Early administration of remdesivir may reduce mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients : A propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is the only antiviral agent approved for the treatment of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Studies show conflicting results regarding its effect on mortality. METHODS: In this single center observational study, we included adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients who were treated with remdesivir were compared to controls. Remdesivir was administered for 5 days. To adjust for any imbalances in our cohort, a propensity score matched analysis was performed. The aim of our study was to analyze the effect of remdesivir on in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 350 patients (175 remdesivir, 175 controls) were included in our analysis. Overall, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between groups remdesivir 5.7% [10/175] vs. control 8.6% [15/175], hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-1.12, p = 0.091. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction of in-hospital mortality in patients who were treated with remdesivir ≤ 7 days of symptom onset remdesivir 4.2% [5/121] vs. control 10.4% [13/125], hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75, p = 0.012 and in female patients remdesivir 2.9% [2/69] vs. control 12.2% [9/74], hazard ratio 0.18 95%CI 0.04 to 0.85, p = 0.03. Patients in the remdesivir group had a significantly longer LOS (11 days vs. 9 days, p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Remdesivir did not reduce in-hospital mortality in our whole propensity score matched cohort, but subgroup analysis showed a significant mortality reduction in female patients and in patients treated within ≤ 7 days of symptom onset. Remdesivir may reduce mortality in patients who are treated in the early stages of illness.

Experiences and challenges faced by patients with COVID-19 who were hospitalised and participated in a randomised controlled trial: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: As part of a randomised controlled trial, this qualitative study aimed to identify experiences and challenges of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 during illness and treatment (objective 1: COVID-19-related perspectives; objective 2: trial participation-related perspectives). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews following a prespecified interview guide, transcribed verbatim and analysed in accordance with the grounded theory process. Investigator triangulation served to ensure rigour of the analysis. SETTING: Interviews were embedded in a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, open-label platform trial testing efficacy and safety of experimental therapeutics for patients with COVID-19 (Austrian Corona Virus Adaptive Clinical Trial). PARTICIPANTS: 20 patients (60±15 years) providing 21 interviews from 8 June 2020 to 25 April 2021. RESULTS: Qualitative data analysis revealed four central themes with subthemes. Theme 1, 'A Severe Disease', related to objective 1, was characterised by subthemes 'symptom burden', 'unpredictability of the disease course', 'fear of death' and 'long-term aftermaths with lifestyle consequences'. Theme 2, 'Saved and Burdened by Hospitalization', related to objective 1, comprised patients describing their in-hospital experience as 'safe haven' versus 'place of fear', highlighting the influence of 'isolation'. Theme 3, 'Managing One's Own Health', related to objective 1, showed how patients relied on 'self-management' and 'coping' strategies. Theme 4, 'Belief in Medical Research', related to objective 2, captured patients' 'motivation for study participation', many expressing 'information gaps' and 'situational helplessness' in response to study inclusion, while fewer mentioned 'therapy side-effects' and provided 'study reflection'. Investigator triangulation with an expert focus group of three doctors who worked at the study centre confirmed the plausibility of these results. CONCLUSIONS: Several of the identified themes (2, 3, 4) are modifiable and open for interventions to improve care of patients with COVID-19. Patient-specific communication and information is of utmost importance during clinical trial participation, and was criticised by participants of the present study. Disease self-management should be actively encouraged. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04351724.

Tocilizumab vs. baricitinib in hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients: results from a real-world cohort.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab and baricitinib are recommended treatment options for hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support. Literature about its efficacy and safety in a head-to-head comparison is scarce. METHODS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen were treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib additionally to dexamethasone. Tocilizumab was available from February till the 19th of September 2021 and baricitinib from 21st of September. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome parameters were progression to mechanical ventilation (MV), length-of-stay (LOS) and potential side effects. RESULTS: 159 patients (tocilizumab 68, baricitinib 91) with a mean age of 60.5 years, 64% male were included in the study. Tocilizumab patients were admitted 1 day earlier, were in a higher WHO category at the time of inclusion and had a higher CRP level on admission and treatment initiation. Patients receiving Tocilizumab were treated with remdesivir more often and only patients in the baricitinib group were treated with monoclonal antibodies. Other characteristics did not differ significantly. In-hospital mortality (18% vs. 11%, p = 0.229), progression to MV (19% vs. 11%, p = 0.173) and LOS (13 vs. 12 days, p = 0.114) did not differ between groups. Side effects were equally distributed between groups, except ALAT elevation which was significantly more often observed in the tocilizumab group (43% vs. 25%, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality, progression to MV and LOS were not significantly different in patients treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib additionally to standard of care. Both drugs seem equally effective but further head-to-head trials are needed.

Management of hospitalized influenza A patients during the season 2018/19 : Comparison of three medical departments and the effect on outcome and antibiotic usage.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and treatment of influenza patients are often provided across several medical specialties. We compared patient outcomes at an infectious diseases (ID), a rheumatology (Rheu) and a pulmonology (Pul) department. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective observational multicenter study we included all influenza positive adults who were hospitalized and treated at flu isolation wards in three hospitals in Vienna during the season 2018/2019. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients (49% female) with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range [IQR] 61-82) were included. No differences regarding age, sex and most underlying diseases were present at admission. Frequencies of the most common complications differed: acute kidney failure (ID 12.7%, Rheu 21.2%, Pulm 37.1%, p < 0.001), acute heart failure (ID 4.3%, Rheu 17.1%, Pulm 14.4%, p < 0.001) and respiratory insufficiency (ID 45.1%, Rheu 41.5%, Pulm 56.3%, p = 0.030). Oseltamivir prescription was lowest at the pulmonology flu ward (ID 79.6%, Rheu 90.5%, Pulm 61.7%, p < 0.001). In total 176 patients (35.9%) developed pneumonia. Antibiotic selection varied between the departments: amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (ID 28.9%, Rheu 63.8%, Pulm 5.9%, p < 0.001), cefuroxime (ID 28.9%, Rheu 1.3%, Pulm 0%, p < 0.001), 3rd generation cephalosporins (ID 4.4%, Rheu 5%, Pulm 72.5%, p < 0.001), doxycycline (ID 17.8%, Rheu 0%, Pulm 0%, p < 0.001). The median length of stay was significantly different between wards: ID 6 days (IQR 5-8), Rheu 6 days (IQR 5-7) and Pulm 7 days (IQR 5-9.5, p = 0.034). In-hospital mortality was 4.3% and did not differ between specialties. CONCLUSION: We detected differences in oseltamivir usage, length of in-hospital stay and antibiotic choices for pneumonia. Influenza-associated mortality was unaffected by specialty.

Muscle involvement in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, several reports indicated neurological involvement in COVID-19 disease. Muscle involvement has also been reported as evidenced by creatine kinase (CK) elevations and reports of myalgia. METHODS: Creatine kinase, markers of inflammation, pre-existing diseases and statin use were extracted from records of Austrian hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Disease severity was classified as severe in case of intensive care unit (ICU) admission or mortality. COVID-19 patients were additionally compared to an historical group of hospitalised influenza patients. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-one patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 258 with influenza were included in the final analysis. CK was elevated in 27% of COVID-19 and in 28% of influenza patients. CK was higher in severe COVID-19 as were markers of inflammation. CK correlated significantly with inflammation markers, which had an independent impact on CK when adjusted for demographic variables and disease severity. Compared to influenza patients, COVID-19 patients were older, more frequently male, had more comorbidities, and more frequently had a severe disease course. Nevertheless, influenza patients had higher baseline CK than COVID-19, and 35.7% of intensive care unit (ICU)-admitted patients had CK levels >1,000 U/L compared to only 4.7% of ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: HyperCKemia occurs in a similar frequency in COVID-19 and influenza infection. CK levels were lower in COVID-19 than in influenza in mild and severe disease. CK levels strongly correlate with disease severity and markers of inflammation. To date, it remains unclear whether hyperCKemia is due to a virus-triggered inflammatory response or direct muscle toxicity.

Detection of bacteria via multiplex PCR in respiratory samples of critically ill COVID-19 patients with suspected HAP/VAP in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have high rates of bacterial superinfection. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction panels may be able to provide useful information about the incidence and spectrum of bacteria causing superinfections. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study we included all COVID-19 positive patients admitted to our intensive care unit with suspected hospital-acquired pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) in whom the BioFire® Pneumonia Panel (PP) was performed from tracheal aspirate or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for diagnostic purposes. The aim of our study was to analyze the spectrum of pathogens detected with the PP. RESULTS: In this study 60 patients with a median age of 62.5 years were included. Suspected VAP was the most frequent (48/60, 80%) indication for performing the PP. Tracheal aspirate was the predominant sample type (50/60, 83.3%). The PP led to a negative, monomicrobial and polymicrobial result in 36.7%, 35% and 28.3% of the patients, respectively. The three most detected bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus (13/60, 21.7%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (12/60, 20%) and Haemophilus influenzae (9/60, 15%). Neither atypical bacteria nor resistance genes were detected. Microbiological culture of respiratory specimens was performed in 36 (60%) patients concomitantly. The PP and microbiological culture yielded a non-concordant, partial concordant and completely concordant result in 13.9% (5/36), 30.6% (11/36) and 55.6% (20/36) of the analyzed samples, respectively. CONCLUSION: In critically ill COVID-19 patients with suspected HAP/VAP results of the PP and microbiological culture methods were largely consistent. In our cohort, S. aureus and K. pneumoniae were the most frequently detected organisms. A higher diagnostic yield may be achieved if both methods are combined.

High Dose Lopinavir/Ritonavir Does Not Lead to Sufficient Plasma Levels to Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Background: Despite lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) demonstrating in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, large trials failed to show any net clinical benefit. Since SARS-CoV-2 has an EC50 of 16.4 µg/ml for LPV this could be due to inadequate dosing. Methods: COVID-19 positive patients admitted to the hospital who received high dose LPV/RTV were included. High dose (HD) LPV/RTV 200/50 mg was defined as four tablets bid as loading dose, then three tablets bid for up to 10 days. Trough plasma concentrations were measured after the loading dose and on day 5-7 in steady state (SS). Post loading dose (PLD) and SS plasma trough levels were compared with SS trough levels from COVID-19 patients who received normal dose (ND) LPV/RTV (2 tablets bid) at the beginning of the pandemic. Results: Fifty patients (30% female) with a median age of 59 years (interquartile range 49-70.25) received HD LPV/RTV. Median HD-PLD concentration was 24.9 µg/ml (IQR 15.8-30.3) and significantly higher than HD-SS (12.9 µg/ml, IQR 7.2-19.5, p < 0.001) and ND-SS (13.6 µg/ml, IQR 10.1-22.2, p = 0.013). HD-SS and ND-SS plasma levels did not differ significantly (p = 0.507). C-reactive-protein showed a positive correlation with HD-SS (Spearman correlation-coefficient rS = 0.42, p = 0.014) and ND-SS (rS = 0.81, p = 0.015) but not with HD-PLD (rS = 0.123, p = 0.43). Conclusion: HD-PLD plasma trough concentration was significantly higher than HD-SS and ND-SS concentration, but no difference was detected between HD-SS and ND-SS trough levels. Due to the high EC50 of SARS-CoV-2 and the fact that LPV/RTV is highly protein bound, it seems unlikely that LPV/RTV exhibits a relevant antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 in vivo.

COVID-19 is not "just another flu": a real-life comparison of severe COVID-19 and influenza in hospitalized patients in Vienna, Austria.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is regularly compared to influenza. Mortality and case-fatality rates vary widely depending on incidence of COVID-19 and the testing policy in affected countries. To date, data comparing hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and influenza is scarce. METHODS: Data from patients with COVID-19 were compared to patients infected with influenza A (InfA) and B (InfB) virus during the 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons. All patients were ≥ 18 years old, had PCR-confirmed infection and needed hospital treatment. Demographic data, medical history, length-of-stay (LOS), complications including in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 142 patients with COVID-19 were compared to 266 patients with InfA and 300 with InfB. Differences in median age (COVID-19 70.5 years vs InfA 70 years and InfB 77 years, p < 0.001) and laboratory results were observed. COVID-19 patients had fewer comorbidities, but complications (respiratory insufficiency, pneumonia, acute kidney injury, acute heart failure and death) occurred more frequently. Median length-of-stay (LOS) was longer in COVID-19 patients (12 days vs InfA 7 days vs. InfB 7 days, p < 0.001). There was a fourfold higher in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (23.2%) when compared with InfA (5.6%) or InfB (4.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In hospitalized patients, COVID-19 is associated with longer LOS, a higher number of complications and higher in-hospital mortality compared to influenza, even in a population with fewer co-morbidities. This data, a high reproduction number and limited treatment options, alongside excess mortality during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, support the containment strategies implemented by most authorities.

Hydroxychloroquine versus lopinavir/ritonavir in severe COVID-19 patients : Results from a real-life patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with a high mortality. To date no trial comparing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) has been performed. METHODS: Hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were treated with either HCQ or LPV/RTV if they had either respiratory insufficiency (SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air or the need for oxygen insufflation) or bilateral consolidations on chest X­ray and at least 2 comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis. Outcomes investigated included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) negativity and side effects of treatment. RESULTS: Of 156 patients (41% female) with a median age of 72 years (IQR 55.25-81) admitted to our department, 67 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (20 received HCQ, 47 LPV/RTV). Groups were comparable regarding most baseline characteristics. Median time from symptom onset to treatment initiation was 8 days and was similar between the groups (p = 0.727). There was no significant difference (HCQ vs. LPV/RTV) in hospital mortality (15% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.418), ICU admission rate (20% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.470) and length of stay (9 days vs. 11 days, p = 0.340). A PCR negativity from nasopharyngeal swabs was observed in approximately two thirds of patients in both groups. Side effects led to treatment discontinuation in 15% of patients in the LPV/RTV group. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed in outcome parameters in patients treated with HCQ or LPV/RTV but patients in the LPV/RTV group showed a numerically lower hospital mortality rate. Additionally, in comparison to other studies we demonstrated a lower mortality in patients treated with LPV/RTV despite having similar patient groups, perhaps due to early initiation of treatment.