Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 41
Filter
1.
J Med Virol ; 95(6): e28819, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20235863

ABSTRACT

An understanding of the midterm sequelae in COVID-19 and their association with corticosteroids use are needed. Between March and July 2020, we evaluated 1227 survivors of COVID-19, 3 months posthospitalization, of whom 213 had received corticosteroids within 7 days of admission. Main outcome was any midterm sequelae (oxygen therapy, shortness of breath, one major clinical sign, two minor clinical signs or three minor symptoms). Association between corticosteroids use and midterm sequelae was assessed using inverse propensity-score weighting models. Our sample included 753 (61%) male patients, and 512 (42%) were older than 65 years. We found a higher rate of sequelae among users than nonusers of corticosteroids (42% vs. 35%, odds ratio [OR] 1.40 [1.16-1.69]). Midterm sequelae were more frequent in users of low-dose corticosteroids than nonusers (64% vs. 51%, OR 1.60 [1.10-2.32]), whereas no association between higher doses (≥20 mg/day equivalent of dexamethasone) and sequelae was evidenced (OR 0.95 [0.56-1.61]). Higher risk of sequelae with corticosteroids use was observed among subjects with propensity score below the 90th percentile. Our study suggest that corticosteroids use during hospitalization for COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of midterm sequelae.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Male , Female , SARS-CoV-2 , Prospective Studies , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/adverse effects , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Disease Progression , Survivors
2.
Pharmacol Res Perspect ; 11(3): e01072, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20239666

ABSTRACT

The current COVID-19 pandemic was an exceptional health situation, including for drug use. As there was no known effective drug for COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, different drug candidates were proposed. In this article, we present the challenges for an academic Safety Department to manage the global safety of a European trial during the pandemic. The National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) conducted a European multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving three repurposed and one-in development drugs (lopinavir/ritonavir, IFN-ß1a, hydroxychloroquine, and remdesivir) in adults hospitalized with COVID-19. From 25 March 2020 to 29 May 2020, the Inserm Safety Department had to manage 585 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) initial notification and 396 follow-up reports. The Inserm Safety Department's staff was mobilized to manage these SAEs and to report Expedited safety reports to the competent authorities within the legal timeframes. More than 500 queries were sent to the investigators due to a lack of or incoherent information on SAE forms. At the same time, the investigators were overwhelmed by the management of patients suffering from COVID-19 infection. These particular conditions of missing data and lack of accurate description of adverse events made evaluation of the SAEs very difficult, particularly the assessment of the causal role of each investigational medicinal product. In parallel, working difficulties were accentuated by the national lockdown, frequent IT tool dysfunctions, delayed implementation of monitoring and the absence of automatic alerts for SAE form modification. Although COVID-19 is a confounding factor per se, the delay in and quality of SAE form completion and the real-time medical analysis by the Inserm Safety Department were major issues in the quick identification of potential safety signals. To conduct a high-quality clinical trial and ensure patient safety, all stakeholders must take their roles and responsibilities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Pandemics , Pharmacovigilance , Communicable Disease Control , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Multicenter Studies as Topic
3.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2022 Sep 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2230347

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Persistent post-acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms (PACSs) have been reported up to 6 months after hospital discharge. Herein we assessed the symptoms that persisted 12 months (M12) after admission for COVID-19 in the longitudinal prospective national French coronavirus disease cohort. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with a confirmed virological diagnosis of COVID-19 were enrolled. Follow-up was planned until M12 after admission. Associations between persistence of ≥3 PACSs at M12 and clinical characteristics at admission were assessed through logistic regression according to gender. RESULTS: We focused on participants enrolled between 24 January 2020 and 15 July 2020, to allow M12 follow-up. The M12 data were available for 737 participants. Median age was 61 years, 475 (64%) were men and 242/647 (37%) were admitted to intensive care units during the acute phase. At M12, 27% (194/710) of the participants had ≥3 persistent PACS, mostly fatigue, dyspnoea and joint pain. Among those who had a professional occupation before the acute phase, 91 out of 339 (27%) were still on sick leave at M12. Presence of ≥3 persistent PACS was associated with female gender, both anxiety and depression, impaired health-related quality of life and Medical Muscle Research Council Scale <57. Compared with men, women more often reported presence of ≥3 persistent PACSs (98/253, 39% vs. 96/457, 21%), depression and anxiety (18/152, 12% vs. 17/268, 6% and 33/156, 21% vs. 26/264, 10%, respectively), impaired physical health-related quality of life (76/141, 54% vs. 120/261, 46%). Women had less often returned to work than men (77/116, 66% vs. 171/223, 77%). CONCLUSIONS: One fourth of the individuals admitted to hospital for COVID-19 still had ≥3 persistent PACSs at M12 post-discharge. Women reported more often ≥3 persistent PACSs, suffered more from anxiety and depression and had less often returned to work than men.

4.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 89(4): 1318-1328, 2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2213501

ABSTRACT

Setting-up a high quality, compliant and efficient pharmacovigilance (PV) system in multi-country clinical trials can be more challenging for academic sponsors than for companies. To ensure the safety of all participants in academic studies and that the PV system fulfils all regulations, we set up a centralized PV system that allows sponsors to delegate work on PV. This initiative was put in practice by our Inserm-ANRS MIE PV department in two distinct multinational European consortia with 19 participating countries: conect4children (c4c) for paediatrics research and EU-Response for Covid-19 platform trials. The centralized PV system consists of some key procedures to harmonize the complex safety processes, creation of a local safety officer (LSO) network and centralization of all safety activities. The key procedures described the safety management plan for each trial and how tasks were shared and delegated between all stakeholders. Processing of serious adverse events (SAEs) in a unique database guaranteed the full control of the safety data and continuous evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio. The LSO network participated in efficient regulatory compliance across multiple countries. In total, there were 1312 SAEs in EU-Response and 83 SAEs in c4c in the four trials. We present here the lessons learnt from our experience in four clinical trials. We managed heterogeneous European local requirements and implemented efficient communication with all trial teams. Our approach builds capacity for PV that can be used by multiple academic sponsors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pharmacovigilance , Humans , Child , Risk Assessment , Databases, Factual
5.
Crit Care ; 27(1): 9, 2023 01 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2196397

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib has shown efficacy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but no placebo-controlled trials have focused specifically on severe/critical COVID, including vaccinated participants. METHODS: Bari-SolidAct is a phase-3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling participants from June 3, 2021 to March 7, 2022, stopped prematurely for external evidence. Patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were randomised to Baricitinib 4 mg once daily or placebo, added to standard of care. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 60 days. Participants were remotely followed to day 90 for safety and patient related outcome measures. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-nine patients were screened, 284 randomised, and 275 received study drug or placebo and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analyses (139 receiving baricitinib and 136 placebo). Median age was 60 (IQR 49-69) years, 77% were male and 35% had received at least one dose of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. There were 21 deaths at day 60 in each group, 15.1% in the baricitinib group and 15.4% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference and 95% CI - 0.1% [- 8·3 to 8·0]). In sensitivity analysis censoring observations after drug discontinuation or rescue therapy (tocilizumab/increased steroid dose), proportions of death were 5.8% versus 8.8% (- 3.2% [- 9.0 to 2.7]), respectively. There were 148 serious adverse events in 46 participants (33.1%) receiving baricitinib and 155 in 51 participants (37.5%) receiving placebo. In subgroup analyses, there was a potential interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on 60-day mortality. In a subsequent post hoc analysis there was a significant interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on the occurrence of serious adverse events, with more respiratory complications and severe infections in vaccinated participants treated with baricitinib. Vaccinated participants were on average 11 years older, with more comorbidities. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial was prematurely stopped for external evidence and therefore underpowered to conclude on a potential survival benefit of baricitinib in severe/critical COVID-19. We observed a possible safety signal in vaccinated participants, who were older with more comorbidities. Although based on a post-hoc analysis, these findings warrant further investigation in other trials and real-world studies. Trial registration Bari-SolidAct is registered at NCT04891133 (registered May 18, 2021) and EUClinicalTrials.eu ( 2022-500385-99-00 ).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Adult , Male , Middle Aged , Female , SARS-CoV-2 , RNA, Viral , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Double-Blind Method
7.
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2045562

ABSTRACT

Objectives Persistent post-acute COVID-19 symptom (PACS) have been reported up to 6-months (M6) after hospital discharge. Here we assessed, in the longitudinal prospective national French COVID cohort, symptoms that persisted 12-months (M12) after admission for COVID-19. Methods Hospitalized patients with a virologically-confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled. Follow-up was planned until M12 post-admission. Associations between persistence of ≥3 PACS at M12 and clinical characteristics at admission were assessed through logistic regression according to gender. Results We focused on participants enrolled between January 24th and July 15th 2020, in order to allow M12 follow-up. M12 data were available for 737 participants. Median age was 61 years, 475 (64%) were men and 242/647 (37%) were admitted to ICU during the acute phase. At M12, 194/710 (27%) of participants had ≥3 persistent PACS, mostly fatigue, dyspnea and joint pain. Among those who had a professional occupation before the acute phase 91/339 (27%) were still on sick leave at M12. Presence of ≥3 persistent PACS was associated with female gender, both anxiety and depression, impaired health-related quality of life (HRQL) and mMRC scale <57. Compared to men, women more often reported presence of >3 persistent PACS (98/253, 39% vs 96/457, 21%), depression and anxiety (18/152, 12% vs 17/268, 6% and 33/156, 21% vs 26/264, 10%, respectively), impaired physical HRQL (76/141, 54% vs 120/261, 46%). Women had less often returned to work than men (77/116, 66% vs 171/223, 77%). Conclusions A fourth of individuals admitted to hospital for COVID-19 still had ≥3 persistent PACS at M12 post-discharge. Women reported more often ≥3 persistent PACS, suffered more from anxiety and depression, and had less often returned to work than men.

8.
BMC Infect Dis ; 22(1): 540, 2022 Jun 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1951099

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact of the variant of concern (VOC) Alpha on the severity of COVID-19 has been debated. We report our analysis in France. METHODS: We conducted an exposed/unexposed cohort study with retrospective data collection, comparing patients infected by VOC Alpha to contemporaneous patients infected by historical lineages. Participants were matched on age (± 2.5 years), sex and region of hospitalization. The primary endpoint was the proportion of hospitalized participants with severe COVID-19, defined as a WHO-scale > 5 or by the need of a non-rebreather mask, occurring up to day 29 after admission. We used a logistic regression model stratified on each matched pair and accounting for factors known to be associated with the severity of the disease. RESULTS: We included 650 pairs of patients hospitalized between Jan 1, 2021, and Feb 28, 2021, in 47 hospitals. Median age was 70 years and 61.3% of participants were male. The proportion of participants with comorbidities was high in both groups (85.0% vs 90%, p = 0.004). Infection by VOC Alpha was associated with a higher odds of severe COVID-19 (41.7% vs 38.5%-aOR = 1.33 95% CI [1.03-1.72]). CONCLUSION: Infection by the VOC Alpha was associated with a higher odds of severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies
9.
Commun Med (Lond) ; 2: 56, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1947553

ABSTRACT

Background: An ongoing need during the COVID-19 pandemic has been the requirement for accurate and efficient point-of-care testing platforms to distinguish infected from non-infected people, and to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 infections from other viruses. Electrochemical platforms can detect the virus via its envelope spike protein by recording changes in voltammetric signals between samples. However, this remains challenging due to the limited sensitivity of these sensing platforms. Methods: Here, we report on a nanobody-functionalized electrochemical platform for the rapid detection of whole SARS-CoV-2 viral particles in complex media such as saliva and nasopharyngeal swab samples. The sensor relies on the functionalization of gold electrode surface with highly-oriented Llama nanobodies specific to the spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD). The device provides results in 10 min of exposure to 200 µL of unprocessed samples with high specificity to SARS-CoV-2 viral particles in human saliva and nasopharyngeal swab samples. Results: The developed sensor could discriminate between different human coronavirus strains and other respiratory viruses, with 90% positive and 90% negative percentage agreement on 80 clinical samples, as compared to RT-qPCR. Conclusions: We believe this diagnostic concept, also validated for RBD mutants and successfully tested on Delta variant samples, to be a powerful tool to detect patients' infection status, easily extendable to other viruses and capable of overcoming sensing-related mutation effects.

10.
JAMA Intern Med ; 182(9): 906-916, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1919150

ABSTRACT

Importance: The benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated. Objectives: To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNo2) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (o2SC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021. Interventions: Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to o2SC, CPAP, or HFNo2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.4 [59.3-73.1] years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among o2SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNo2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among o2 support groups (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.53-1.47]). Interactions between interventions were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of IMV requirement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344730; EudraCT: 2020-001457-43.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen , Phosphates , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
12.
J Clin Med ; 11(8)2022 Apr 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785785

ABSTRACT

Predictive scores assessing the risk of respiratory failure in COVID-19 mostly focused on the prediction of early intubation. A combined assessment of clinical parameters and biomarkers of endotheliopathy could allow to predict late worsening of acute respiratory failure (ARF), subsequently warranting intubation in COVID-19. Retrospective single-center derivation (n = 92 subjects) and validation cohorts (n = 59 subjects), including severe COVID-19 patients with non-invasive respiratory support, were assessed for at least 48 h following intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We used stepwise regression to construct the COVID endothelial and respiratory failure (CERES) score in a derivation cohort, and secondly assessed its accuracy for the prediction of late ARF worsening, requiring intubation within 15 days following ICU admission in an independent validation cohort. Platelet count, fraction of inspired oxygen, and endocan measured on ICU admission were identified as the top three predictive variables for late ARF worsening and subsequently included in the CERES score. The area under the ROC curve of the CERES score to predict late ARF worsening was calculated in the derivation and validation cohorts at 0.834 and 0.780, respectively. The CERES score is a simple tool with good performances to predict respiratory failure worsening, leading to secondary intubation, in COVID-19 patients.

13.
Front Immunol ; 13: 851497, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775682

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause life-threatening acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Recent data suggest a role for neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in COVID-19-related lung damage partly due to microthrombus formation. Besides, pulmonary embolism (PE) is frequent in severe COVID-19 patients, suggesting that immunothrombosis could also be responsible for increased PE occurrence in these patients. Here, we evaluate whether plasma levels of NET markers measured shorty after admission of hospitalized COVID-19 patients are associated with clinical outcomes in terms of clinical worsening, survival, and PE occurrence. Patients and Methods: Ninety-six hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included, 50 with ARDS (severe disease) and 46 with moderate disease. We collected plasma early after admission and measured 3 NET markers: total DNA, myeloperoxidase (MPO)-DNA complexes, and citrullinated histone H3. Comparisons between survivors and non-survivors and patients developing PE and those not developing PE were assessed by Mann-Whitney test. Results: Analysis in the whole population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients revealed increased circulating biomarkers of NETs in patients who will die from COVID-19 and in patients who will subsequently develop PE. Restriction of our analysis in the most severe patients, i.e., the ones who enter the hospital for COVID-19-related ARDS, confirmed the link between NET biomarker levels and survival but not PE occurrence. Conclusion: Our results strongly reinforce the hypothesis that NETosis is an attractive therapeutic target to prevent COVID-19 progression but that it does not seem to be linked to PE occurrence in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracellular Traps , Pulmonary Embolism , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Biomarkers , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology
14.
Res Sq ; 2022 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1766249

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate (IFR) doubles with every five years of age from childhood onward. Circulating autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α, IFN-ω, and/or IFN-ß are found in ~20% of deceased patients across age groups. In the general population, they are found in ~1% of individuals aged 20-70 years and in >4% of those >70 years old. With a sample of 1,261 deceased patients and 34,159 uninfected individuals, we estimated both IFR and relative risk of death (RRD) across age groups for individuals carrying autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs, relative to non-carriers. For autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, the RRD was 17.0[95% CI:11.7-24.7] for individuals under 70 years old and 5.8[4.5-7.4] for individuals aged 70 and over, whereas, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules, the RRD was 188.3[44.8-774.4] and 7.2[5.0-10.3], respectively. IFRs increased with age, from 0.17%[0.12-0.31] for individuals <40 years old to 26.7%[20.3-35.2] for those ≥80 years old for autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, and from 0.84%[0.31-8.28] to 40.5%[27.82-61.20] for the same two age groups, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs increase IFRs, and are associated with high RRDs, particularly those neutralizing both IFN-α2 and -ω. Remarkably, IFR increases with age, whereas RRD decreases with age. Autoimmunity to type I IFNs appears to be second only to age among common predictors of COVID-19 death.

15.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 77(5): 1404-1412, 2022 04 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1722504

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. METHODS: We analysed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23), randomized to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Additional analyses were conducted stratified on time of treatment initiation (≤7 or >7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or ≥3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). RESULTS: In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by infected cells by 2-fold on average (95% CI: 1.5-3.2-fold). Model-based simulations predict that remdesivir reduced time to viral clearance by 0.7 days compared with SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95% CI: 2.8-25-fold) and the median time to viral clearance by 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir halved viral production, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared with SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high viral load at randomization.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
16.
J Clin Med ; 11(4)2022 Feb 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686845

ABSTRACT

Innate immune response, especially type 1 interferon (IFN) response is considered to play a substantial role in the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A reduced and delayed IFN response has been associated with progression to severe COVID-19. In this study, we investigated levels of circulating IFNα and serum neutralizing activity in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We found a significant association of levels of IFNα with age (p = 0.007). This association has also been observed in a cohort of COVID-19 outpatients with mild infection (p = 0.02). The impact of senescence on IFN response can explain the higher susceptibility of the elderly to severe COVID-19.

17.
J Clin Med ; 10(21)2021 Oct 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480816

ABSTRACT

We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients under veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) for COVID-19-Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (CARDS) between the first and the second wave. From 1 March 2020 to 30 November 2020, fifty patients requiring a V-V ECMO support for CARDS were included. Patient demographics, pre-ECMO, and day one, three, and seven on-ECMO data and outcomes were collected. The 90-day mortality was 11% higher during the second wave (18/26 (69%)) compared to the first wave (14/24 (58%) (p = 0.423). During the second wave, all of the patients were given steroids compared to 16.7% during the first wave (p < 0.001). The second wave's patients had been on non-invasive ventilation support for a longer period than in the first wave, with the median time from ICU admission to ECMO implantation being significantly higher (14 (11-20) vs. 7.7 (5-12) days; p < 0.001). Mechanical properties of the lung were worsened in the second wave's CARDS patients before ECMO implantation (median static compliance 20 (16-26) vs. 29 (25-37) mL/cmH2O; p < 0.001) and during ECMO days one, three, and seven. More bacterial co-infections before implantation and under ECMO were documented in the second wave group. Despite a better evidence-driven critical care management, we depicted fewer encouraging outcomes during the second wave.

18.
Sci Immunol ; 6(62)2021 08 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434875

ABSTRACT

Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/mL, in plasma diluted 1 to 10) of IFN-α and/or -ω are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 pneumonia, but not in subjects with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω (100 pg/mL, in 1/10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3,595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients > 80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1,124 deceased patients (aged 20 days-99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-ß. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected subjects from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of subjects carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals <70 years, 2.3% between 70 and 80 years, and 6.3% >80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-ß do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over-80s, and total fatal COVID-19 cases.


Subject(s)
Autoantibodies/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Interferon Type I/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Autoantibodies/blood , COVID-19/mortality , Case-Control Studies , Child , Child, Preschool , Critical Illness , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Interferon-alpha/immunology , Middle Aged , Young Adult
19.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(2): 209-221, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1428619

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. METHODS: DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h 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. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome). INTERPRETATION: No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support. FUNDING: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Standard of Care , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Europe , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL