Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cytotoxicity may involve inhibition of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha. Fenofibrate activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha and inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro. Whether fenofibrate can be used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in humans remains unknown. Here, we randomly assigned inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 within 14 d of symptom onset to 145 mg of oral fenofibrate nanocrystal formulation versus placebo for 10 d, in a double-blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was a severity score whereby participants were ranked across hierarchical tiers incorporating time to death, mechanical ventilation duration, oxygenation, hospitalization and symptom severity and duration. In total, 701 participants were randomized to fenofibrate (n = 351) or placebo (n = 350). The mean age of participants was 49 ± 16 years, 330 (47%) were female, mean body mass index was 28 ± 6 kg/m 2 and 102 (15%) had diabetes. Death occurred in 41 participants. Compared with placebo, fenofibrate had no effect on the primary endpoint. The median (interquartile range) rank in the placebo arm was 347 (172, 453) versus 345 (175, 453) in the fenofibrate arm (P = 0.819). There was no difference in secondary and exploratory endpoints, including all-cause death, across arms. There were 61 (17%) adverse events in the placebo arm compared with 46 (13%) in the fenofibrate arm, with slightly higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects in the fenofibrate group. Overall, among patients with COVID-19, fenofibrate has no significant effect on various clinically relevant outcomes (NCT04517396).Infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is an important public health problem. Available data suggest that COVID-19 progression is dependent on metabolic mechanisms 1 . Individuals with COVID-19 who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and death are characterized by older age and a higher prevalence of hypertension, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases compared to individuals with milder disease [1][2][3][4][5][6] . Hyperglycaemia and hyperlipidaemia are also risk factors for acute respiratory distress in patients with COVID-19 disease 1,7 . Indeed, type 2 diabetes mellitus and the metabolic syndrome are associated with a markedly increased risk of death in the setting of 5 ).Several experimental studies suggest a mechanistic link between abnormal metabolism and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronavirus infections. Palmitoylation of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has been shown to be essential for virus-cell fusion and infectivity [8][9][10] . Gene expression analyses in cultured human bronchial cells infected with

Introducción: El diagnóstico de la infección por Trypanosoma cruzi (T. cruzi) se realiza rutinariamente mediante pruebas serológicas mientras que el empleo de métodos moleculares se encuentra aún en proceso de estandarización. Objetivo: Evaluar la capacidad discriminatoria y concordancia entre una prueba serológica y una molecular para determinar la infección por T. cruzi. Métodos: Se realizó Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa (PCR) y la prueba de ELISA-F29 en 95 muestras de participantes de la cohorte “Cardiovascular health investigation and collaboration countries of America to assess the markers and outcomes of Chagas disease” CHICAMOCHA. Se evaluó la capacidad discriminatoria del ELISA-F29 respecto al resultado de PCR mediante la estimación del área bajo la curva ROC. Se estimó la tasa de falsos positivos al 25% y sensibilidad al 75%. Se determinó la concordancia mediante kappa de Cohen. Resultados: Se realizaron pruebas de PCR en dos momentos diferentes en 95 individuos (edad media: 38 años; 64% hombres), con tasas de positividad entre 1.1% – 2.2% para los primers S35-S36 y entre 18.3% – 34.7% para los primers 121-122, respectivamente. La capacidad discriminatoria del ELISAF29 respecto a PCR fue 0.62 (IC95%: 0.53; 0.70) y tasa de falsos positivos del 56% (IC95%: 42; 70). El punto de corte óptimo para el cociente de absorbancia fue 2.53 (sensibilidad 59% y especificidad 60%). Para el primer 121-122 los niveles de acuerdo observado y kappas estimados fueron: 52.6% y 0.10 (IC95%: -0.08, 0.28) para la primera medición, 62.4% y 0.09 (IC95%: -0.09, 0.28) para la segunda medición y 57.5% y 0.13 (IC95%: 0.01, 0.26) al evaluar simultáneamente las dos mediciones. Conclusiones: Los resultados demuestran una baja concordancia evidenciada por los valores de kappa determinados en el estudio. Es necesario afinar los estudios para evaluar la utilidad de las pruebas moleculares en el diagnóstico de la Enfermedad de Chagas. [Gómez-Laitón ED, Polo-Ardila LA, Castellanos-Domínguez YZ, Herrera VM, Villar JC. Capacidad discriminatoria y concordancia entre el ELISA-F29 y la PCR en individuos con infección por T. cruzi. MedUNAB 2015; 18 (1): 27-33].

Background Abnormal cellular lipid metabolism appears to underlie SARS-CoV-2 cytotoxicity and may involve inhibition of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha (PPARα). Fenofibrate, a PPAR-α activator, modulates cellular lipid metabolism. Fenofibric acid has also been shown to affect the dimerization of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Fenofibrate and fenofibric acid have been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell culture systems in vitro. Methods We randomly assigned 701 participants with COVID-19 within 14 days of symptom onset to 145 mg of fenofibrate (nanocrystal formulation with dose adjustment for renal function or dose-equivalent preparations of micronized fenofibrate or fenofibric acid) vs. placebo for 10 days, in a double-blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was a ranked severity score in which participants were ranked across hierarchical tiers incorporating time to death, duration of mechanical ventilation, oxygenation parameters, subsequent hospitalizations and symptom severity and duration. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04517396. Findings: Mean age of participants was 49 ± 16 years, 330 (47%) were female, mean BMI was 28 ± 6 kg/m2, and 102 (15%) had diabetes mellitus. A total of 41 deaths occurred. Compared with placebo, fenofibrate administration had no effect on the primary endpoint. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) rank in the placebo arm was 347 (172, 453) vs. 345 (175, 453) in the fenofibrate arm (P = 0.819). There was no difference in various secondary and exploratory endpoints, including all-cause death, across randomization arms. These results were highly consistent across pre-specified sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusion Among patients with COVID-19, fenofibrate has no significant effect on various clinically relevant outcomes.