No abstract

IMPORTANCEHospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine.Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days. RESULTS A total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%)in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%).

No abstract

OBJECTIVE To analyze the impact of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) Multidimensional Approach (IMA) and the INICC Surveillance Online System (ISOS) on central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in 14 intensive care units (ICUs) in Argentina from January 2014 to April 2017. DESIGN This prospective, pre-post surveillance study of 3,940 ICU patients was conducted in 11 hospitals in 5 cities in Argentina. During our baseline evaluation, we performed outcome and process surveillance of CLABSI applying Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Health Safety Network (CDC/NHSN) definitions. During the intervention, we implemented the IMA through ISOS: (1) a bundle of infection prevention practice interventions, (2) education, (3) outcome surveillance, (4) process surveillance, (5) feedback on CLABSI rates and consequences, and (6) performance feedback of process surveillance. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed using a logistic regression model to estimate the effect of the intervention on the CLABSI rate. RESULTS During the baseline period, 5,118 CL days and 49 CLABSIs were recorded, for a rate of 9.6 CLABSIs per 1,000 central-line (CL) days. During the intervention, 15,659 CL days and 68 CLABSIs were recorded, for a rate of 4.1 CLABSIs per 1,000 CL days. The CLABSI rate was reduced by 57% (incidence density rate: 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.6; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Implementing IMA through ISOS was associated with a significant reduction in the CLABSI rate in ICUs in Argentina. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:445-451.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was high mortality and a lack of effective treatment for critically ill patients. Build on the experience in argentine hemorrhagic fever with convalescent plasma, we incorporated 90 patients into a multicenter study, and 87 were evaluable. We collected 397 donations from 278 convalescent donors. Patients received plasma with an IgG concentration of 0.7-0.8 (measured by Abbott chemiluminescence) for every 10 kg of body weight. Survival during the first 28 days was the primary objective. 77% were male, age 54 (+/-15.6 y/o (range 27-85); body mass index 29.7 +/-; 4,4; hypertension 39% and diabetes 20%; 19.5% had an immunosuppression condition; 23% were healthcare workers. Plasma was administered to 55 patients (63%) on spontaneous breathing with oxygen supplementation (mainly oxygen mask with reservoir bag in 80%), and 32 patients (37%) were infused on mechanical ventilation. The 28-day survival rate was 80%, with 91% in patients infused on spontaneous breathing and 63% in those infused on mechanical ventilation (p = 0.0002). There was a significant improvement in the WHO pneumonia clinical scale at 7 and 14 days, and in PaO2 / FiO2, ferritin and LDH, in the week post-infusion. We observed an episode of circulatory volume overload and a febrile reaction, both mild. Convalescent plasma infusions are feasible, safe, and potentially effective, especially before requiring mechanical ventilation, and are an attractive clinical option for treating severe forms of COVID-19 until other effective therapies become available.