ABSTRACT
Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen and/or ventilator support. Following prior publication of preliminary results, here we present the final results after completion of data monitoring. Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care (SoC) alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir and IFN-beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzyme, severe chronic kidney disease, any contra-indication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before randomization, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breast-feeding. Here, we report results for remdesivir + SoC versus SoC alone. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg infusion on day 1, followed by once daily infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. Treatment assignation was performed via web-based block randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 843 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=423; remdesivir, n=420). At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was as follow in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities: 62/420 (14.8%) and 72/423 (17.0%); Not hospitalized, limitation on activities: 126/420 (30%) and 135/423 (31.9%); Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen: 56/420 (13.3%) and 31/423 (7.3%); Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen: 75/420 (17.9%) and 65/423 (15.4%); Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices: 16/420 (3.8%) and 16/423 (3.8%); Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO: 64/420 (15.2%) and 80/423 (18.9%); Death: 21/420 (5%) and 24/423 (5.7%). The difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant (OR for remdesivir, 1.02, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.70, P=0.93). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups (remdesivir, n=147/410, 35.9%, versus control, n=138/423, 32.6%, p=0.29). Interpretation: Remdesivir use for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15. Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), AGMT gGmbH, FEDER "European Regional Development Fund", Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Remdesivir was provided free of charge by Gilead.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , PneumoniaABSTRACT
Due to the highly variable clinical phenotype of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), deepening the host genetic contribution to severe COVID-19 may further improve our understanding about underlying disease mechanisms. Here, we describe an extended GWAS meta-analysis of 3,260 COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure and 12,483 population controls from Italy, Spain, Norway and Germany, as well as hypothesis-driven targeted analysis of the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region and chromosome Y haplotypes. We include detailed stratified analyses based on age, sex and disease severity. In addition to already established risk loci, our data identify and replicate two genome-wide significant loci at 17q21.31 and 19q13.33 associated with severe COVID-19 with respiratory failure. These associations implicate a highly pleiotropic ~0.9-Mb 17q21.31 inversion polymorphism, which affects lung function and immune and blood cell counts, and the NAPSA gene, involved in lung surfactant protein production, in COVID-19 pathogenesis.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory InsufficiencyABSTRACT
Global healthcare systems are challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to optimize allocation of treatment and resources in intensive care, as clinically established risk assessments such as SOFA and APACHE II scores show only limited performance for predicting the survival of severely ill COVID-19 patients. Comprehensively capturing the host physiology, we speculated that proteomics in combination with new data-driven analysis strategies could produce a new generation of prognostic discriminators. We studied two independent cohorts of patients with severe COVID-19 who required intensive care and invasive mechanical ventilation. SOFA score, Charlson comorbidity index and APACHE II score were poor predictors of survival. Plasma proteomics instead identified 14 proteins that showed concentration trajectories different between survivors and non-survivors. A proteomic predictor trained on single samples obtained at the first time point at maximum treatment level (i.e. WHO grade 7) and weeks before the outcome, achieved accurate classification of survivors in an exploratory (AUROC 0.81) as well as in the independent validation cohort (AUROC of 1.0). The majority of proteins with high relevance in the prediction model belong to the coagulation system and complement cascade. Our study demonstrates that predictors derived from plasma protein levels have the potential to substantially outperform current prognostic markers in intensive care.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Blood Coagulation Disorders, InheritedABSTRACT
Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and/or ventilator support.Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care alone or in combination with intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once-daily for 9 days or until discharge). Treatment assignation was performed via web-based randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 832 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=418; remdesivir, n=414). There was no difference in the clinical status neither at day 15 between treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.85) nor at day 29. The proportion of deaths at day 28 was not significantly different between control (8.9%) and remdesivir (8.2%) treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.93 95%CI 0.57 to 1.52, P=0.77). There was also no difference on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics (effect of remdesivir on viral load slope, -0.004 log10 cp/10,000 cells/day, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02, P=0.75). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups.Interpretation: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15 or day 29, nor with a reduction in mortality, nor with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Trial Registration: DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE)Declaration of Interests: Dr. Costagliola reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mentré reports grants from INSERM Reacting (French Government), grants from Ministry of Health (French Government), grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study; grants from Sanofi, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hites reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), grants from Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mootien reports non-financial support from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaborit reports non-financial support from Gilead, non- financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Botelho-Nevers reports other from Pfizer, other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lacombe reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wallet reports personal fees and non-financial support from Jazz pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and nonPage financial support from Kite-Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kimmoun reports personal fees from Aguettan, personal fees from Aspen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Thiery reports personal fees from AMGEN, outside the submitted work. Dr. Burdet reports personal fees from Da Volterra, personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Poissy reports personal fees from Gilead for lectures, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goehringer reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants from Biomerieux, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peytavin reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Merck France, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from TheraTechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Danion reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Raffi reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gallien reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work; and has received consulting fee from Gilead in August 2020 to check the registration file of remdesivir for the French administration. Dr. Nseir reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Biomérieux, personal fees from BioRad, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lefèvre reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Guedj reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee (CPP Ile-de-France-III, approval #20.03.06.51744), and is sponsored by the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm, France); it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all included participants (or their legal representatives if unable to consent). The present analysis is based on the protocol v11.0 of December 12th, 2020.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Multiple Sulfatase Deficiency DiseaseABSTRACT
Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to assess the outcome of elderly ICU patients treated during the spring and autumn COVID-19 surges in Europe.Methods: A prospective European observation study (The COVIP study) in ICU patients aged 70 years and older admitted with COVID-19 disease from March to December 2020. An electronic Case Record Form was used to register a number of parameters including: SOFA score, Clinical Frailty Scale, comorbidities, usual ICU procedures including pharmacotherapy, limitation of care, ICU length of stay and survival at 30 days. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04321265).Results: In total 2711 patients were included, 1325 from the first and 1291 from the second surge and 94 in between. Median age was 74 and 75 years in surge 1 and surge 2 respectively. SOFA score was higher in the first surge (median 6 versus 5, p<0.0001). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio at admission was higher during surge 1 and more patients received mechanical ventilation (78% versus 68%, p<0.0001). More patients were given corticosteroids in surge 2 (93 vs 38%, p<0.0001). 30 days survival was lower in the second surge (57.4% vs 49.3%) with adjusted HR of 1.43 (1.18-1.74).Conclusion: An unexpected, but significant, increase in 30-day mortality was observed during the second surge in our cohort of elderly ICU patients. The reason for this is unknown, however, practice changed and this might not be supported by sufficient evidence in this elderly population with COVID-19.Trial Registration: NCT04321265Funding Statement: The support of the study in France by a grant from Fondation Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris pour la recherche is greatly appreciated. In Norway, the study was supported by a grant from the Health Region West. In addition, the study was supported by a grant from the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). EOSCsecretariat.eu has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Programme call H2020-INFRAEOSC-05-2018-2019, grant agreement number 831644.Declaration of Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. JCS reports grants (full departmental disclosure) from Orion Pharma, Abbott Nutrition International, B. Braun Medical AG, CSEM AG, Edwards Lifesciences Services GmbH, Kenta Biotech Ltd, Maquet Critical Care AB, Omnicare Clinical Research AG, Nestle, Pierre Fabre Pharma AG, Pfizer , Bard Medica S.A., Abbott AG, Anandic Medical Systems, Pan Gas AG Healthcare, Bracco, Hamilton Medical AG, Fresenius Kabi, Getinge Group Maquet AG, Dräger AG, Teleflex Medical GmbH, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck Sharp and Dohme AG, Eli Lilly and Company, Baxter, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, CSL Behring, Novartis, Covidien, Philips Medical, Phagenesis Ltd, Prolong Pharmaceuticals and Nycomed outside the submitted work. The money went into departmental funds. No personal financial gain applied.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was organised by the Very old Intensive care Patients (VIP) project 10,11 within the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) who also endorsed the study (www.vipstudy.org). Due to variations in requirement for ethical consent, some countries could recruit patients without upfront informed consent while others had to obtain it. The study deliberately allowed for coenrolment of study patients to other COVID-19 studies. The study adhered to the European Union General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR) directive.
Subject(s)
Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced , COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led highly developed healthcare systems to the brink of collapse due to the large numbers of patients being admitted into hospitals. One of the potential prognostic indicators in patients with COVID-19 is frailty. The degree of frailty could be used to assist both the triage into intensive care, and decisions regarding treatment limitations. Our study sought to determine the interaction of frailty and age in elderly COVID-19 ICU patients.MethodsA prospective multi-centre study of COVID-19 patients ≥ 70 years admitted to intensive care in 138 ICUs from 28 countries was conducted. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Additionally, comorbidities, management strategies and treatment limitations were recorded.ResultsThe study included 1346 patients (28% female) with a median age of 75 years (IQR 72-78, range 70-96), 16.3% were older than 80 years and 21% of the patients were frail. The overall survival at 30 days was 59% (95%CI 56-62), with 66% (63-69) in fit, 53% (47-61) in vulnerable and 41% (35-47) in frail patients (p<0.001). In frail patients, there was no difference in 30 day survival between different age categories. Frailty was linked to an increased use of treatment limitations and less use of mechanical ventilation. In a model controlling for age, disease severity, sex, treatment limitations and comorbidities, frailty was independently associated with lower survival.ConclusionFrailty provides relevant prognostic information in elderly COVID-19 patients in addition to age and comorbidities.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
COVID-19 is highly variable in its clinical presentation, ranging from asymptomatic infection to severe organ damage and death. There is an urgent need for predictive markers that can guide clinical decision-making, inform about the effect of experimental therapies, and point to novel therapeutic targets. Here, we characterize the time-dependent progression of COVID-19 through different stages of the disease, by measuring 86 accredited diagnostic parameters and plasma proteomes at 687 sampling points, in a cohort of 139 patients during hospitalization. We report that the time-resolved patient molecular phenotypes reflect an initial spike in the systemic inflammatory response, which is gradually alleviated and followed by a protein signature indicative of tissue repair, metabolic reconstitution and immunomodulation. Further, we show that the early host response is predictive for the disease trajectory and gives rise to proteomic and diagnostic marker signatures that classify the need for supplemental oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilation, and that predict the time to recovery of mildly ill patients. In severely ill patients, the molecular phenotype of the early host response predicts survival, in two independent cohorts and weeks before outcome. We also identify age-specific molecular response to COVID-19, which involves increased inflammation and lipoprotein dysregulation in older patients. Our study provides a deep and time resolved molecular characterization of COVID-19 disease progression, and reports biomarkers for risk-adapted treatment strategies and molecular disease monitoring. Our study demonstrates accurate prognosis of COVID-19 outcome from proteomic signatures recorded weeks earlier.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chronobiology Disorders , InflammationABSTRACT
Introduction: On February 25 th , 2020, the first two patients were tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Tyrol, Austria. Based on alarming reports from the neighboring region Lombardy in Italy, rapid measures were taken to ensure adequate intensive care unit (ICU) preparedness for a surge of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: A coordinated county wide step-up approach ensured adequate ICU bed availability for COVID-19 patients avoiding shortage of mechanical ventilation capacity. All patients admitted to an ICU with confirmed or strongly suspected COVID-19 in the region of Tyrol, Austria were recorded in the Tyrolean COVID-19 Intensive Care Registry. Data were censored on July 17 th , 2020. Results: From March 9 th , 2020 to July 17 th , 2020, 106 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were admitted to an ICU. Median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and the majority of patients were male (76 patients [71.7%]). Median simplified acute physiology score III (SAPS III) was 56 (IQR, 49-64) points. The median duration from appearance of first symptoms to ICU admission was 8 (IQR, 5-11) days. Frequently observed comorbidities were arterial hypertension in 71 patients (67.0%), cardiovascular (45 patients [42.5%]) and renal comorbidities (21 patients [19.8%]). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 72 patients (67.9%), 6 patients (5.6%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment. Renal replacement therapy was necessary in 21 patients (19.8%). Median ICU length of stay (LOS) was 18 (IQR, 5-31) days, median hospital LOS was 27 (IQR, 13-49) days.ICU mortality was 21.7% (23 patients), while only one patient (0.9%) died after ICU discharge on a general ward (hospital mortality 22,6%). As of July 17 th , 2020, two patients are still hospitalized, one in an ICU, one on a general ward. Conclusions: Critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to an ICU in the region of Tyrol, Austria, showed a high severity of disease often requiring complex treatments with increased lengths of ICU- and hospital stay. Despite that, we found ICU and hospital mortality in this cohort to be remarkably low. Adaptive surge response providing sufficient ICU resources presumably has contributed to the overall favorable outcome.