IMPORTANCEThere is no specific antiviral therapy recommended for coronavirus disease 2019 . In vitro studies indicate that the antiviral effect of chloroquine diphosphate (CQ) requires a high concentration of the drug. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 CQ dosages in patients with severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis parallel, double-masked, randomized, phase IIb clinical trial with 81 adult patients who were hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was conducted from March 23 to April 5, 2020, at a tertiary care facility in Manaus, Brazilian Amazon. INTERVENTIONS Patients were allocated to receive high-dosage CQ (ie, 600 mg CQ twice daily for 10 days) or low-dosage CQ (ie, 450 mg twice daily on day 1 and once daily for 4 days). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was reduction in lethality by at least 50% in the high-dosage group compared with the low-dosage group. Data presented here refer primarily to safety and lethality outcomes during treatment on day 13. Secondary end points included participant clinical status, laboratory examinations, and electrocardiogram results. Outcomes will be presented to day 28. Viral respiratory secretion RNA detection was performed on days 0 and 4. RESULTS Out of a predefined sample size of 440 patients, 81 were enrolled (41 [50.6%] to highdosage group and 40 [49.4%] to low-dosage group). Enrolled patients had a mean (SD) age of 51.1 (13.9) years, and most (60 [75.3%]) were men. Older age (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [13.7] years vs 47.4 [13.3] years) and more heart disease (5 of 28 [17.9%] vs 0) were seen in the high-dose group. Viral RNA was detected in 31 of 40 (77.5%) and 31 of 41 (75.6%) patients in the low-dosage and highdosage groups, respectively. Lethality until day 13 was 39.0% in the high-dosage group (16 of 41) and 15.0% in the low-dosage group (6 of 40). The high-dosage group presented more instance of QTc interval greater than 500 milliseconds (7 of 37 [18.9%]) compared with the low-dosage group (4 of 36 [11.1%]). Respiratory secretion at day 4 was negative in only 6 of 27 patients (22.2%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe preliminary findings of this study suggest that the higher CQ dosage should not be recommended for critically ill patients with COVID-19 because of its potential (continued) Key Points Question How safe and effective are 2 different regimens of chloroquine diphosphate in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Findings In this phase IIb randomized clinical trial of 81 patients with COVID-19, an unplanned interim analysis recommended by an independent data safety and monitoring board found that a higher dosage of chloroquine diphosphate for 10 days was associated with more toxic effects and lethality, particularly affecting QTc interval prolongation. The limited sample size did not allow the study to show any benefit overall regarding treatment efficacy. Meaning The preliminary findings from the CloroCovid-19 trial suggest that higher dosage of chloro...

Background Steroid use for COVID-19 is based on the possible role of these drugs in mitigating the inflammatory response, mainly in the lungs, triggered by SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed at evaluating at evaluating the efficacy of methylprednisolone (MP) among hospitalized patients with suspected COVID-19. Methods Parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase IIb clinical trial was performed with hospitalized patients aged ≥ 18 years with clinical, epidemiological and/or radiological suspected COVID-19, at a tertiary care facility in Manaus, Brazil. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to receive either intravenous MP (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline solution), twice daily, for 5 days. A modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis was conducted. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. ClinicalTrials Identifier NCT04343729. Findings From April 18 to June 16, 2020, 647 patients were screened, 416 randomized, and 393 analyzed as mITT, MP in 194 and placebo in 199 individuals. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed by RT-PCR in 81.3%. Mortality at day 28 was not different between groups. A subgroup analysis showed that patients over 60 years in the MP group had a lower mortality rate at day 28. Patients in the MP arm tended to need more insulin therapy, and no difference was seen in virus clearance in respiratory secretion until day 7. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that a short course of MP in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not reduce mortality in the overall population.

BACKGROUND Treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria requires the clearing of asexual parasites, but relapse can be prevented only if dormant hypnozoites are cleared from the liver (a treatment termed “radical cure”). Tafenoquine is a single-dose 8-aminoquinoline that has recently been registered for the radical cure of P. vivax . METHODS This multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in Ethiopia, Peru, Brazil, Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines. We enrolled 522 patients with microscopically confirmed P. vivax infection (>100 to <100,000 parasites per microliter) and normal glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) activity (with normal activity defined as ≥70% of the median value determined at each trial site among 36 healthy male volunteers who were otherwise not involved in the trial). All patients received a 3-day course of chloroquine (total dose of 1500 mg). In addition, patients were assigned to receive a single 300-mg dose of tafenoquine on day 1 or 2 (260 patients), placebo (133 patients), or a 15-mg dose of prima-quine once daily for 14 days (129 patients). The primary outcome was the Kaplan– Meier estimated percentage of patients who were free from recurrence at 6 months, defined as P. vivax clearance without recurrent parasitemia. RESULTS In the intention-to-treat population, the percentage of patients who were free from recurrence at 6 months was 62.4% in the tafenoquine group (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.9 to 69.0), 27.7% in the placebo group (95% CI, 19.6 to 36.6), and 69.6% in the primaquine group (95% CI, 60.2 to 77.1). The hazard ratio for the risk of recurrence was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.22 to 0.40) with tafenoquine as compared with placebo (P<0.001) and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.39) with primaquine as compared with placebo (P<0.001). Tafenoquine was associated with asymptomatic declines in hemoglobin levels, which resolved without intervention. CONCLUSIONS Single-dose tafenoquine resulted in a significantly lower risk of P. vivax recurrence than placebo in patients with phenotypically normal G6PD activity. (Funded by GlaxoSmith-Kline and Medicines for Malaria Venture; DETECTIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01376167.)

BACKGROUND Tafenoquine, a single-dose therapy for Plasmodium vivax malaria, has been associated with relapse prevention through the clearance of P. vivax parasitemia and hypnozoites, termed “radical cure.” METHODS We performed a phase 3, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, controlled trial to compare tafenoquine with primaquine in terms of safety and efficacy. The trial was conducted at seven hospitals or clinics in Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Vietnam, and Thailand and involved patients with normal glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) enzyme activity and female patients with moderate G6PD enzyme deficiency; all patients had confirmed P. vivax parasitemia. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive a single 300-mg dose of tafenoquine or 15 mg of primaquine once daily for 14 days (administered under supervision); all patients received a 3-day course of chloroquine and were followed for 180 days. The primary safety outcome was a protocol-defined decrease in the hemoglobin level (>3.0 g per deciliter or ≥30% from baseline or to a level of <6.0 g per deciliter). Freedom from recurrence of P. vivax parasitemia at 6 months was the primary efficacy outcome in a planned patient-level meta-analysis of the current trial and another phase 3 trial of tafenoquine and primaquine (per-protocol populations), and an odds ratio for recurrence of 1.45 (tafenoquine vs. primaquine) was used as a noninferiority margin. RESULTS A protocol-defined decrease in the hemoglobin level occurred in 4 of 166 patients (2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 6.0) in the tafenoquine group and in 1 of 85 patients (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.4) in the primaquine group, for a between-group difference of 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, −4.2 to 5.0). In the patient-level meta-analysis, the percentage of patients who were free from recurrence at 6 months was 67.0% (95% CI, 61.0 to 72.3) among the 426 patients in the tafenoquine group and 72.8% (95% CI, 65.6 to 78.8) among the 214 patients in the primaquine group. The efficacy of tafenoquine was not shown to be noninferior to that of primaquine (odds ratio for recurrence, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.82 to 3.96). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with normal G6PD enzyme activity, the decline in hemoglobin level with tafenoquine did not differ significantly from that with primaquine. Tafenoquine showed efficacy for the radical cure of P. vivax malaria, although tafenoquine was not shown to be noninferior to primaquine. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Medicines for Malaria Venture; GATHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02216123.)

robust clinical studies on the safety and/or efficacy of chloroquine (CQ) and/or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of COVID-19 during the recent 2020 pandemic.We searched PubMed and also MedRxiv.org (pre-print server for health sciences, without peer review), without any language restrictions and including Chinese publications, for studies published between Dec 2019 and April 5, 2020, using the search terms 'COVID-19, coronavirus, SARS-Cov-2'. We found three non-randomized studies with limited sample sizes in which (1) HCQ use led to a decrease in SARS-Cov-2 detected in respiratory secretions five days after treatment, together with azithromycin (France, 36 patients); (2) HCQ use shortened time to clinical recovery (China, 62 patients); and (3) CQ was superior to control treatment in inhibiting the exacerbation of pneumonia, improving lung imaging findings, and promoting virus-negative conversion and shortening the disease course (China, 100 patients). We found no published studies comparing different dosages of CQ/HCQ and their thorough safety assessment. Added value of this studyIn a larger patient population, we found that a higher dosage of CQ for 10 days presented toxicity red flags, particularly affecting QTc prolongation. The limited sample size recruited so far does not allow to show any benefit regarding treatment efficacy, however the higher fatality associated with the higher dosage by day 13 of follow-up resulted in a premature halting of this arm. This is the first double-blinded, randomized clinical trial addressing different dosages of CQ for the treatment of severe patients with COVID-19 in the absence of a control group using placebo. Due to the impossibility of not using the drug recommended at the national level, we used historical data from the literature to infer comparisons for lethality endpoints. Follow-up until day 28 is ongoing with a larger sample size, in which long-term lethality will be better estimated.

Plasmodium vivax radical cure requires the use of primaquine (PQ), a drug that induces haemolysis in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficient (G6PDd) individuals, which further hampers malaria control efforts. The aim of this work was to study the G6PDd prevalence and variants in Latin America (LA) and the Caribbean region. A systematic search of the published literature was undertaken in August 2013. Bibliographies of manuscripts were also searched and additional references were identified. Low prevalence rates of G6PDd were documented in Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay, but studies from Curaçao, Ecuador, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Suriname and Trinidad, as well as some surveys carried out in areas of Brazil, Colombia and Cuba, have shown a high prevalence (> 10%) of G6PDd. The G6PD A-202A mutation was the variant most broadly distributed across LA and was identified in 81.1% of the deficient individuals surveyed. G6PDd is a frequent phenomenon in LA, although certain Amerindian populations may not be affected, suggesting that PQ could be safely used in these specific populations. Population-wide use of PQ as part of malaria elimination strategies in LA cannot be supported unless a rapid, accurate and field-deployable G6PDd diagnostic test is made available.

COVID-19 is still placing a heavy health and financial burden worldwide. Impairment in patient screening and risk management plays a fundamental role on how governments and authorities are directing resources, planning reopening, as well as sanitary countermeasures, especially in regions where poverty is a major component in the equation. An efficient diagnostic method must be highly accurate, while having a cost-effective profile. We combined a machine learning-based algorithm with mass spectrometry to create an expeditious platform that discriminate COVID-19 in plasma samples within minutes, while also providing tools for risk assessment, to assist healthcare professionals in patient management and decision-making. A cross-sectional study enrolled 815 patients (442 COVID-19, 350 controls and 23 COVID-19 suspicious) from three Brazilian epicenters from April to July 2020. We were able to elect and identify 19 molecules related to the disease’s pathophysiology and several discriminating features to patient’s health-related outcomes. The method applied for COVID-19 diagnosis showed specificity >96% and sensitivity >83%, and specificity >80% and sensitivity >85% during risk assessment, both from blinded data. Our method introduced a new approach for COVID-19 screening, providing the indirect detection of infection through metabolites and contextualizing the findings with the disease’s pathophysiology. The pairwise analysis of biomarkers brought robustness to the model developed using machine learning algorithms, transforming this screening approach in a tool with great potential for real-world application.

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is responsible for the largest pandemic facing humanity since the Spanish flu pandemic in the early twentieth century. Since there is no specific antiviral treatment, optimized support is the most relevant factor in the patient's prognosis. In the hospital setting, the identification of high-risk patients for clinical deterioration is essential to ensure access to intensive treatment of severe conditions in a timely manner. The initial management of hypoxemia includes conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal canula oxygen, and non-invasive ventilation. For patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volumes and plateau pressure is recommended. Cardiovascular complications are frequent and include myocardial injury, thrombotic events, myocarditis, and cardiogenic shock. Acute renal failure is a common complication and is a marker of poor prognosis, with significant impact in costs and resources allocation. Regarding promising therapies for COVID-19, the most promising drugs until now are remdesivir and corticosteroids although further studies may be needed to confirm their effectiveness. Other therapies such as, tocilizumab, anakinra, other anti-cytokine drugs, and heparin are being tested in clinical trials. Thousands of physicians are living a scenario that none of us have ever seen: demand for hospital exceed capacity in most countries. Until now, the certainty we have is that we should try to decrease the number of infected patients and that an optimized critical care support is the best strategy to improve patient’s survival.