AP-HP. Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Service de Pneumologie, Médecine intensive - Réanimation (Département "R3S"), Paris, France.
Sorbonne Université, INSERM, UMR_S 1158 Neurophysiologie respiratoire expérimentale et clinique, Paris, France.
Crit Care. 2020 Jul 11;24(1):418. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03117-9.
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.
严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)的爆发正在全球范围内蔓延。迄今为止,尚无确凿有效的特定治疗方法。羟氯喹和洛匹那韦/利托那韦具有潜在的作用,但病毒学和临床数据很少,特别是在重症患者中。
本报告利用同情用药和连续药物短缺的机会,比较了两种治疗选择(洛匹那韦/利托那韦和羟氯喹)与仅标准治疗相比的效果。主要结局是第 1 天至第 28 天期间治疗升级(插管、体外膜氧合支持或肾脏替代治疗)。次要结局包括第 28 天无呼吸机天数、第 14 天和第 28 天死亡率、治疗安全性问题和呼吸道变化、以及入院至第 7 天的血浆病毒载量(估计通过循环阈值)。
在 4 周的时间内,共有 80 名患者接受了治疗,并纳入了分析:22 名(28%)患者仅接受了标准治疗,20 名(25%)患者接受了洛匹那韦/利托那韦联合标准治疗,38 名(47%)患者接受了羟氯喹和标准治疗。三组之间的基线特征平衡良好。仅接受标准治疗的患者中有 9 名(41%)、接受标准治疗和洛匹那韦/利托那韦的患者中有 10 名(50%)和接受标准治疗和羟氯喹的患者中有 15 名(39%)需要治疗升级(p=0.567)。在第 28 天无呼吸机天数和第 14 天和第 28 天死亡率方面,各组之间无显著差异。最后,在入院至第 7 天之间,各组之间的呼吸道病毒载量或血浆载量无显著变化。
在因 SARS-CoV-2 相关肺炎而住院的重症患者中,与仅标准治疗相比,羟氯喹或洛匹那韦/利托那韦在第 28 天需要治疗升级的患者比例方面没有差异。需要进一步的随机对照试验来证明这些药物在这种情况下是否有用。