Torsade de pointes y parada cardiorrespiratoria inducida por azitromicina en una paciente con síndrome de QT largo congénito

Prior epidemics of high-mortality human coronaviruses, such as the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-1) in 2003, have driven the characterization of compounds that could be possibly active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Presently, no approved treatment or prophylaxis is available for COVID-19. We comment on the existing COVID-19 research methodologies in general and the published reporting. Given the media attention and claims of effectiveness, we chose chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with azithromycin, as an area of COVID-19 research to examine.

MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2019 to present (April 3rd, 2020) using a mix of keywords such as COVID-19 and chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. We also searched the largest clinical medicine preprint repository, medRxiv.org.

We found 6 studies, 3 randomized control trials and 3 observational studies, focusing on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (with azithromycin). We critically appraised the evidence.

We found that the COVID-19 research methodology is very poor in the area of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine research. In screening the literature, we observed the same across COVID-19 research in relation to potential treatments. The reporting is very poor and sparse, and patient-important outcomes needed to discern decision-making priorities are not reported. We do understand the barriers to perform rigorous research in health care settings overwhelmed by a novel deadly disease. However, this emergency pandemic situation does not transform flawed methods and data into credible results. The adequately powered, comparative, and robust clinical research that is needed for optimal evidence-informed decision-making remains absent in COVID-19.

As the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) global pandemic rages across the globe, the race to prevent and treat this deadly disease has led to the “off-label” repurposing of drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir, which have the potential for unwanted QT-interval prolongation and a risk of drug-induced sudden cardiac death. With the possibility that a considerable proportion of the world’s population soon could receive COVID-19 pharmacotherapies with torsadogenic potential for therapy or postexposure prophylaxis, this document serves to help health care professionals mitigate the risk of drug-induced ventricular arrhythmias while minimizing risk of COVID-19 exposure to personnel and conserving the limited supply of personal protective equipment.

To compare outcomes of pediatric patients treated with azithromycin compared with penicillin or cephalosporin. We hypothesized that azithromycin use would not be associated with increased cardiac mortality in the pediatric population.

Retrospective cohort study from the Pediatric Health Information System database between 2008 and 2012. Patients <19 years of age with a principal diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia who received an antibiotic were included. Primary outcomes were cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and mortality. Secondary outcomes were ventricular arrhythmias incidences and readmission for ventricular arrhythmia. Statistical analysis was performed with the χ² test. Multivariable analysis was performed to control for potential confounders among patient, event, and treatment characteristics.

A total of 82 982 patients (54.3% males) met study criteria. Median age was 2.6 years (IQR 1.2-5.9 years) and median length of stay was 2 days (IQR 2-4 days). Azithromycin was used in 5039 (6.1%); penicillin or cephalosporin was used in 77 943 (93.9%). Overall prevalence of antibiotic-associated CPR was 0.14%. Patients receiving a macrolide antibiotic had a lower prevalence of CPR compared with patients receiving a penicillin or cephalosporin (0.04% vs 0.14%, P = .04), and there was no difference in mortality. Multivariable analysis did not find an association between macrolide use and CPR.

In contrast to recent adult studies, among children hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia, azithromycin use was not associated with a greater prevalence of cardiac arrest compared with penicillin or cephalosporin use.

Chronic azithromycin therapy is recommended for CF patients with persistent Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization. Other macrolide antibiotics have been reported to cause QT prolongation, but cardiac effects of azithromycin have not been studied in pediatric populations. We analyzed changes in QTc interval after starting chronic azithromycin in a pediatric CF population. Adolescent males showed increased QTc intervals after initiation of therapy. Given the possible effects of azithromycin on the QTc interval, particularly in patients predisposed to cardiac events, we suggest that the QTc interval of CF patients should be monitored throughout the course of chronic azithromycin.

There are conflicting findings from observational studies of the arrhythrogenic potential of azithromycin. Our aim was to quantify the association between azithromycin use and the risk of ventricular arrhythmia.

We conducted a nested case–control study within a cohort of new antibiotic users identified from a network of 7 population-based health care databases in Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom for the period 1997–2010. Up to 100 controls per case were selected and matched by age, sex and database. Recency of antibiotic use and type of drug (azithromycin was the exposure of interest) at the index date (occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia) were identified. We estimated the odds of ventricular arrhythmia associated with current azithromycin use relative to current amoxicillin use or nonuse of antibiotics (≥ 365 d without antibiotic exposure) using conditional logistic regression, adjusting for confounders.

We identified 14 040 688 new antibiotic users who met the inclusion criteria. Ventricular arrhythmia developed in 12 874, of whom 30 were current azithromycin users. The mean age of the cases and controls was 63 years, and two-thirds were male. In the pooled data analyses across databases, azithromycin use was associated with an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmia relative to nonuse of antibiotics (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–2.86). This increased risk disappeared when current amoxicillin use was the comparator (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48–1.71). Database-specific estimates and meta-analysis confirmed results from the pooled data analysis.

Current azithromycin use was associated with an increased risk of ventricular arrhythmia when compared with nonuse of antibiotics, but not when compared with current amoxicillin use. The decreased risk with an active comparator suggests significant confounding by indication.