Background Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. Results A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P=1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P=1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. Conclusions Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123 .)

Background The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. Methods We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04321278 . Findings 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94–1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. Interpretation In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. Funding COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Objectives: To determine which multicenter randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients have shown that the study intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality. Our analysis provides an update to a report published 10 years ago. Data Sources: MEDLINE database and PubMed interface from inception until April 30, 2019. Study Selection: All adult multicenter randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of any intervention or monitoring system in critically ill patients and reported mortality as a primary or secondary outcome were included. Data Extraction: Numbers of centers and patients, type of intervention, reported mortality outcome, and rate and level of significance were extracted into predefined tables. Included randomized controlled trials were classified as reporting reduced, increased, or no effect of the intervention on mortality. Methodologic quality of trials was evaluated using the updated Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Data Synthesis: A total of 212 trials met the inclusion criteria: 27 (13%) reported a significant reduction in mortality, 16 (7%) an increase in mortality, and 170 (80%) no difference in mortality (one study was reported in 2 groups). Of the 27 trials reporting reduced mortality, six had assessed interventions likely to decrease ventilator-induced lung injury, including low tidal volume, prone position, and neuromuscular blockers, demonstrating the negative effects of mechanical ventilation strategies or improved process of care rather than positive effects of new therapies. Seven of the 27 trials reported beneficial effects of noninvasive ventilation. Results from some positive randomized controlled trials, for example, studies of recombinant activated protein C, talactoferrin, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in sepsis, and muscle relaxants in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome were not replicated in subsequent randomized controlled trials. Other interventions, for example, gastric tonometry, have been abandoned. Conclusions: A systematic literature search provided no conclusive evidence of any pharmacologic intervention that has consistently reduced mortality in critically ill patients. Strategies associated with improved or noninvasive mechanical ventilation were associated with reduced mortality.

The CAIP is safer than and as effective as the standard strict protocol for controlling glucose in MICU patients. Hypoglycemia was rare under conventional treatment. However, BG levels were higher than with IV insulin protocols.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2015 and co-published as a series in Critical Care. Other articles in the series can be found online at

Increased awareness of the signs and symptoms of sepsis and an emphasis on the importance of early treatment have helped to improve survival rates from this serious and frequent condition in recent years. With no specific, effective anti-sepsis therapies available, management focuses on early source control with adequate and appropriate antibiotics and removal of any source of infection, rapid resuscitation, hemodynamic stabilization and organ support. Use of dedicated teams to care for patients with sepsis can help optimize early management.

BackgroundReduced cellular ATP synthesis due to impaired mitochondrial function of immune cells may be a factor influencing the immune response in septic shock. We investigate changes in mitochondrial function and bioenergetics of human monocytes and lymphocyte subsets.MethodsThirty patients with septic shock were studied at ICU admission, after 24 and 48 hours, and after resolution of shock. Enzymatic activities of citrate synthase and mitochondrial complexes I, IV, and ATP synthase and ATP content of monocytes, T-cells and B-cells and pro-inflammatory (IL-1β and IL-6) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokine plasma concentrations were compared to samples from 20 healthy volunteers.ResultsLarge variations in mitochondrial enzymatic activities of immune cells of septic patients were detected. In monocytes, maximum levels of citrate synthase activity in sepsis were significantly lower when compared to controls (p = 0.021). Maximum relative enzymatic activity (ratio relative to citrate synthase activity) of complex I (p<0.001), complex IV (p = 0.017) and ATP synthase (p<0.001) were significantly higher. In T-cells, maximum levels of citrate synthase (p = 0.583) and relative complex IV (p = 0.602) activity did not differ between patients and controls, whereas levels of relative complex I (p = 0.006) and ATP synthase (p = 0.032) were significantly higher in septic patients. In B-cells of patients, maximum levels of citrate synthase activity (p = 0.004) and relative complex I (p<0.001) were significantly higher, and mean levels of relative complex IV (p = 0.042) lower than the control values, whereas relative ATP synthase activity did not differ (p = 1.0). No significant difference in cellular ATP content was detected in any cell line (p = 0.142–0.519). No significant correlations between specific cytokines and parameters of mitochondrial enzymatic activities or ATP content were observed.ConclusionsSignificant changes of mitochondrial enzymatic activities occur in human peripheral blood immune cells in septic shock when compared to healthy controls. Assessed sub-types of immune cells showed differing patterns of regulation. Total ATP-content of human immune cells did not differ between patients in septic shock and healthy volunteers.

IntroductionCurrent guidelines and consensus recommend arterial and venous samples as equally acceptable for blood glucose assessment in point-of-care devices, but there is limited evidence to support this recommendation. We evaluated the accuracy of two devices for bedside point-of-care blood glucose measurements using arterial, fingerstick and catheter venous blood samples in ICU patients, and assessed which factors could impair their accuracy.Methods145 patients from a 41-bed adult mixed-ICU, in a tertiary care hospital were prospectively enrolled. Fingerstick, central venous (catheter) and arterial blood (indwelling catheter) samples were simultaneously collected, once per patient. Arterial measurements obtained with Precision PCx, and arterial, fingerstick and venous measurements obtained with Accu-chek Advantage II were compared to arterial central lab measurements. Agreement between point-of-care and laboratory measurements were evaluated with Bland-Altman, and multiple linear regression models were used to investigate interference of associated factors.ResultsMean difference between Accu-chek arterial samples versus central lab was 10.7 mg/dL (95% LA -21.3 to 42.7 mg/dL), and between Precision PCx versus central lab was 18.6 mg/dL (95% LA -12.6 to 49.5 mg/dL). Accu-chek fingerstick versus central lab arterial samples presented a similar bias (10.0 mg/dL) but a wider 95% LA (-31.8 to 51.8 mg/dL). Agreement between venous samples with arterial central lab was the poorest (mean bias 15.1 mg/dL; 95% LA -51.7 to 81.9). Hyperglycemia, low hematocrit, and acidosis were associated with larger differences between arterial and venous blood measurements with the two glucometers and central lab. Vasopressor administration was associated with increased error for fingerstick measurements.ConclusionsSampling from central venous catheters should not be used for glycemic control in ICU patients. In addition, reliability of the two evaluated glucometers was insufficient. Error with Accu-chek Advantage II increases mostly with central venous samples. Hyperglycemia, lower hematocrit, acidosis, and vasopressor administration increase measurement error.