Chest CT Findings at Six Months Following COVID-19 ARDS - Correlation With the mMRC Dyspnea Scale and Pulmonary Function Tests.
Background: Many survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia experience lingering respiratory issues. There is limited research on follow-up chest imaging findings in patients with COVID-19 ARDS, particularly in relation to their mMRC dyspnea scores and pulmonary function tests (PFTs). This study addresses this gap by investigating the clinical characteristics, mMRC dyspnea scores, PFTs, and chest CT findings of COVID-19 ARDS patients at the 6 months post-recovery. By analyzing these variables together, we aim to gain a better understanding of the long-term health consequences of COVID-19 ARDS. Methods: This prospective observational study included 56 subjects with COVID-19 ARDS with dyspnea at the six-month follow-up visits. These patients were evaluated by chest CT, mMRC dyspnea scale, and PFT. The CT severity score was calculated individually for each of the four major imaging findings - ground glass opacities (GGOs), parenchymal/atelectatic bands, reticulations/septal thickening, and consolidation - using a modified CT severity scoring system. Statistics were carried out to find any association between individual CT chest findings and the mMRC dyspnea scale and forced vital capacity (FVC). p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Our study population had a mean age of 55.86 ± 9.60 years, with 44 (78.6%) being men. Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the mMRC dyspnea scale were seen in 57.1%, 30.4%, 10.7%, and 1.8% of patients respectively. Common CT findings observed were GGOs (94.6%), reticulations/septal thickening (96.4%), parenchymal/atelectatic bands (92.8%), and consolidation (14.3%). The mean modified CT severity scores for GGOs, reticulations/septal thickening, parenchymal/atelectatic bands, and consolidation were 10.32 ± 5.51 (range: 0-21), 7.66 ± 4.33 (range: 0-19), 4.77 ± 3.03 (range: 0-14) and 0.29 ± 0.91 (range 0-5) respectively. Reticulations/septal thickening (p = 0.0129) and parenchymal/atelectatic bands (p = 0.0453) were associated with an increased mMRC dyspnea scale. Parenchymal/atelectatic bands were also associated with abnormal FVC (<80%) (p = 0.0233). Conclusion: Six-month follow-up chest CTs of COVID-19 ARDS survivors with persistent respiratory problems showed a statistically significant relationship between increased mMRC dyspnea score and imaging patterns of reticulations/septal thickening and parenchymal/atelectatic bands; while parenchymal/atelectatic bands also showed a statistically significant correlation with reduced FVC.
Garg M
，Prabhakar N
，Devkota S
，Dhooria S
，Debi U
，Dua A
，Singh T
，Malarakunte M
，Bhatia H
，Sandhu MS
... -
《-》
RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been found to be efficient on SARS-CoV-2, and reported to be efficient in Chinese COV-19 patients. We evaluate the effect of hydroxychloroquine on respiratory viral loads.
French Confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in a single arm protocol from early March to March 16th, to receive 600mg of hydroxychloroquine daily and their viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs was tested daily in a hospital setting. Depending on their clinical presentation, azithromycin was added to the treatment. Untreated patients from another center and cases refusing the protocol were included as negative controls. Presence and absence of virus at Day6-post inclusion was considered the end point.
Six patients were asymptomatic, 22 had upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and eight had lower respiratory tract infection symptoms. Twenty cases were treated in this study and showed a significant reduction of the viral carriage at D6-post inclusion compared to controls, and much lower average carrying duration than reported in the litterature for untreated patients. Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine was significantly more efficient for virus elimination.
Despite its small sample size, our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin.
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Concerns have been raised regarding this article, the substance of which relate to the articles' adherence to Elsevier's publishing ethics policies and the appropriate conduct of research involving human participants, as well as concerns raised by three of the authors themselves regarding the article's methodology and conclusions. Elsevier's Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics Team, in collaboration with the journal's co-owner, the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC), and with guidance from an impartial field expert acting in the role of an independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, Dr. Jim Gray, Consultant Microbiologist at the Birmingham Children's and Women's Hospitals, U.K., conducted an investigation and determined that the below points constituted cause for retraction: • The journal has been unable to confirm whether any of the patients for this study were accrued before ethical approval had been obtained. The ethical approval dates for this article are stated as being 5th and 6th of March 2020 (ANSM and CPP respectively), while the article states that recruitment began in “early March”. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui, has confirmed that the start date for patient accrual was 6th March 2020. The journal has not been able to establish whether all patients could have entered into the study in time for the data to have been analysed and included in the manuscript prior to its submission on the 20th March 2020, nor whether all patients were enrolled in the study upon admission as opposed to having been hospitalised for some time before starting the treatment described in the article. Additionally, the journal has not been able to establish whether there was equipoise between the study patients and the control patients. • The journal has not been able to establish whether the subjects in this study should have provided informed consent to receive azithromycin as part of the study. The journal has concluded that that there is reasonable cause to conclude that azithromycin was not considered standard care at the time of the study. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that azithromycin treatment was not, at the time of the study, an experimental treatment but a possible treatment for, or preventative measure against, bacterial superinfections of viral pneumonia as described in section 2.4 of the article, and as such the treatment should be categorised as standard care that would not require informed consent. This does not fully address the journal's concerns around the use of azithromycin in the study. In section 3.1 of the article, it is stated that six patients received azithromycin to prevent (rather than treat) bacterial superinfection. All of these were amongst the patients who also received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). None of the control patients are reported to have received azithromycin. This would indicate that only patients in the HCQ arm received azithromycin, all of whom were in one center. The recommendations for use of macrolides in France at the time the study was conducted indicate that azithromycin would not have been a logical agent to use as first-line prophylaxis against pneumonia due to the frequency of macrolide resistance amongst bacteria such as pneumococci. These two points suggest that azithromycin would not have been standard practice across southern France at the time the study was conducted and would have required informed consent. • Three of the authors of this article, Dr. Johan Courjon, Prof. Valérie Giordanengo, and Dr. Stéphane Honoré have contacted the journal to assert their opinion that they have concerns regarding the presentation and interpretation of results in this article and have stated they no longer wish to see their names associated with the article. • Author Prof. Valérie Giordanengo informed the journal that while the PCR tests administered in Nice were interpreted according to the recommendations of the national reference center, it is believed that those carried out in Marseille were not conducted using the same technique or not interpreted according to the same recommendations, which in her opinion would have resulted in a bias in the analysis of the data. This raises concerns as to whether the study was partially conducted counter to national guidelines at that time. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that the PCR methodology was explained in reference 17 of the article. However, the article referred to by reference 17 describes several diagnostic approaches that were used (one PCR targeting the envelope protein only; another targeting the spike protein; and three commercially produced systems by QuantiNova, Biofire, and FTD). This reference does not clarify how the results were interpreted. It has also been noted during investigation of these concerns that only 76% (19/25) of patients were viral culture positive, resulting in uncertainty in the interpretation of PCR reports as has been raised by Prof. Giordanengo. As part of the investigation, the corresponding author was contacted and asked to provide an explanation for the above concerns. No response has been received within the deadline provided by the journal. Responses were received by the 3rd and 17th authors, Prof. Philippe Parola and Prof. Philippe Brouqui, respectively, and were reviewed as part of the investigation. These two authors, in addition to 1st author Dr. Philippe Gautret, 13th author Prof. Philippe Colson, and 15th author Prof. Bernard La Scola, disagreed with the retraction and dispute the grounds for it. Having followed due process and concluded the aforementioned investigation and based on the recommendation of Dr. Jim Gray acting in his capacity as independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, the co-owners of the journal (Elsevier and ISAC) have therefore taken the decision to retract the article.
Gautret P
，Lagier JC
，Parola P
，Hoang VT
，Meddeb L
，Mailhe M
，Doudier B
，Courjon J
，Giordanengo V
，Vieira VE
，Tissot Dupont H
，Honoré S
，Colson P
，Chabrière E
，La Scola B
，Rolain JM
，Brouqui P
，Raoult D
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
