In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged from China causing pneumonia outbreaks, first in the Wuhan region of China and then spread worldwide because of its probable high transmission efficiency. Owing to the lack of efficient and specific treatments and the need to contain the epidemic, drug repurposing appears to be the best tool to find a therapeutic solution. Chloroquine, remdesivir, lopinavir, ribavirin and ritonavir have shown efficacy to inhibit coronavirus in vitro. Teicoplanin, an antibiotic used to treat staphylococcal infections, previously showed efficacy to inhibit the first stage of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) viral life cycle in human cells. This activity is conserved against SARS-Cov-2, thus placing teicoplanin as a potential treatment for patients with this virus.
Background: We need an effective treatment to cure COVID-19 patients and to decrease virus carriage duration.
Methods: We conducted an uncontrolled, non-comparative, observational study in a cohort of 80 relatively mildly infected inpatients treated with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin over a period of at least three days, with three main measurements: clinical outcome, contagiousness as assessed by PCR and culture, and length of stay in infectious disease unit (IDU).
Results: All patients improved clinically except one 86 year-old patient who died, and one 74 year-old patient still in intensive care. A rapid fall of nasopharyngeal viral load was noted, with 83% negative at Day7, and 93% at Day8. Virus cultures from patient respiratory samples were negative in 97.5% of patients at Day5. Consequently patients were able to be rapidly discharged from IDU with a mean length of stay of five days.
Conclusion: We believe there is urgency to evaluate the effectiveness of this potentially-life saving therapeutic strategy at a larger scale, both to treat and cure patients at an early stage before irreversible severe respiratory complications take hold and to decrease duration of carriage and avoid the spread of the disease. Furthermore, the cost of treatment is negligible.
The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection which has been known as Coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) has become an endemic emergent situation by the World Health Organization. So far, no successful specific treatment has been found for this disease. As has been reported, most of non-survivor patients with COVID-19 (70%) had septic shock which was significantly higher than survived ones. Although the exact pathophysiology of septic shock in these patients is still unclear, it seems to be possible that part of it would be due to the administration of empiric antibiotics with inflammatory properties especially in the absence of bacterial infection. Herein, we have reviewed possible molecular pathways of septic shock in the patients who have received antibiotics with inflammatory properties which mainly is release of interleukin 1β (IL-1β), IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF- α) through different routes. Altogether, we highly recommend clinicians to look after those antibiotics with anti-inflammatory activity for both empiric antibiotic therapy and reducing the inflammation to prevent septic shock in patients with diagnosed COVID-19.
Azithromycin (AZ) is a broad-spectrum macrolide antibiotic with a long half-life and a large volume of distribution. It is primarily used for the treatment of respiratory, enteric, and genitourinary bacterial infections. AZ is not approved for the treatment of viral infections, and there is no well-controlled, prospective, randomized clinical evidence to support AZ therapy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Nevertheless, there are anecdotal reports that some hospitals have begun to include AZ in combination with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (CQ) for treatment of COVID-19. It is essential that the clinical pharmacology (CP) characteristics of AZ be considered in planning and conducting clinical trials of AZ alone or in combination with other agents, to ensure safe study conduct and to increase the probability of achieving definitive answers regarding efficacy of AZ in the treatment of COVID-19. The safety profile of AZ used as an antibacterial agent is well established.1 This work assesses published in vitro and clinical evidence for AZ as an agent with antiviral properties. It also provides basic CP information relevant for planning and initiating COVID-19 clinical studies with AZ, summarizes safety data from healthy volunteer studies, and safety and efficacy data from phase II and phase II/III studies in patients with uncomplicated malaria, including a phase II/III study in pediatric patients following administration of AZ and CQ in combination. This paper may also serve to facilitate the consideration and use of a priori-defined control groups for future research.
Background: COVID-19 pandemics is a challenge for public health and infectious diseases clinicians, especially for the therapeutical approach that is not yet adequately defined. Amid this situation, investigational agents are being used, including chloroquine. We report here the clinical features and therapeutic course of the first reported patient with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia that recovered in Colombia, after the use of chloroquine and clarithromycin.
Case presentation: A 34-year-old male, returning from Spain, presented with complaints of fever, and cough, and class-II obesity, being hospitalized. The respiratory viruses and bacteria tested by FilmArray® PCR were negative. Two days later, clarithromycin was started because the patient was suspected as community-acquired pneumonia. At the third day, the rRT-PCR confirmed the SARS-CoV-2 infection. A day later, chloroquine was started because of that. His chest computed tomography was performed and showed bilateral multifocal ground-glass opacities with consolidation, which suggested viral pneumonia as a differential diagnosis. Progressively his clinical condition improved and at day 9, patient rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 became negative. The patient was discharged and isolated at home per 14 days.
Conclusions: Our patient improved significantly. This and other COVID-19 cases are urgently demanding results from clinical trials that support evidence-based therapeutical approaches to this pandemic and the clinical management of patients, especially those at critical care.
Background: To explore and describe the current literature surrounding bacterial/fungal co-infection in patients with coronavirus infection.
Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched using broad based search criteria relating to coronavirus and bacterial co-infection. Articles presenting clinical data for patients with coronavirus infection (defined as SARS-1, MERS, SARS-COV-2, and other coronavirus) and bacterial/fungal co-infection reported in English, Mandarin, or Italian were included. Data describing bacterial/fungal co-infections, treatments, and outcomes were extracted. Secondary analysis of studies reporting antimicrobial prescribing in SARS-COV-2 even in the absence of co-infection was performed.
Results: 1007 abstracts were identified. Eighteen full texts reported bacterial/fungal co-infection were included. Most studies did not identify or report bacterial/fungal coinfection (85/140;61%). 9/18 (50%) studies reported on COVID-19, 5/18 (28%) SARS-1, 1/18 (6%) MERS, and 3/18 (17%) other coronavirus.For COVID-19, 62/806 (8%) patients were reported as experiencing bacterial/fungal co-infection during hospital admission. Secondary analysis demonstrated wide use of broad-spectrum antibacterials, despite a paucity of evidence for bacterial coinfection. On secondary analysis, 1450/2010 (72%) of patients reported received antimicrobial therapy. No antimicrobial stewardship interventions were described.For non-COVID-19 cases bacterial/fungal co-infection was reported in 89/815 (11%) of patients. Broad-spectrum antibiotic use was reported.
Conclusions: Despite frequent prescription of broad-spectrum empirical antimicrobials in patients with coronavirus associated respiratory infections, there is a paucity of data to support the association with respiratory bacterial/fungal co-infection. Generation of prospective evidence to support development of antimicrobial policy and appropriate stewardship interventions specific for the COVID-19 pandemic are urgently required.
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) continues to threaten global health. Although global and national AMR action plans are in place, infection prevention and control is primarily discussed in the context of health care facilities with home and everyday life settings barely addressed. As seen with the recent global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, everyday hygiene measures can play an important role in containing the threat from infectious microorganisms. This position paper has been developed following a meeting of global experts in London, 2019. It presents evidence that home and community settings are important for infection transmission and also the acquisition and spread of AMR. It also demonstrates that the targeted hygiene approach offers a framework for maximizing protection against colonization and infections, thereby reducing antibiotic prescribing and minimizing selection pressure for the development of antibiotic resistance. If combined with the provision of clean water and sanitation, targeted hygiene can reduce the circulation of resistant bacteria in homes and communities, regardless of a country’s Human Development Index (overall social and economic development). Achieving a reduction of AMR strains in health care settings requires a mirrored reduction in the community. The authors call upon national and international policy makers, health agencies, and health care professionals to further recognize the importance of targeted hygiene in the home and everyday life settings for preventing and controlling infection, in a unified quest to tackle AMR.
The massive inflow of patients with COVID-19 requiring urgent care has overloaded hospitals in France and impacts the management of other patients. Deferring hospitalization and non-urgent surgeries has become a priority for surgeons today in order to relieve the health care system.It is obviously not simple to reduce emergency surgery without altering the quality of care or leading to a loss of chance for the patient. Acute appendicitis is a very specific situation and the prevalence of this disease leads us to reconsider this particular disease in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, while the currently recommended treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis is surgical appendectomy, the non-surgical alternative of medical management by antibiotic therapy alone has been widely evaluated by high-quality studies in the literature. Insofar as the main limitation of exclusively medical treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is the risk of recurrent appendicitis, this treatment option represents an alternative of choice to reduce the intra-hospital overload in this context of health crisis.The aim of this work is therefore to provide physicians and surgeons with a practical guide based on a review of the literature on the medical treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults, to offer this alternative treatment to the right patients and under good conditions, especially when access to the operating room is limited or impossible.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should immediately update current policies to include reimbursement for Medicare patients receiving intravenous antibiotics at home. The majority of these patients are over the age of 65 and at increased risk for severe illness due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Requiring them to travel to an infusion center, stay in a skilled nursing facility or remain in the hospital longer than necessary to receive treatment results in avoidable risk of exposure amidst a pandemic. Current policy has significant implications for increased cost and harm to both these patients and the US healthcare system.