The positive impact of COVID-19 on critical care: from unprecedented challenges to transformative changes, from the perspective of young intensivists.

Over the past 2 years, SARS-CoV-2 infection has resulted in numerous hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. As young intensivists, we have been at the forefront of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and it has been an intense learning experience affecting all aspects of our specialty. Critical care was put forward as a priority and managed to adapt to the influx of patients and the growing demand for beds, financial and material resources, thereby highlighting its flexibility and central role in the healthcare system. Intensivists assumed an essential and unprecedented role in public life, which was important when claiming for indispensable material and human investments. Physicians and researchers around the world worked hand-in-hand to advance research and better manage this disease by integrating a rapidly growing body of evidence into guidelines. Our daily ethical practices and communication with families were challenged by the massive influx of patients and restricted visitation policies, forcing us to improve our collaboration with other specialties and innovate with new communication channels. However, the picture was not all bright, and some of these achievements are already fading over time despite the ongoing pandemic and hospital crisis. In addition, the pandemic has demonstrated the need to improve the working conditions and well-being of critical care workers to cope with the current shortage of human resources. Despite the gloomy atmosphere, we remain optimistic. In this ten-key points review, we outline our vision on how to capitalize on the lasting impact of the pandemic to face future challenges and foster transformative changes of critical care for the better.

Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among frontline health care workers in Paris: the SEROCOV cohort study.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Among 1062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95% CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); current smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk.Trial registration The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis.

Rationale: Whether patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-day mortality versus IMV only. Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO versus no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 < 80 or PaCO2 ⩾ 60 mm Hg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model on the basis of predefined variables. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability on Day 7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs. 83%; risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0-9%), which decreased during follow-up (survival on Day 90: 63% vs. 65%; risk difference, -2%; 95% confidence interval, -10 to 5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand and when initiated within the first 4 days of IMV and in patients who are profoundly hypoxemic. Conclusions: In an emulated trial on the basis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand.

Memory CD4+ T-Cell Lymphocytic Angiopathy in Fatal Forms of COVID-19 Pulmonary Infection.

The immunopathological pulmonary mechanisms leading to Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)-related death in adults remain poorly understood. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and peripheral blood sampling were performed in 74 steroid and non-steroid-treated intensive care unit (ICU) patients (23-75 years; 44 survivors). Peripheral effector SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detected in 34/58 cases, mainly directed against the S1 portion of the spike protein. The BAL lymphocytosis consisted of T cells, while the mean CD4/CD8 ratio was 1.80 in non-steroid- treated patients and 1.14 in steroid-treated patients. Moreover, strong BAL SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell responses were detected in 4/4 surviving and 3/3 non-surviving patients. Serum IFN-γ and IL-6 levels were decreased in steroid-treated patients when compared to non-steroid treated patients. In the lung samples from 3 (1 non-ICU and 2 ICU) additional deceased cases, a lymphocytic memory CD4 T-cell angiopathy colocalizing with SARS-CoV-2 was also observed. Taken together, these data show that disease severity occurs despite strong antiviral CD4 T cell-specific responses migrating to the lung, which could suggest a pathogenic role for perivascular memory CD4 T cells upon fatal COVID-19 pneumonia.

Pre-COVID-19 Immunity to Common Cold Human Coronaviruses Induces a Recall-Type IgG Response to SARS-CoV-2 Antigens Without Cross-Neutralisation.

The capacity of pre-existing immunity to human common coronaviruses (HCoV) to cross-protect against de novo COVID-19is yet unknown. In this work, we studied the sera of 175 COVID-19 patients, 76 healthy donors and 3 intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) batches. We found that most COVID-19 patients developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies before IgM. Moreover, the capacity of their IgGs to react to beta-HCoV, was present in the early sera of most patients before the appearance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. This implied that a recall-type antibody response was generated. In comparison, the patients that mounted an anti-SARS-COV2 IgM response, prior to IgG responses had lower titres of anti-beta-HCoV IgG antibodies. This indicated that pre-existing immunity to beta-HCoV was conducive to the generation of memory type responses to SARS-COV-2. Finally, we also found that pre-COVID-19-era sera and IVIG cross-reacted with SARS-CoV-2 antigens without neutralising SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in vitro. Put together, these results indicate that whilst pre-existing immunity to HCoV is responsible for recall-type IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2, it does not lead to cross-protection against COVID-19.

Early Bacterial Identification among Intubated Patients with COVID-19 or Influenza Pneumonia: A European Multicenter Comparative Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia, as compared with influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes.Methods: A multicenter retrospective European cohort was performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48 hours were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture within 48 hours after intubation in endotracheal aspirates, BAL, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,050 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2 and 482 in influenza groups). The prevalence of bacterial identification was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia compared with patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs. 33.6%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.30; adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16-0.33; P < 0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of coinfection in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia, respectively. Bacterial identification was associated with increased adjusted hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.44; P = 0.043). However, no significant difference was found in the heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of coinfection on mortality was not different between patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza.Conclusions: Bacterial identification within 48 hours after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than patients with influenza pneumonia.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359693).

Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the incidence of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections: a European multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection have several risk factors for ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI), the reported incidence of hospital-acquired infections is low. We aimed to determine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, and the incidence of VA-LRTI. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation > 48 h were eligible if they had: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection at ICU admission. VA-LRTI, including ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), were diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. All VA-LRTI were prospectively identified, and chest-X rays were analyzed by at least two physicians. Cumulative incidence of first episodes of VA-LRTI was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, and compared using Fine-and Gray models. RESULTS: 1576 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2, 482 in influenza, and 526 in no viral infection groups). VA-LRTI incidence was significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 patients (287, 50.5%), as compared to influenza patients (146, 30.3%, adjusted sub hazard ratio (sHR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.04)) or patients with no viral infection (133, 25.3%, adjusted sHR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.39)). Gram-negative bacilli were responsible for a large proportion (82% to 89.7%) of VA-LRTI, mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of VA-LRTI is significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection after statistical adjustment, but residual confounding may still play a role in the effect estimates.

Relationship between ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality in COVID-19 patients: a planned ancillary analysis of the coVAPid cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at higher risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). No study has evaluated the relationship between VAP and mortality in this population, or compared this relationship between SARS-CoV-2 patients and other populations. The main objective of our study was to determine the relationship between VAP and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 patients. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort. VAP was diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. Univariable and multivariable marginal Cox's regression models, with cause-specific hazard for duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, were used to compare outcomes between study groups. Extubation, and ICU discharge alive were considered as events of interest, and mortality as competing event. FINDINGS: Of 1576 included patients, 568 were SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 482 influenza pneumonia, and 526 no evidence of viral infection at ICU admission. VAP was associated with significantly higher risk for 28-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.16-2.47), p = 0.006), and influenza groups (1.75 (1.03-3.02), p = 0.045), but not in the no viral infection group (1.07 (0.64-1.78), p = 0.79). VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation in the SARS-CoV-2 group, but not in the influenza or no viral infection groups. VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of ICU stay in the 3 study groups. No significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to VAP between the 3 groups, suggesting that the impact of VAP on mortality was not different between study groups. INTERPRETATION: VAP was associated with significantly increased 28-day mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients. However, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, did not significantly modify the relationship between VAP and 28-day mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693.

Distinct cytokine profiles associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Markedly elevated levels of proinflammatory cytokines and defective type-I interferon responses were reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether particular cytokine profiles are associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. METHODS: Cytokine concentrations and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen were measured at hospital admission in serum of symptomatic patients with COVID-19 (N = 115), classified at hospitalization into 3 respiratory severity groups: no need for mechanical ventilatory support (No-MVS), intermediate severity requiring mechanical ventilatory support (MVS), and critical severity requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Principal-component analysis was used to characterize cytokine profiles associated with severity and mortality. The results were thereafter confirmed in an independent validation cohort (N = 86). RESULTS: At time of hospitalization, ECMO patients presented a dominant proinflammatory response with elevated levels of TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10. In contrast, an elevated type-I interferon response involving IFN-α and IFN-ß was characteristic of No-MVS patients, whereas MVS patients exhibited both profiles. Mortality at 1 month was associated with higher levels of proinflammatory cytokines in ECMO patients, higher levels of type-I interferons in No-MVS patients, and their combination in MVS patients, resulting in a combined mortality prediction accuracy of 88.5% (risk ratio, 24.3; P < .0001). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen levels correlated with type-I interferon levels and were associated with mortality, but not with proinflammatory response or severity. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct cytokine profiles are observed in association with COVID-19 severity and are differentially predictive of mortality according to oxygen support modalities. These results warrant personalized treatment of COVID-19 patients based on cytokine profiling.

COVID-19 ARDS is characterized by higher extravascular lung water than non-COVID-19 ARDS: the PiCCOVID study.

BACKGROUND: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), extravascular lung water index (EVLWi) and pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution reflect the degree of lung injury. Whether EVLWi and PVPI are different between non-COVID-19 ARDS and the ARDS due to COVID-19 has never been reported. We aimed at comparing EVLWi, PVPI, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics in patients with COVID-19 ARDS vs. ARDS of other origin. METHODS: Between March and October 2020, in an observational study conducted in intensive care units from three university hospitals, 60 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS monitored by transpulmonary thermodilution were compared to the 60 consecutive non-COVID-19 ARDS admitted immediately before the COVID-19 outbreak between December 2018 and February 2020. RESULTS: Driving pressure was similar between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, at baseline as well as during the study period. Compared to patients without COVID-19, those with COVID-19 exhibited higher EVLWi, both at the baseline (17 (14-21) vs. 15 (11-19) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.03) and at the time of its maximal value (24 (18-27) vs. 21 (15-24) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.01). Similar results were observed for PVPI. In COVID-19 patients, the worst ratio between arterial oxygen partial pressure over oxygen inspired fraction was lower (81 (70-109) vs. 100 (80-124) mmHg, respectively, p = 0.02) and prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were more frequently used than in patients without COVID-19. COVID-19 patients had lower maximal lactate level and maximal norepinephrine dose than patients without COVID-19. Day-60 mortality was similar between groups (57% vs. 65%, respectively, p = 0.45). The maximal value of EVLWi and PVPI remained independently associated with outcome in the whole cohort. CONCLUSION: Compared to ARDS patients without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 had similar lung mechanics, but higher EVLWi and PVPI values from the beginning of the disease. This was associated with worse oxygenation and with more requirement of prone positioning and ECMO. This is compatible with the specific lung inflammation and severe diffuse alveolar damage related to COVID-19. By contrast, patients with COVID-19 had fewer hemodynamic derangement. Eventually, mortality was similar between groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04337983). Registered 30 March 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337983 .

Impact of prone position in non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients admitted to the ICU for severe acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Studies performed in spontaneously breathing patients with mild to moderate respiratory failure suggested that prone position (PP) in COVID-19 could be beneficial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive critically ill patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in four ICUs. PP sessions lasted at least 3 h each and were performed twice daily. A Cox proportional hazard model identified factors associated with the need of intubation. A propensity score overlap weighting analysis was performed to assess the association between spontaneous breathing PP (SBPP) and intubation. RESULTS: Among 379 patients, 40 underwent SBPP. Oxygenation was achieved by high flow nasal canula in all but three patients. Duration of proning was 2.5 [1.6;3.4] days. SBPP was well tolerated hemodynamically, increased PaO2/FiO2 (78 [68;96] versus 63 [53;77] mm Hg, p = 0.004) and PaCO2 (38 [34;43] versus 35 [32;38] mm Hg, p = 0.005). Neither day-28 survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16-1.16] nor risk of invasive ventilation [sHR 0.96; 95% CI 0.49;1.88] differed between patients who underwent PP and others. CONCLUSIONS: SBPP in COVID-19 is feasible and well tolerated in severely hypoxemic patients. It did not induce any effect on risk of intubation and day-28 mortality.

IgA dominates the early neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2.

Humoral immune responses are typically characterized by primary IgM antibody responses followed by secondary antibody responses associated with immune memory and composed of IgG, IgA, and IgE. Here, we measured acute humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2, including the frequency of antibody-secreting cells and the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies in the serum, saliva, and bronchoalveolar fluid of 159 patients with COVID-19. Early SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral responses were dominated by IgA antibodies. Peripheral expansion of IgA plasmablasts with mucosal homing potential was detected shortly after the onset of symptoms and peaked during the third week of the disease. The virus-specific antibody responses included IgG, IgM, and IgA, but IgA contributed to virus neutralization to a greater extent compared with IgG. Specific IgA serum concentrations decreased notably 1 month after the onset of symptoms, but neutralizing IgA remained detectable in saliva for a longer time (days 49 to 73 post-symptoms). These results represent a critical observation given the emerging information as to the types of antibodies associated with optimal protection against reinfection and whether vaccine regimens should consider targeting a potent but potentially short-lived IgA response.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can have symptoms that rapidly evolve to profound hypoxaemia and death. The efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe ARDS in the context of COVID-19 is unclear. We aimed to establish the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with respiratory failure and COVID-19 treated with ECMO. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was done in the Paris-Sorbonne University Hospital Network, comprising five intensive care units (ICUs) and included patients who received ECMO for COVID-19 associated ARDS. Patient demographics and daily pre-ECMO and on-ECMO data and outcomes were collected. Possible outcomes over time were categorised into four different states (states 1-4): on ECMO, in the ICU and weaned off ECMO, alive and out of ICU, or death. Daily probabilities of occupation in each state and of transitions between these states until day 90 post-ECMO onset were estimated with use of a multi-state Cox model stratified for each possible transition. Follow-up was right-censored on July 10, 2020. FINDINGS: From March 8 to May 2, 2020, 492 patients with COVID-19 were treated in our ICUs. Complete day-60 follow-up was available for 83 patients (median age 49 [IQR 41-56] years and 61 [73%] men) who received ECMO. Pre-ECMO, 78 (94%) patients had been prone-positioned; their median driving pressure was 18 (IQR 16-21) cm H2O and PaO2/FiO2 was 60 (54-68) mm Hg. At 60 days post-ECMO initiation, the estimated probabilities of occupation in each state were 6% (95% CI 3-14) for state 1, 18% (11-28) for state 2, 45% (35-56) for state 3, and 31% (22-42) for state 4. 35 (42%) patients had major bleeding and four (5%) had a haemorrhagic stroke. 30 patients died. INTERPRETATION: The estimated 60-day survival of ECMO-rescued patients with COVID-19 was similar to that of studies published in the past 2 years on ECMO for severe ARDS. If another COVID-19 outbreak occurs, ECMO should be considered for patients developing refractory respiratory failure despite optimised care. FUNDING: None.

Increased mortality in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted within seven days of disease onset.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is creating an unprecedented healthcare crisis. Understanding the determinants of mortality is crucial to optimise intensive care unit (ICU) resource use and to identify targets for improving survival. METHODS: In a multicentre retrospective study, we included 379 COVID-19 patients admitted to four ICUs between 20 February and 24 April 2020 and categorised according to time from disease onset to ICU admission. A Cox proportional-hazards model identified factors associated with 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Median age was 66 years (53-68) and 292 (77%) were men. The main comorbidities included obesity and overweight (67%), hypertension (49.6%) and diabetes (30.1%). Median time from disease onset (i.e., viral symptoms) to ICU admission was 8 (6-11) days (missing for three); 161 (42.5%) patients were admitted within a week of disease onset, 173 (45.6%) between 8 and 14 days, and 42 (11.1%) > 14 days after disease onset; day 28 mortality was 26.4% (22-31) and decreased as time from disease onset to ICU admission increased, from 37 to 21% and 12%, respectively. Patients admitted within the first week had higher SOFA scores, more often had thrombocytopenia or acute kidney injury, had more limited radiographic involvement, and had significantly higher blood IL-6 levels. Age, COPD, immunocompromised status, time from disease onset, troponin concentration, and acute kidney injury were independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: The excess mortality in patients admitted within a week of disease onset reflected greater non-respiratory severity. Therapeutic interventions against SARS-CoV-2 might impact different clinical endpoints according to time since disease onset.

Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients. METHODS: The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7. RESULTS: Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.