ABSTRACT
Background: Evidence regarding the impact of remdesivir (RDV) on SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance (VC) is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare VC timing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who did or did not receive RDV. Methods: This was a matched-cohort study of patients hospitalized with pneumonia, a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) at admission, and at least one NPS during follow-up. Patients who received RDV (cases) and those who did not (controls) were matched in a 1:2 ratio by age, sex, and PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) values at admission. NPSs were analyzed using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Time to VC (within 30 days after hospital discharge) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to determine factors associated with VC. Results: There were 648 patients enrolled in the study (216 cases and 432 controls). VC was observed in 490 patients (75.6%), with a median time of 25 (IQR 16-34) days. Overall, time to VC was similar between cases and controls (p = 0.519). However, time to VC was different when considering both RDV treatment status and age (p = 0.007). A significant finding was also observed when considering both RDV treatment status and P/F values at admission (p = 0.007). A multivariate analysis showed that VC was associated with a younger age (aHR = 0.990, 95% CI 0.983-0.998 per every 10-year increase in age; p = 0.009) and a higher baseline P/F ratio (aHR=1.275, 95% CI 1.029-1.579; p=0.026), but not with RDV treatment status. Conclusion: Time to VC was similar in cases and controls. However, there was a benefit associated with using RDV in regard to time to VC in younger patients and in those with a P/F ratio ≤200 mmHg at hospital admission.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Cohort StudiesABSTRACT
Background Evidence regarding the impact of remdesivir (RDV) on SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance (VC) is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare VC timing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who did or did not receive RDV. Methods This was a matched-cohort study of patients hospitalized with pneumonia, a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) at admission, and at least one NPS during follow-up. Patients who received RDV (cases) and those who did not (controls) were matched in a 1:2 ratio by age, sex, and PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) values at admission. NPSs were analyzed using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Time to VC (within 30 days after hospital discharge) was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier curve. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to determine factors associated with VC. Results There were 648 patients enrolled in the study (216 cases and 432 controls). VC was observed in 490 patients (75.6%), with a median time of 25 (IQR 16–34) days. Overall, time to VC was similar between cases and controls (p = 0.519). However, time to VC was different when considering both RDV treatment status and age (p = 0.007). A significant finding was also observed when considering both RDV treatment status and P/F values at admission (p = 0.007). A multivariate analysis showed that VC was associated with a younger age (aHR = 0.990, 95% CI 0.983–0.998 per every 10-year increase in age;p = 0.009) and a higher baseline P/F ratio (aHR=1.275, 95% CI 1.029–1.579;p=0.026), but not with RDV treatment status. Conclusion Time to VC was similar in cases and controls. However, there was a benefit associated with using RDV in regard to time to VC in younger patients and in those with a P/F ratio ≤200 mmHg at hospital admission.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can induce conjunctivitis signs and symptoms. However, limited information is available on their impact on COVID-19 disease phenotype. Quantification of ocular signs/symptoms can provide a rapid, non-invasive proxy for predicting clinical phenotype. Moreover, the existence and entity of conjunctival viral shedding is still debated. This has relevant implications to manage disease spread. The purpose of this study was to investigate conjunctivitis signs and symptoms and their correlation with clinical parameters, conjunctival viral shedding in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Fifty-three patients hospitalized between February 25th and September 16th, 2020 at the San Raffaele Hospital, in Milan, Lombardy, Italy with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were evaluated. Presence of interstitial pneumonia was confirmed with computed tomography scan imaging. Ocular signs and symptoms, anosmia/ageusia, clinical/laboratory parameters, and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal and conjunctival swabs for COVID-19 virus were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-six out of 53 patients showed a positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of conjunctival evaluation. All the conjunctival swabs were negative. Conjunctivitis symptoms were present in 37% of patients. Physician-assessed ocular signs were detected in 28% of patients. Patients with ocular symptoms or signs tended to be older: 76.8 years (62.4-83.3) vs 57.2 years (48.1-74.0), p = 0.062 and had a longer hospitalization: 38 days (18-49) vs. 14 days (11-21), p = 0.005. Plasma levels of Interleukin-6 were higher in patients with signs or symptoms in comparison with those without them: 43.5 pg/ml (19.7-49.4) vs. 8 pg/ml (3.6-20.7), p = 0.02. Red cell distribution width was also significantly higher: 15 (14.3-16.7) vs 13.2 (12.4-14.4), p = 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: We found that over a third of the patients had ocular signs or symptoms. These had higher prevalence in patients with a more severe infection. No viral shedding was detected in the conjunctiva. Our results suggest that prompt detection of conjunctivitis signs/symptoms can serve as a helpful proxy to predict COVID-19 clinical phenotype.
ABSTRACT
We describe the outcome of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG/IgM rapid test, and discuss the potential suitability of antibody testing. Retrospective single cohort study on patients with suspected Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and asymptomatic Healthcare Workers, enrolled from March to April 2020. Subjects had quantitative PCR (qPCR) test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 via nasal swab and serological testing using the COVID-19 IgG/ IgM Rapid Test (PRIMA Lab SA) immunochromatographic assay. Some subjects underwent chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) after rapid test. The aim of the study was to analyse the proportion of those who developed a positive IgM/IgG response for SARS-CoV-2. The correspondence between the results from rapid testing and CLIA, when available, was evaluated. 97 subjects underwent qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 through nasal swab, which resulted positive in 40/43 (93.0%) of symptomatic patients, 2/40 (5%) of asymptomatic HCW, in no subjects with suspected COVID-19 (clinical and radiological findings) then excluded by repeated nasal swabs and alternative diagnosis (COVID-19-negative patients, CNPs), and in 6/6 (100%) of patients with confirmed diagnosis and negative follow-up nasal swabs (COVID-19-recovered patients, CRPs). IgM resulted positive in 8/43 (18.6%) of symptomatic patients and in 1/6 (16.7%) of CRPs. IgG resulted positive in 36/43 (83.7%) of symptomatic patients, 2/40 (5%) of HCW, and in 1/8 (12.5%) and 6/6 (100%) of CNPs and CRPs, respectively. A comparison between an IgG/IgM Rapid Test and a following CLIA test showed consistency in negative results in 25/28 of HCW and 8/8 of CNPs tested. Our preliminary data support the role of IgG/IgM Rapid Test (PRIMA Lab SA) immunochromatographic assay as a point-of-care test that may complement molecular tests in the screening of SARS-CoV-2 carriers. The test may gain particular relevance in shortening the time needed to refer patients to a COVID or non-COVID Hospital area and to achieve diagnosis in patients with persistently negative nasal swabs.