event (a prolonged QT interval on EKG) without clinical event that required to discontinue HCQ before 48h, and was therefore placed in the azithromycin group.
Among patients that required to be transferred to ICU (n=27) (for mechanical ventilation), median delay for transfer was 2 (1-3) days. Up to this day, 10 (37%) patients died in ICU and 2 in medical ward.
For clarification, outcomes according to therapeutic strategy are illustrated in Figure 2.
Multiple logistic regression confirmed that a favorable outcome was associated with receiving HCQ plus azithromycin (p=0.009), oxygen flow (p<0.0001), lymphocyte count (p=0.002) and CRP (p=0.002) detailed in Figure 3.
Discussion
Our study supports that in-hospital patients treated with HCQ plus azithromycin for more than 48 hours, have a reduced risk to be transferred to ICU and/or to decease (OR=6.2).
Our findings are concordant with Gautret et al. [1,2] who revealed good clinical and virologic outcomes using this combination therapy, in the limit of the absence of a control group in his study conducted especially among ambulatory care patients. Furthermore, Esper et al. [6] reported efficacy of the combination therapy of HCQ/azithromycin in outpatients exclusively. The main limit of this study is the lack of PCR testing, despite the fact the majority of patients included in the HCQ/azithromycin arm had a high rate of CT-scan lung injuries compatible with COVID-19.
To support our results, we ensured that the difference accounting for the HCQ/azithromycin arm was not associated with an earlier initiation of treatment (see Table 1). Interestingly, despite the fact HCQ was initiated after a median delay of 9 days from onset of symptoms, period approaching the so-called “cytokine storm” [7,8], we can hypothesize that HCQ might have played a role in the second stage of the disease as an immune-modulator as previously described [9].
Mahevas et al. [4] studied patients hospitalized for COVID-19 as we did and showed no evidence of clinical efficacy of HCQ alone (n=84) in a retrospective and comparative study. However, we have no information if patients categorized as control group received azithromycin or a symptomatic treatment. These results’ discrepancies in comparison to our findings should be discussed. First, we used a combination therapy with HCQ plus azithromycin and second our patients were considered to be treated efficiently only if they received a course of at least 48 hours of this combination therapy. However, Magagnoli et al. [5] reported, in 368 hospitalized veterans with COVID-19, a higher death rate with HCQ treatment with or without azithromycin. This study has numerous bias, including a higher lymphocytopenia (<500/mm3) and more comorbidities at baseline in the patients who received HCQ, a population exclusively composed of male, including 66% of black Americans. Also, the posology of HCQ is lacking and 31% had azithromycin in the control group.
Our findings are all the more remarkable, considering that patients in the HCQ/azithromycin group required significantly more oxygen (p=0.005) and had higher CRP (p=0.008) at baseline, which is deemed to be a predictive factor of severity in COVID-19 pneumonia [10]. Of note, in multivariate analysis our patients in ICU had lower lymphocyte count and higher CRP level (p=0.002) as commonly described [11].
Interestingly, patients who received azithromycin alone had a trend to a better outcome than standard of care (multivariate analysis, p=0.05), in the limit of the sample size (n<30). Azithromycin’s potential antiviral activity is concordant with previous in vitro studies regarding SARS-CoV-2 [12] or H1N1-pdm09 [13] and one clinical randomized trial in in the prevention of children respiratory infections [14]. As azithromycin is commonly prescribed and authorized in ambulatory care, a study conducted among general practitioners could be relevant to evaluate this single therapy for the control of COVID-19 in outpatients.
In addition, our experience confirms the safety of HCQ, without any serious side effect, as long as we take the necessary caution at the initiation of therapy and during follow-up EKG. This low risk of toxicity using a conventional dose of HCQ associated with azithromycin is concordant with Borba et al. [15].
Finally, we believe the combination using HCQ plus azithromycin is relatively cost-effectiveness and makes it particularly attractive to better control the hospital overflow during the pandemic.
However, our study has several limitations. First, it is a retrospective study with a limited sample size (n=132), with a pre-established statement that considered HCQ plus azithromycin had to be received for at least 48 hours to interpret its impact. Second, groups were not balanced in terms of individuals notably because prior to the 25th of march, HCQ was not authorized by the French Minister for Solidarity and Health and drug was therefore out of stock. Third, we performed less frequently lung CT-scans in the no-HCQ/azithromycin group, partly because CT-scans were not recommended for COVID-19 at the beginning of the outbreak in our hospital (in early March). Also, in our ICU critical care physicians do not systematically perform CT-scans in intubated patients considering the higher risk of contamination from those patients. Fourth, as we are facing a recent outbreak of COVID-19 in France where knowledge and criteria of ICU transfer might have changed over time and considering prolonged length of stay in ICU [16], the overall mortality might have been underestimated, as (n=6/29) are still under mechanical ventilation assistance. Finally, we can discuss our decision not to exclude patients receiving lopinavir from the control group (n=14), however there is currently no solid data supporting its efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 [17].
In conclusion, our study confirms already known risk factors for unfavorable outcomes in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Moreover, the present work highlights the potential interest of the combination therapy of HCQ/azithromycin (≥48 hours’ intake) by limiting the rate of ICU transfer. A larger and randomized controlled study is necessary to confirm those preliminary findings. Our data constitute a hope to flatten the epidemic curve and prevent ICU overflow in case of a possible second wave.
Data Availability
All data are available for the journal editor on request.
Contributors’ Statement
BD and PDT conceptualized and designed the study, carried out the initial analyses, coordinated and supervised data collection, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. BD, SB, TL, CP designed the data collection instruments, collected data and PDT and AD reviewed and revised the manuscript.
All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
List of Collaborators
*COVID-19 RPC Team
Department of Intensive Care
Djillali Annane, MD, PhD (1,2,5)
Xavier Ambrosi, MD (4)
Suzanne Amthor, MD 0)
Rania Bounab, MD (1,2)
Ryme Chentouh, MD (1)
Bernard Clair, MD (1)
Abdallah Fayssoil, MD (1,2,5)
Diane Friedman, MD (1)
Nicholas Heming, MD, PhD (1,2,5)
Virginie Maxime, MD, (1)
Pierre Moine, MD, PhD (1,2,5)
Myriam Niel Duriez, MD (1)
David Orlikowski, MD, PhD (1,2,5,8)
Francesca Santi, MD (1,2)
Pharmacy
Frédérique Bouchand, PharmD (1)
Muriel Farcy-Afif, PharmD (1)
Hugues Michelon, PharmD, MSc (1)
Maryvonne Villart, PharmD (1)
Research Staff
Isabelle Bossard (8)
Tiphaine Barbarin Nicolier (1)
Stanislas Grassin Delyle, MCUPH (2,3,5)
Elodie Lamy (2,5)
Camille Roquencourt, MD (5)
Gabriel Saffroy (2)
Etienne Thevenot (5)
Baptiste Abbar (1)
Steven Bennington (1)
Juliah Dray (1)
Pierre Gay (1)
Elias Kochbati (1)
Majistor Luxman (1)
Myriam Moucachen (1)
Alice Pascault (1)
Juan Tamayo (1)
Justine Zini (1)
Department of Anesthesia, Perioperative Care, and Pain
Marie Boutros, MD (1)
Anne Lyse Bron, MD (11)
Denys Coester, MD (12)
Etiennette Defouchecour, MD (11)
Brigitte Dosne Blachier, MD (11)
Léa Guichard, MD (1)
Damien Hamon Pietrin, MD, PhD (1)
Hakim Khiter, MD (1)
Valéria Martinez, MD, PhD (1,2,6)
Simone Meuleye, MD (1)
Suzanne Reysz, MD (1)
Sebastien Schitter, MD (1)
Chawki Trabelsi, MD (1)
Pediatric Critical Care Unit
Helge Amthor, MD, PhD (1,2,7)
Jean Bergounioux MD (1,2,5)
Maud Guillon, MD (1)
Amal Omar, MD (1)
Laboratory of Physiology
Frédéric Lofaso, MD, PhD (1,2,7,10)
Helene Prigent, MD, PhD (1,2,7,10)
Department of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine
Djamel Bensmail, MD, PhD (1,2,7,10)
Pierre Denys, MD, PhD (1,2,7,10)
Charles Joussain, MD, PhD (1)
Lauren Kagane, MD (1)
Thibaut Lansaman, MD (1)
Hélène Le Liepvre, MD (1)
Antoine Leotard, MD, MS (1)
Jonathan Levy, MD, MS (1,2,7,10)
Claire Malot, MD (1)
Julie Paquereau, MD (1)
Celia Rech, MD (1)
Department of Rehabilitation Interns
Florence Angioni (1)
Elsa Chkron (1)
Céline Karabulut (1)
Jérôme Lemoine (1)
Noémie Trystram (1)
Julien Vibert (1)
Department of Infectious Diseases
Simon Bessis, MD (1,2)
Pascal Crenn, MD, PhD (1,2,7)
Benjamin Davido, MD, MS (1)
Aurélien Dinh, MD, MS (1,2)
Stéphanie Landowski, MD (1)
Hélène Mascitti, MD, MS (1)
Morgan Matt, MD (1,2)
Christian Perronne, MD, PhD (1,2)
Véronique Perronne, MD (1)
Soline Simeon, MD, MS (1)
Pierre de Truchis, MD, MS (1)
Department of Infectious Diseases Interns
Marc Hobeika (1)
Louis Jacob (1)
Nicolas Kiavue (1)
Aymeric Lanore (1)
Aurélie Le Gal (1)
Julia Nguyen Van Thang (1)
Department of Microbiology and Innovative Biomarkers Platform
Coralie Favier (1)
Jean Louis Gaillard, MD, PhD (1,2,5)
Elyanne Gault, MD, PhD (1,2,5)
Jean-Louis Herrmann, PharmD, PhD (1,2,5)
Christine Lawrence, PharmD (1)
Virginie Lebidois, PharmD (1)
Latifa Noussair, MD (1)
Martin Rottman, MD, PhD (1,2,5)
Anne-Laure Roux, PharmD, PhD (1,2,5)
Sophie Tocqueville (1)
Marie-Anne Welti, MD, PhD (1,2,5)
And the nonmedical staff of the Department
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pharmacology
Jean Claude Alvarez, MD, PhD (1,2,5)
Mehdi Djebrani, PharmD (1)
Pierre-Alexandre Emmanuelli (1)
Firas Jabbour, PharmD (1)
Lotfi Lahjomri, MD (1)
Mathilde Parent, MD (1)
And the nonmedical staff of the Department
Department of Radiology
Amine Ammar, MD (1)
Najete Berradja, MD (1)
Robert-Yves Carlier, MD, MS (1,2,7,14)
Annaelle Chetrit, MD (1,2)
Caroline Diffre, MD (1,2)
Myriam Edjlali, MD, PhD (1,15)
Zaki El Baz, MD (1,14)
Adrien Felter, MD (1)
Catherine Girardot, MD (1,13)
Ahmed Mekki, MD, MS (1,2)
Dominique Mompoint, MD (1)
Dominique Safa, MD (1)
Tristan Thiry, MD (1)
Department of Radiology Interns
Margot Armani (1)
Olivier de Barry (1)
Antoine Kirchner (1)
Jeffery Zhou (1)
Department of Forensic Medicine
Geoffroy Lorin de La Grandmaison MD, PhD_(1)
Department of Forensic Medicine Intern
Kevin Mahe (1)
AffiliationsHôpital Raymond Poincaré, GHU APHP, Université Paris Saclay, Garches, France
Faculté Simone Veil Santé, Université Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Université Paris Saclay, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes, Nantes, France
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines/INSERIVI, Laboratory of Infection & lnflammation–U-1173, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines/INSERIVI, Centre d’Evaluation et de Traitement de la Douleur–U-987, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines/INSERM, Handicap Neuromusculaire–U-1179, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
Centre d’investigation Clinique, Garches, France
Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, CEA Paris Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Fondation Garches, Garches, France
Clinique Jouvenet, Ramsay Santé, Paris, France
Clinique de la Muette, Ramsay Santé, Paris, France
Polyclinique Mantaise, Mantes-La-Jolie, France
Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal Poissy/Saint-Germain, GHT Yvelines Nord, Poissy, France
IMA-BRAIN/INSERM-UMR-1266, DHU-Neurovasc, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France
Acknowledgments
First author (BD) would like to thank Azzam Saleh-Mghir for his unfailing support.
Footnotes
Financial Disclosure: The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no specific conflict of interest.