The Epidemiologic Transition in French Guiana: Secular Trends and Setbacks, and Comparisons with Continental France and South American Countries.

There are great variations between population subgroups, notably in poorer countries, leading to substantial inconsistencies with those predicted by the classical epidemiologic transition theory. In this context, using public data, we aimed to determine how the singular case of French Guiana fit and transitioned in the epidemiologic transition framework. The data show a gradual decline in infant mortality to values above 8 per 1000 live births. Premature mortality rates were greater but declined more rapidly in French Guiana than in mainland France until 2017 when they reascended in a context of political turmoil followed by the COVID-19 pandemic and strong reluctance to get vaccinated. Although infections were a more frequent cause of death in French Guiana, there is a marked decline and circulatory and metabolic causes are major causes of premature death. Fertility rates remain high (>3 live births per woman), and the age structure of the population is still pyramid-shaped. The singularities of French Guiana (rich country, universal health system, widespread poverty) explain why its transition does not fit neatly within the usual stages of transition. Beyond gradual improvements in secular trends, the data also suggest that political turmoil and fake news may have detrimentally affected mortality in French Guiana and reversed improving trends.

Virus-Associated Nephropathies: A Narrative Review.

While most viral infections cause mild symptoms and a spontaneous favorable resolution, some can lead to severe or protracted manifestations, specifically in immunocompromised hosts. Kidney injuries related to viral infections may have multiple causes related to the infection severity, drug toxicity or direct or indirect viral-associated nephropathy. We review here the described virus-associated nephropathies in order to guide diagnosis strategies and treatments in cases of acute kidney injury (AKI) occurring concomitantly with a viral infection. The occurrence of virus-associated nephropathy depends on multiple factors: the local epidemiology of the virus, its ability to infect renal cells and the patient's underlying immune response, which varies with the state of immunosuppression. Clear comprehension of pathophysiological mechanisms associated with a summary of described direct and indirect injuries should help physicians to diagnose and treat viral associated nephropathies.

Vaccine breakthrough hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs

Life-threatening ‘breakthrough’ cases of critical COVID-19 are attributed to poor or waning antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in individuals already at risk. Pre-existing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs underlie at least 15% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases in unvaccinated individuals;however, their contribution to hypoxemic breakthrough cases in vaccinated people remains unknown. Here, we studied a cohort of 48 individuals (age 20-86 years) who received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine and developed a breakthrough infection with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia 2 weeks to 4 months later. Antibody levels to the vaccine, neutralization of the virus, and auto-Abs to type I IFNs were measured in the plasma. Forty-two individuals had no known deficiency of B cell immunity and a normal antibody response to the vaccine. Among them, ten (24%) had auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs (aged 43-86 years). Eight of these ten patients had auto-Abs neutralizing both IFN-α2 and IFN-ω, while two neutralized IFN-ω only. No patient neutralized IFN-β. Seven neutralized 10 ng/mL of type I IFNs, and three 100 pg/mL only. Seven patients neutralized SARS-CoV-2 D614G and the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) efficiently, while one patient neutralized Delta slightly less efficiently. Two of the three patients neutralizing only 100 pg/mL of type I IFNs neutralized both D61G and Delta less efficiently. Despite two mRNA vaccine inoculations and the presence of circulating antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs may underlie a significant proportion of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia cases, highlighting the importance of this particularly vulnerable population. Type I IFN auto-Abs are found in 20% of hypoxemic, mRNA vaccinated COVID-19 patients despite SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. Description

Persistent COVID-19 symptoms are highly prevalent 6 months after hospitalization: results from a large prospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Persistent COVID-19 symptoms have been reported up to 3 months after hospital discharge. Little is known on the frequency and the nature of persistent symptoms beyond 3 months. Here we have assessed, in the longitudinal prospective French COVID-19 cohort, symptoms that persisted 6 months after admission for COVID-19. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with virologically confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled. Follow-up was planned with a physician's visit at month (M)3 and M6 after admission. Associations between persistence of symptoms at M6 and clinical characteristics at admission were assessed through bivariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: M6 data were available for 1137 participants. Median age was 61 years (IQR 51-71) and 288 (29%, 95% CI 26-32%) were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) during the acute phase. Six hundred and fifty-five (68%, 95% CI 65-71%) and 639 (60%, 95% CI 57-63%) participants had at least one symptom at M3 and M6 visit, respectively, mostly fatigue, dyspnoea, joint pain and myalgia. At M6, 255 (24%, 95% CI 21-27%) of participants had three or more persistent symptoms. The presence of three or more symptoms at M6 was independently associated with female gender (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.40, 95% CI 1.75-3.30), having three or more symptoms at admission (aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.45-2.89) and ICU admission/transfer during acute phase (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.09-2.18), but not significantly with age or having two or more comorbidities. One hundred and twenty-five (29%, 95% CI 25-34%) of those who initially had a professional occupation were not back to work at M6. DISCUSSION: A fourth of individuals admitted to hospital for COVID-19 still had three or more persistent symptoms at M6. Longitudinal follow-up of individuals with severe COVID-19 is warranted to better understand the pathophysiology underlying this long-term persistence.

Hyponatremia is associated with poor outcome in COVID-19.

AIM: Our objective was to describe the impact of hyponatremia on the outcomes of COVID-19 patients [outcomes selected: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation or death]. METHODS: Two groups of COVID-19 patients were retrospectively screened on the basis of plasma sodium level at admission: hyponatremic (sodium < 135 mM, n = 92) or normonatremic (sodium ≥ 135 mM, n = 198) patients. Pearson's chi-2 (qualitative variables) and Student's T tests (quantitative variables) were used to compare the two groups. A multiple logistic regression model was used to explore the association between patients' clinical data and outcomes. RESULTS: Hyponatremia was frequent but generally mild. There were more male patients in the hyponatremic group (p = 0.014). Pulmonary lesions on the first thoracic CT-scan performed during hospitalization were significantly more extensive in the hyponatremic group (p = 0.010). ICU admission, mechanical ventilation or death were significantly more frequent in hyponatremic compared to normonatremic patients (37 versus 14%; p < 0.001; 17 versus 6%; p = 0.003; 18 versus 9%, p = 0.042, respectively). Hyponatremia was an independent predictor of adverse outcomes (adjusted Odds-ratio: 2.77 [1.26-6.15, p = 0.011]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed an independent relationship between hyponatremia at admission and transfer to ICU, use of mechanical ventilation or death in COVID-19 patients. Hyponatremia may reflect the severity of underlying pulmonary lesions. Our results support the use of sodium levels as a simple bedside screening tool for the early identification of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients at high risk of poor outcome.

Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown. Objective: To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group. Results: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.