Prospective longitudinal evaluation of hospitalised COVID-19 survivors 3 and 12 months after discharge.

Background: Long-term outcome data of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors are needed to understand their recovery trajectory and additional care needs. Methods: A prospective observational multicentre cohort study was carried out of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 from March through May 2020. Workup at 3 and 12 months following admission consisted of clinical review, pulmonary function testing, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), muscle strength, chest computed tomography (CT) and quality of life questionnaires. We evaluated factors correlating with recovery by linear mixed effects modelling. Results: Of 695 patients admitted, 299 and 226 returned at 3 and 12 months, respectively (median age 59 years, 69% male, 31% severe disease). About half and a third of the patients reported fatigue, dyspnoea and/or cognitive impairment at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Reduced 6MWD and quadriceps strength were present in 20% and 60% at 3 months versus 7% and 30% at 12 months. A high anxiety score and body mass index correlated with poor functional recovery. At 3 months, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (D LCO) and total lung capacity were below the lower limit of normal in 35% and 18%, decreasing to 21% and 16% at 12 months; predictors of poor D LCO recovery were female sex, pre-existing lung disease, smoking and disease severity. Chest CT improved over time; 10% presented non-progressive fibrotic changes at 1 year. Conclusion: Many COVID-19 survivors, especially those with severe disease, experienced limitations at 3 months. At 1 year, the majority showed improvement to almost complete recovery. To identify additional care or rehabilitation needs, we recommend a timely multidisciplinary follow-up visit following COVID-19 admission.

Prospective longitudinal evaluation of hospitalised COVID-19 survivors 3 and 12 months after discharge

Background Long-term outcome data of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors are needed to understand their recovery trajectory and additional care needs. Methods A prospective observational multicentre cohort study was carried out of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 from March through May 2020. Workup at 3 and 12 months following admission consisted of clinical review, pulmonary function testing, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), muscle strength, chest computed tomography (CT) and quality of life questionnaires. We evaluated factors correlating with recovery by linear mixed effects modelling. Results Of 695 patients admitted, 299 and 226 returned at 3 and 12 months, respectively (median age 59 years, 69% male, 31% severe disease). About half and a third of the patients reported fatigue, dyspnoea and/or cognitive impairment at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Reduced 6MWD and quadriceps strength were present in 20% and 60% at 3 months versus 7% and 30% at 12 months. A high anxiety score and body mass index correlated with poor functional recovery. At 3 months, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and total lung capacity were below the lower limit of normal in 35% and 18%, decreasing to 21% and 16% at 12 months;predictors of poor DLCO recovery were female sex, pre-existing lung disease, smoking and disease severity. Chest CT improved over time;10% presented non-progressive fibrotic changes at 1 year. Conclusion Many COVID-19 survivors, especially those with severe disease, experienced limitations at 3 months. At 1 year, the majority showed improvement to almost complete recovery. To identify additional care or rehabilitation needs, we recommend a timely multidisciplinary follow-up visit following COVID-19 admission. Most hospitalised #COVID19 survivors show promising recovery 1 year after discharge, although mild symptoms may linger. Severe impairments are rare, but this study suggests an evaluation of the individual care needs after discharge.https://bit.ly/3sZK45x

Azithromycin for treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a randomised, multicentre, open-label clinical trial (DAWn-AZITHRO).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Azithromycin was rapidly adopted as a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early in the pandemic. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. METHODS: In a series of randomised, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicentre clinical trials (Direct Antivirals Working against the novel coronavirus (DAWn)), several treatments were compared with standard of care. In 15 Belgian hospitals, patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 were allocated 2:1 to receive standard of care plus azithromycin or standard of care alone. The primary outcome was time to live discharge or sustained clinical improvement, defined as a two-point improvement on the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale sustained for at least 3 days. RESULTS: Patients were included between April 22 and December 17, 2020. When 15-day follow-up data were available for 160 patients (56% of preset cohort), an interim analysis was performed at request of the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board. Subsequently, DAWn-AZITHRO was stopped for futility. In total, 121 patients were allocated to the treatment arm and 64 patients to the standard-of-care arm. We found no effect of azithromycin on the primary outcome with a hazard ratio of 1.044 (95% CI 0.772-1.413; p=0.7798). None of the predefined subgroups showed significant interaction as covariates in the Fine-Gray regression analysis. No benefit of azithromycin was found on any of the short- and longer-term secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Time to clinical improvement is not influenced by azithromycin in patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Azithromycin for Treatment of Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients: a randomised, multicentre, open-label clinical trial (DAWn-AZITHRO)

Background and objectives Azithromycin was rapidly adopted as a repurposed drug to treat COVID-19 early in the pandemic. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Methods In a series of randomised, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicenter clinical trials (Direct Antivirals Working against the novel Coronavirus [DAWn]), several treatments were compared with standard of care. In 15 Belgian hospitals, patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 patients were allocated 2:1 to receive standard of care plus azithromycin or standard of care alone. The primary outcome was time to live discharge or sustained clinical improvement, defined as a two-point improvement on the WHO ordinal scale sustained for at least 3 days. Results Patients were included between April 22 and December 17, 2020. When 15-day follow-up data were available for 160 patients (56% of preset cohort), an interim analysis was performed at request of the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board. Subsequently, DAWn-AZITHRO was stopped for futility. In total, 121 patients were allocated to the treatment arm and 64 patients to the standard of care arm. We found no effect of azithromycin on the primary outcome with Hazard ratio of 1.044 (95% confidence interval, 0.772–1.413;p=0.7798). None of the predefined subgroups showed significant interaction as covariates in the Fine-Gray regression analysis. No benefit of azithromycin was found on any of the short- and longer-term secondary outcomes. Conclusion Time to clinical improvement is not influenced by azithromycin in patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.

COVID-19 recovery: benefits of multidisciplinary respiratory rehabilitation.

Many patients struggle with ongoing symptoms in different domains (physical, mental, cognitive) after hospitalisation for COVID-19, calling out for a multidisciplinary approach. An outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme, according to a respiratory rehabilitation strategy, was set up for adult patients who were able to attend group sessions during 12 weeks. Results of 22 adult patients with COVID-19, of which 15 had required intensive care, were analysed and some general impressions and challenges of rehabilitation in COVID-19 were reported. Impressive results on physical recovery were determined after 6 weeks and 3 months, with significant improvement of lung function, muscle force and exercise capacity variables. A positive evolution of mental and cognitive burden was present, although less pronounced than the physical recovery. These mental and cognitive consequences seem, next to musculoskeletal and medical complications, the most challenging aspect of rehabilitating patients with COVID-19. These real-world data show feasibility and efficiency of a multidisciplinary respiratory rehabilitation programme after moderate to severe COVID-19 disease.

Vitamin K metabolism as the potential missing link between lung damage and thromboembolism in Coronavirus disease 2019.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2, exerts far-reaching effects on public health and socio-economic welfare. The majority of infected individuals have mild to moderate symptoms, but a significant proportion develops respiratory failure due to pneumonia. Thrombosis is another frequent manifestation of Covid-19 that contributes to poor outcomes. Vitamin K plays a crucial role in the activation of both pro- and anticlotting factors in the liver and the activation of extrahepatically synthesised protein S which seems to be important in local thrombosis prevention. However, the role of vitamin K extends beyond coagulation. Matrix Gla protein (MGP) is a vitamin K-dependent inhibitor of soft tissue calcification and elastic fibre degradation. Severe extrahepatic vitamin K insufficiency was recently demonstrated in Covid-19 patients, with high inactive MGP levels correlating with elastic fibre degradation rates. This suggests that insufficient vitamin K-dependent MGP activation leaves elastic fibres unprotected against SARS-CoV-2-induced proteolysis. In contrast to MGP, Covid-19 patients have normal levels of activated factor II, in line with previous observations that vitamin K is preferentially transported to the liver for activation of procoagulant factors. We therefore expect that vitamin K-dependent endothelial protein S activation is also compromised, which would be compatible with enhanced thrombogenicity. Taking these data together, we propose a mechanism of pneumonia-induced vitamin K depletion, leading to a decrease in activated MGP and protein S, aggravating pulmonary damage and coagulopathy, respectively. Intervention trials should be conducted to assess whether vitamin K administration plays a role in the prevention and treatment of severe Covid-19.

Impact of COVID-19: urging a need for multi-domain assessment of COVID-19 inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively analyse data obtained from the multi-domain assessment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, to describe their health status at discharge, and to investigate whether subgroups of patients, more specific ICU patients and older adults (> 70 years), had more (or less) risk to experience specific impairments. METHODS: Retrospective case series in the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium of confirmed COVID-19 patients 'after surviving an ICU-stay', 'aged ≥ 70 years', or 'aged < 70 years with a length of hospitalization > 7 days'. Exclusion criteria were 'unwilling to cooperate', 'medically unstable', or 'palliative care policy'. Following tests were used: 'Five Times Sit To Stand Test', 'hand grip dynamometry', 'Barthel index', 'Swallowing screening', 'Montreal Cognitive Assessment', 'Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale', and 'Nutritional Risk Screening 2002'. RESULTS: One or more tests were obtained in 135/163 patients (83.3%). Physical impairments were present in 43.2-82.8% of the patients. Median BI was 10/20 indicating limited self-dependency. Swallow impairments were present in 3/53 (5.7%) and 24/76 (31.6%) had risk of malnutrition. Impaired memory was seen in 26/43 (60.5%) and 22/47 (46.8%) had elevated anxiety/depression scores. Older adults had more physical, functional, and cognitive impairments. ICU patients had a lower hand grip force. CONCLUSION(S): The high prevalence of physical, cognitive, psychological, and functional impairments in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, both ICU and non-ICU patients, indicates that assessment of impairments is imperative. These results imply that rehabilitation and follow-up is essential for these patients. This paper proposes a short, workable assessment composed with known outcome measures to assess different domains of COVID-19 patients.

Itraconazole for COVID-19: preclinical studies and a proof-of-concept randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The antifungal drug itraconazole exerts in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 in Vero and human Caco-2 cells. Preclinical and clinical studies are required to investigate if itraconazole is effective for the treatment and/or prevention of COVID-19. METHODS: Due to the initial absence of preclinical models, the effect of itraconazole was explored in a clinical, proof-of-concept, open-label, single-center study, in which hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care with or without itraconazole. Primary outcome was the cumulative score of the clinical status until day 15 based on the 7-point ordinal scale of the World Health Organization. In parallel, itraconazole was evaluated in a newly established hamster model of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission, as soon as the model was validated. FINDINGS: In the hamster acute infection model, itraconazole did not reduce viral load in lungs, stools or ileum, despite adequate plasma and lung drug concentrations. In the transmission model, itraconazole failed to prevent viral transmission. The clinical trial was prematurely discontinued after evaluation of the preclinical studies and because an interim analysis showed no signal for a more favorable outcome with itraconazole: mean cumulative score of the clinical status 49 vs 47, ratio of geometric means 1.01 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.19) for itraconazole vs standard of care. INTERPRETATION: Despite in vitro activity, itraconazole was not effective in a preclinical COVID-19 hamster model. This prompted the premature termination of the proof-of-concept clinical study. FUNDING: KU Leuven, Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO), Horizon 2020, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Rationale for azithromycin in COVID-19: an overview of existing evidence.

Azithromycin has rapidly been adopted as a repurposed drug for the treatment of COVID-19, despite the lack of high-quality evidence. In this review, we critically appraise the current pharmacological, preclinical and clinical data of azithromycin for treating COVID-19. Interest in azithromycin has been fuelled by favourable treatment outcomes in other viral pneumonias, a documented antiviral effect on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and uncontrolled case series early in the pandemic. Its antiviral effects presumably result from interfering with receptor mediated binding, viral lysosomal escape, intracellular cell-signalling pathways and enhancing type I and III interferon expression. Its immunomodulatory effects may mitigate excessive inflammation and benefit tissue repair. Currently, in vivo reports on azithromycin in COVID-19 are conflicting and do not endorse its widespread use outside of clinical trials. They are, however, mostly retrospective and therefore inherently biased. The effect size of azithromycin may depend on when it is started. Also, extended follow-up is needed to assess benefits in the recovery phase. Safety data warrant monitoring of drug-drug interactions and subsequent cardiac adverse events, especially with hydroxychloroquine. More prospective data of large randomised controlled studies are expected and much-needed. Uniform reporting of results should be strongly encouraged to facilitate data pooling with the many ongoing initiatives.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). FINDINGS: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. FUNDING: None.