Effect of intravenous almitrine on intubation or mortality in patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Severe hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia might result from hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, contributing to ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) mismatch. Because almitrine improves V/Q, it might reduce the risk for mechanical ventilation (MV) in such patients. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of almitrine on the need for MV at day 7. Methods: In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial involving 15 ICUs, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and experiencing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive 5 days of intravenous low-dose (2 µg.kg-1.min-1) almitrine or placebo. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation for MV or death within 7 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, number of ventilator-free days, number of days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357457. Findings: Between September 3, 2020 and September 25, 2021 181 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to almitrine (n=89) or placebo (n=92). 179 patients (excluding two who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age: 60·1 years; 34% women) and analyzed. On day 7, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients assigned to almitrine (36%) and in 37 patients assigned to placebo (41%), for a difference of -4·3% (95% confidence interval: -18·7% to 10·2%). Secondary outcomes (28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days at day 28, days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects) did not differ between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, low-dose almitrine failed in reducing the need for MV or death at day 7. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC COVID 2020) funded by the French Ministry of Health, Les Laboratoires Servier (Suresnes, France) providing the study drug free of charge.

Comparison of Patients Infected With Delta Versus Omicron COVID-19 Variants Presenting to Paris Emergency Departments : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: At the end of 2021, the B.1.1.529 SARS-CoV-2 variant (Omicron) wave superseded the B.1.617.2 variant (Delta) wave. OBJECTIVE: To compare baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta variant versus the Omicron variant in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Retrospective chart reviews. SETTING: 13 adult EDs in academic hospitals in the Paris area from 29 November 2021 to 10 January 2022. PATIENTS: Patients with a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result for SARS-CoV-2 and variant identification. MEASUREMENTS: Main outcome measures were baseline clinical and biological characteristics at ED presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3728 patients had a positive RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period; 1716 patients who had a variant determination (818 Delta and 898 Omicron) were included. Median age was 58 years, and 49% were women. Patients infected with the Omicron variant were younger (54 vs. 62 years; difference, 8.0 years [95% CI, 4.6 to 11.4 years]), had a lower rate of obesity (8.0% vs. 12.5%; difference, 4.5 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 7.5 percentage points]), were more vaccinated (65% vs. 39% for 1 dose and 22% vs. 11% for 3 doses), had a lower rate of dyspnea (26% vs. 50%; difference, 23.6 percentage points [CI, 19.0 to 28.2 percentage points]), and had a higher rate of discharge home from the ED (59% vs. 37%; difference, 21.9 percentage points [-26.5 to -17.1 percentage points]). Compared with Delta, Omicron infection was independently associated with a lower risk for ICU admission (adjusted difference, 11.4 percentage points [CI, 8.4 to 14.4 percentage points]), mechanical ventilation (adjusted difference, 3.6 percentage points [CI, 1.7 to 5.6 percentage points]), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted difference, 4.2 percentage points [CI, 2.0 to 6.5 percentage points]). LIMITATION: Patients with COVID-19 illness and no SARS-CoV-2 variant determination in the ED were excluded. CONCLUSION: Compared with the Delta variant, infection with the Omicron variant in patients in the ED had different clinical and biological patterns and was associated with better in-hospital outcomes, including higher survival. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous and homologous mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccination: A multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial.

Background: Although effective mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been deployed worldwide, their interchangeability could facilitate the scale-up of vaccination programs. The objective of the trial was to assess whether the immune response induced by a heterologous SARS-CoV-2 mRNA primo vaccination is non-inferior to that of a homologous mRNA vaccination. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial in adults 18 years of age and older who received a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a second dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, 28 to 49 days after the first dose. Randomization was stratified on the vaccine received at the first vaccination. The primary endpoint was the anti-spike IgG antibodies titer measured 28 days after the second vaccine dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial, NCT04900467. Findings: Of the 414 randomized participants recruited from May 28 to July 2, 2021, 390 were included in the per protocol analysis: 94 participants in group 1 (BNT162b2/BNT162b2), 96 in group 2 (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273), 97 in group 3 (mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273), and 103 in group 4 (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2). The geometric mean titers ratios of anti-spike IgG antibodies for each heterologous regimen relative to the corresponding homologous regimen were 1·37 (two-sided 95% CI, 1·10 to 1·72) in the groups 1 and 2 and 0·67 (two-sided 95% CI, 0·55 to 0·82) in the groups 3 and 4. Levels of neutralizing antibodies to the main circulating SARS-Cov-2 viral strains were higher with the vaccine regimen containing mRNA-1273. Participants who received mRNA-1273 as a second dose experienced a higher rate of local adverse reactions and general symptoms than those who received BNT162b2 (p < 0·0001). Interpretation: The two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines could be used with flexibility for the second dose of COVID-19 primo vaccination. Tolerance remains good regardless of vaccine sequence although mRNA-1273 was more reactogenic. Funding: French Ministries of Solidarity and Health and Research. BNT162b2 was provided by Pfizer/BioNTech. mRNA-1273 was provided by Moderna.

Hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction before and after lockdown according to regional prevalence of COVID-19 and patient profile in France: a registry study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on general health care. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a nationwide lockdown in France on admissions to hospital for acute myocardial infarction, by patient characteristics and regional prevalence of the pandemic. METHODS: In this registry study, we collected data from 21 centres participating in the ongoing French Cohort of Myocardial Infarction Evaluation (FRENCHIE) registry, which collects data from all patients admitted for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 48 h of symptom onset. We analysed weekly hospital admissions over 8 weeks: the 4 weeks preceding the institution of the lockdown and the 4 weeks following lockdown. The primary outcome was the change in the number of hospital admissions for all types of acute myocardial infarction, NSTEMI, and STEMI between the 4 weeks before lockdown and the 4 weeks after lockdown. Comparisons between categorical variables were made using χ2 tests or Fisher's exact tests. Comparisons of continuous variables were made using Student's t tests or Mann-Whitney tests. Poisson regression was used to determine the significance of change in hospital admissions over the two periods, after verifying the absence of overdispersion. Age category, region, and type of acute myocardial infarction (STEMI or NSTEMI) were used as covariables. The FRENCHIE cohort is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04050956. FINDINGS: Between Feb 17 and April 12, 2020, 1167 patients were consecutively admitted within 48 h of acute myocardial infarction (583 with STEMI, 584 with NSTEMI) and were included in the study. Admissions for acute myocardial infarction decreased between the periods before and after lockdown was instituted, from 686 before to 481 after lockdown (30% decrease; incidence rate ratio 0·69 [95% CI 0·51-0·70]). Admissions for STEMI decreased from 331 to 252 (24%; 0·72 [0·62-0·85]), and admissions for NSTEMI decreased from 355 to 229 (35%; 0·64 [0·55-0·76]) following institution of the lockdown, with similar trends according to sex, risk factors, and regional prevalence of hospital admissions for COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: A marked decrease in hospital admissions was observed following the lockdown, irrespective of patient characteristics and regional prevalence of COVID-19. Health authorities should be aware of these findings, in order to adapt their message if the COVID-19 pandemic persists or recurs, or in case of future major epidemics. FUNDING: Recherche Hospitalo-Universitaire en Santé iVasc.

Association Between Pulmonary Embolism and COVID-19 in Emergency Department Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiogram: The PEPCOV International Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: There have been reports of procoagulant activity in patients with COVID-19. Whether there is an association between pulmonary embolism (PE) and COVID-19 in the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether COVID-19 is associated with PE in ED patients who underwent a computed tomographic pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). METHODS: A retrospective study in 26 EDs from six countries. ED patients in whom a CTPA was performed for suspected PE during a 2-month period covering the pandemic peak. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a PE on CTPA. COVID-19 was diagnosed in the ED either on CT or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. A multivariable binary logistic regression was built to adjust with other variables known to be associated with PE. A sensitivity analysis was performed in patients included during the pandemic period. RESULTS: A total of 3,358 patients were included, of whom 105 were excluded because COVID-19 status was unknown, leaving 3,253 for analysis. Among them, 974 (30%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Mean (±SD) age was 61 (±19) years and 52% were women. A PE was diagnosed on CTPA in 500 patients (15%). The risk of PE was similar between COVID-19 patients and others (15% in both groups). In the multivariable binary logistic regression model, COVID-19 was not associated with higher risk of PE (adjusted odds ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.76 to 1.26). There was no association when limited to patients in the pandemic period. CONCLUSION: In ED patients who underwent CTPA for suspected PE, COVID-19 was not associated with an increased probability of PE diagnosis. These results were also valid when limited to the pandemic period. However, these results may not apply to patients with suspected COVID-19 in general.