Effects of Short-Term Hydroxychloroquine Plus Moxifloxacin Therapy on Corrected QT Interval and Tp-e Interval in Patients With COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and moxifloxacin (MOX) in patients with possible coronavirus disease 2019, (COVID-19). Both drugs may increase risk of malignant ventricular arrhythmias associated with prolongation of QT interval. METHODS: A total of 76 subjects with chest tomography findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled in the study. Standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was repeated on days 2 and 5 in patients receiving a combination of HCQ + MOX. Heart rate, QT interval, Tp-e interval, and Tp-e/QT ratio were measured. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 61.7 ± 14.8 years and 54% had hypertension. Compared to day 2, ECG on day 5 showed significant increases in QT interval (370.8 ± 32.5 vs. 381.0 ± 29.3, respectively, P = 0.001), corrected QT (QTc) interval (424 (403 - 436) vs. 442 (420 - 468), respectively, P < 0.001), Tp-e interval (60 (55 - 70) vs. 65 (57 - 75), respectively, P < 0.001), cTp-e interval (72.2 ± 12.9 vs. 75.4 ± 12.7, respectively, P < 0.001). Moreover, a slight decrease in Tp-e/QT ratio was observed (0.17 ± 0.03 vs. 0.17 ± 0.02, P = 0.030). QTc was > 500 ms in 5% of the patients, and 8% of patients had an increase in QTc interval > 60 ms. Tp-e/QT ratio was > 0.23 in 4% of patients. Five patients died due to pulmonary failure without evidence of ventricular arrhythmia. No ventricular arrhythmia events, including torsades de pointes (TdP), were observed. CONCLUSIONS: HCQ + MOX combination therapy led to increases in QTc interval, Tp-e interval, and cTp-e interval. However, this therapy did not cause ventricular arrhythmia in the short-term observation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".