Clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19 pneumonia who require oxygen: observational comparative study using routine care data

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pneumonia who require oxygen.DesignComparative observational study using data collected from routine care.SettingFour French tertiary care centres providing care to patients with covid-19 pneumonia between 12 March and 31 March 2020.Participants181 patients aged 18-80 years with documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia who required oxygen but not intensive care.InterventionsHydroxychloroquine at a dose of 600 mg/day within 48 hours of admission to hospital (treatment group) versus standard care without hydroxychloroquine (control group).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was survival without transfer to the intensive care unit at day 21. Secondary outcomes were overall survival, survival without acute respiratory distress syndrome, weaning from oxygen, and discharge from hospital to home or rehabilitation (all at day 21). Analyses were adjusted for confounding factors by inverse probability of treatment weighting.ResultsIn the main analysis, 84 patients who received hydroxychloroquine within 48 hours of admission to hospital (treatment group) were compared with 89 patients who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (control group). Eight additional patients received hydroxychloroquine more than 48 hours after admission. In the weighted analyses, the survival rate without transfer to the intensive care unit at day 21 was 76% in the treatment group and 75% in the control group (weighted hazard ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.1). Overall survival at day 21 was 89% in the treatment group and 91% in the control group (1.2, 0.4 to 3.3). Survival without acute respiratory distress syndrome at day 21 was 69% in the treatment group compared with 74% in the control group (1.3, 0.7 to 2.6). At day 21, 82% of patients in the treatment group had been weaned from oxygen compared with 76% in the control group (weighted risk ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.3). Eight patients in the treatment group (10%) experienced electrocardiographic modifications that required discontinuation of treatment.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine has received worldwide attention as a potential treatment for covid-19 because of positive results from small studies. However, the results of this study do not support its use in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 who require oxygen.

Trajectories of the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition, up to two years after symptoms onset.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify trajectories of the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition, up to 2 years after symptom onset. METHODS: The ComPaRe long COVID e-cohort is a prospective cohort of patients with symptoms lasting at least 2 months after SARS-CoV2 infection. We used trajectory modeling to identify different trajectories in the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition, based on symptoms collected every 60 days using the long COVID Symptom Tool. RESULTS: A total of 2197 patients were enrolled in the cohort between December 2020 and July 2022 when the Omicron variant was not dominant. Three trajectories of the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition were identified: "high persistent symptoms" (4%), "rapidly decreasing symptoms" (5%), and "slowly decreasing symptoms" (91%). Participants with highly persistent symptoms were older and more likely to report a history of systemic diseases. They often reported tachycardia, bradycardia, palpitations, and arrhythmia. Participants with rapidly decreasing symptoms were younger and more likely to report a confirmed infection. They often reported diarrhea and back pain. Participants with slowly decreasing symptoms were more likely to have a history of functional diseases. CONCLUSION: Most patients with post-COVID-19 condition improve slowly over time, while 5% have rapid improvement in the 2 years after symptom onset and 4% have a persistent condition.

Efficacy of first dose of covid-19 vaccine versus no vaccination on symptoms of patients with long covid: target trial emulation based on ComPaRe e-cohort

Objective To evaluate the effect of covid-19 vaccination on the severity of symptoms in patients with long covid. Design Target trial emulation based on ComPaRe e-cohort. Data source ComPaRe long covid cohort, a nationwide e-cohort (ie, a cohort where recruitment and follow-up are performed online) of patients with long covid, in France. Methods Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in the ComPaRe cohort before 1 May 2021 were included in the study if they reported a confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms persistent for >3 weeks after onset, and at least one symptom attributable to long covid at baseline. Patients who received a first covid-19 vaccine injection were matched with an unvaccinated control group in a 1:1 ratio according to their propensity scores. Number of long covid symptoms, rate of complete remission of long covid, and proportion of patients reporting an unacceptable symptom state at 120 days were recorded. Results 910 patients were included in the analyses (455 in the vaccinated group and 455 in the control group). By 120 days, vaccination had reduced the number of long covid symptoms (mean 13.0 (standard deviation 9.4) in the vaccinated group v 14.8 (9.8) in the control group;mean difference −1.8, 95% confidence interval −3.0 to −0.5) and doubled the rate of patients in remission (16.6% v 7.5%, hazard ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 3.14). Vaccination reduced the effect of long covid on patients' lives (mean score on the impact tool 24.3 (standard deviation 16.7) v 27.6 (16.7);mean difference −3.3, 95% confidence interval −5.7 to −1.0) and the proportion of patients with an unacceptable symptom state (38.9% v 46.4%, risk difference −7.4%, 95% confidence interval −14.5% to −0.3%). In the vaccinated group, two (0.4%) patients reported serious adverse events requiring admission to hospital. Conclusion In this study, covid-19 vaccination reduced the severity of symptoms and the effect of long covid on patients' social, professional, and family lives at 120 days in those with persistent symptoms of infection.

Efficacy of first dose of covid-19 vaccine versus no vaccination on symptoms of patients with long covid: target trial emulation based on ComPaRe e-cohort.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of covid-19 vaccination on the severity of symptoms in patients with long covid. Design: Target trial emulation based on ComPaRe e-cohort. Data source: ComPaRe long covid cohort, a nationwide e-cohort (ie, a cohort where recruitment and follow-up are performed online) of patients with long covid, in France. Methods: Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in the ComPaRe cohort before 1 May 2021 were included in the study if they reported a confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms persistent for >3 weeks after onset, and at least one symptom attributable to long covid at baseline. Patients who received a first covid-19 vaccine injection were matched with an unvaccinated control group in a 1:1 ratio according to their propensity scores. Number of long covid symptoms, rate of complete remission of long covid, and proportion of patients reporting an unacceptable symptom state at 120 days were recorded. Results: 910 patients were included in the analyses (455 in the vaccinated group and 455 in the control group). By 120 days, vaccination had reduced the number of long covid symptoms (mean 13.0 (standard deviation 9.4) in the vaccinated group v 14.8 (9.8) in the control group; mean difference -1.8, 95% confidence interval -3.0 to -0.5) and doubled the rate of patients in remission (16.6% v 7.5%, hazard ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 3.14). Vaccination reduced the effect of long covid on patients' lives (mean score on the impact tool 24.3 (standard deviation 16.7) v 27.6 (16.7); mean difference -3.3, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to -1.0) and the proportion of patients with an unacceptable symptom state (38.9% v 46.4%, risk difference -7.4%, 95% confidence interval -14.5% to -0.3%). In the vaccinated group, two (0.4%) patients reported serious adverse events requiring admission to hospital. Conclusion: In this study, covid-19 vaccination reduced the severity of symptoms and the effect of long covid on patients' social, professional, and family lives at 120 days in those with persistent symptoms of infection.

Course of post COVID-19 disease symptoms over time in the ComPaRe long COVID prospective e-cohort.

About 10% of people infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience post COVID-19 disease. We analysed data from 968 adult patients (5350 person-months) with a confirmed infection enroled in the ComPaRe long COVID cohort, a disease prevalent prospective e-cohort of such patients in France. Day-by-day prevalence of post COVID-19 symptoms was determined from patients' responses to the Long COVID Symptom Tool, a validated self-reported questionnaire assessing 53 symptoms. Among patients symptomatic after 2 months, 85% still reported symptoms one year after their symptom onset. Evolution of symptoms showed a decreasing prevalence over time for 27/53 symptoms (e.g., loss of taste/smell); a stable prevalence over time for 18/53 symptoms (e.g., dyspnoea), and an increasing prevalence over time for 8/53 symptoms (e.g., paraesthesia). The disease impact on patients' lives began increasing 6 months after onset. Our results are of importance to understand the natural history of post COVID-19 disease.

Development and Validation of the Long Coronavirus Disease (COVID) Symptom and Impact Tools: A Set of Patient-Reported Instruments Constructed From Patients' Lived Experience.

BACKGROUND: To develop and validate patient-reported instruments, based on patients' lived experiences, for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long coronavirus disease (covid). METHODS: The long covid Symptom and Impact Tools (ST and IT) were constructed from the answers to a survey with open-ended questions to 492 patients with long COVID. Validation of the tools involved adult patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and symptoms extending over 3 weeks after onset. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relations of the ST and IT scores with health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), function (PCFS, post-COVID functional scale), and perceived health (MYMOP2, Measure yourself medical outcome profile 2). Reliability was determined by a test-retest. The "patient acceptable symptomatic state" (PASS) was determined by the percentile method. RESULTS: Validation involved 1022 participants (55% with confirmed COVID-19, 79% female, and 12.5% hospitalized for COVID-19). The long COVID ST and IT scores were strongly correlated with the EQ-5D-5L (rs = -0.45 and rs = -0.59, respectively), the PCFS (rs = -0.39 and rs = -0.55), and the MYMOP2 (rs = -0.40 and rs = -0.59). Reproducibility was excellent with an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95% confidence interval .80 to .86) for the ST score and 0.84 (.80 to .87) for the IT score. In total, 793 (77.5%) patients reported an unacceptable symptomatic state, thereby setting the PASS for the long covid IT score at 30 (28 to 33). CONCLUSIONS: The long covid ST and IT tools, constructed from patients' lived experiences, provide the first validated and reliable instruments for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long covid.

Preferences for Alternative Care Modalities Among French Adults With Chronic Illness.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of alternative care modalities (eg, teleconsultations and task shifting) that will continue to be implemented in parallel to traditional care after the pandemic. An ideal balance between alternative and traditional care modalities is unknown. Objectives: To quantify the ideal postpandemic balance between alternative and traditional care modalities among patients with chronic illness and to qualify the circumstances in which patients consider it appropriate to replace traditional care with alternative care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study invited 5999 adults with chronic illness in ComPaRe, a French nationwide e-cohort of adults with chronic conditions who volunteer their time to participate in research projects, to participate in this study, which was performed from January 27 to February 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants rated the ideal proportion at which they would use 3 alternative care modalities instead of the traditional care equivalent on a 0% to 100% scale (with 0% indicating using alternative care modalities for none of one's future care and 100% indicating using alternative care modalities for all of one's future care) of their overall future care: (1) teleconsultations, (2) online symptom-checkers to react to new symptoms, and (3) remote monitoring to adapt treatment outside consultations. The median ideal proportion of alternative care use was calculated. Perceived appropriate circumstances in which each alternative modality could replace traditional care were collected with open-ended questions. Analyses were performed on a weighted data set representative of patients with chronic illness in France. Results: Of the 5999 invited individuals, 1529 (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [14.7] years; 1072 [70.1%] female) agreed to participate (participation rate, 25.5%). Participants would choose teleconsultations for 50.0% of their future consultations (IQR, 11.0%-52.0%), online symptom-checkers over contacting their physician for 22.0% of new symptoms (IQR, 2.0%-50.0%), and remote monitoring instead of consultations for 52.3% of their treatment adaptations (IQR, 25.4%-85.4%). Participants reported 67 circumstances for which replacing traditional with alternative care modalities was considered appropriate, including 31 care activities (eg, prescription renewal and addressing acute or minor complaints), 25 patient characteristics (eg, stable chronic condition and established patient-physician relationship), and 11 required characteristics of the alternative care modalities (eg, quality assurance). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this survey study suggest that after the pandemic, patients would choose alternative over traditional care for 22% to 52% of the time across different care needs. Participants proposed 67 criteria to guide clinicians in replacing traditional care with alternative care. These findings provide a guide for redesigning care in collaboration with patients after the pandemic.

Impact of an interactive web tool on patients' intention to receive COVID-19 vaccination: a before-and-after impact study among patients with chronic conditions in France.

OBJECTIVES: In France, about 30% of the population refuses COVID-19 vaccination outright, and 9 to 40% are hesitant. We developed and evaluated an interactive web tool providing transparent and reliable information on the benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: The most recent scientific data at the time of the study were implemented into an interactive web tool offering individualized information on the risks of COVID-19 infection-related events versus vaccination-related serious adverse events. The tool was evaluated during a before-and-after impact study nested in ComPaRe, a French e-cohort of adult patients with chronic conditions. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients intending to receive vaccination after using the tool, among those not intending to receive it at baseline. RESULTS: Between January 8 and 14, 2021, we enrolled 3152 patients in the study [mean age 55.2 (SD: 16.9), 52.9% women and 63% with ≥ 2 chronic conditions]. Before consulting the tool, 961 (30.5%) refused to be vaccinated until further data on efficacy/safety was obtained and 239 (7.5%) outright refused vaccination. Among these 1200 patients, 96 (8.0%, number needed to treat: 12.5) changed their mind after consulting the tool and would subsequently accept vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Our interactive web tool represents a scalable method to help increase the intent to receive COVID-19 vaccination among patients with chronic conditions and address vaccine hesitancy. Since April 2021, our tool has been embedded on the official webpage of the French Government for COVID-19 information.

Belief and adherence to COVID 19-lockdown restrictions in patients with asthma versus other chronic diseases: results from a cross-sectional survey nested in the ComPaRe e-cohort, in France.

BACKGROUND: Asthma patients are under-represented among patients with COVID-19. Their behavior during lockdown and associated restrictions is unknown, as well as whether it was influenced by coexistent cardiovascular conditions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in May 2020, in France, nested in ComPaRe, an e-cohort of adults with chronic diseases. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 10,859 people; 3701 fully completed questionnaires. The prevalence of self-reported asthma was 7%. Patients were classified in 4 categories: asthma with (n = 106) or without (n = 149) cardiovascular disease and other diseases with (n = 1186) or without (n = 2260) cardiovascular disease. RESULT: Adherence to movement restrictions during the lockdown was very strong: 89% of participants reported a frequency of outings of "less than once per week" and "once or twice per week" for errands and no family-related outings during the lockdown. This proportion and frequency of outings were similar whatever the chronic disease (p = 0.122). Most patients (96%) reported a high feeling of security during the lockdown, but 95% felt anxious or depressed, with no difference by disease. As compared with patients with controlled asthma, those with uncontrolled asthma more frequently reported complaints related to deteriorated medical follow-up, waived care, anxiety or depression. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviors during the lockdown in France among the asthma population did not differ from patients with other chronic diseases in this cohort, which strengthens hypotheses for specific disease-related susceptibility to explain the low representation of asthmatics among COVID-19 cases. Special attention should be paid to the subgroup of patients with uncontrolled asthma during lockdowns.

Fourteen-day survival among older adults with severe infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 treated with corticosteroid: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids among older adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring oxygen. METHODS: We used routine care data from 36 hospitals in France and Luxembourg to assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids with at least 0.4 mg/kg/day equivalent prednisone (treatment group) versus standard of care (control group). Participants were adults aged 80 years or older with PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or CT scan images typical of COVID-19 pneumonia, requiring oxygen ≥3 L/min, and with an inflammatory syndrome (C-reactive protein ≥40 mg/L). The primary outcome was overall survival at day 14. In our main analysis, characteristics of patients at baseline (i.e. time when patients met all inclusion criteria) were balanced by using propensity-score inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Among the 267 patients included in the analysis, 98 were assigned to the treatment group. Their median age was 86 years (interquartile range 83-90 years) and 95% had a SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed diagnosis. In total, 43/98 (43.9%) patients in the treatment group and 84/166 (50.6%) in the control group died before day 14 (weighted hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99). The treatment and control groups did not differ significantly for the proportion of patients discharged to home/rehabilitation at day 14 (weighted relative risk 1.12, 95% CI 0.68-1.82). Twenty-two (16.7%) patients receiving corticosteroids developed adverse events, but only 11 (6.4%) from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids were associated with a significant increase in the overall survival at day 14 of patients aged 80 years and older hospitalized for severe COVID-19.

Corticosteroids in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia who require oxygen: observational comparative study using routine care data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids on outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring oxygen without mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We used routine care data from 51 hospitals in France and Luxembourg to assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids at 0.8 mg/kg/day eq. prednisone (CTC group) versus standard of care (no-CTC group) among adults 18-80 years old with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen without mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was intubation or death by day 28. In our main analysis, characteristics of patients at baseline (i.e. time when patients met all inclusion criteria) were balanced by using propensity-score inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Among the 891 patients included in the analysis, 203 were assigned to the CTC group. Use of corticosteroids was not significantly associated with risk of intubation or death by day 28 (weighted hazard ratio (wHR) 0.92, 95%CI 0.61-1.39) nor cumulative death rate (wHR 1.03, 95%CI 0.54-1.98). However, use of corticosteroids was associated with reduced risk of intubation or death by day 28 in the prespecified subgroups of patients requiring oxygen ≥3 L/min (wHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.30-0.85) or C-reactive protein level ≥100 mg/L (wHR 0.44, 95%CI 0.23-0.85). The number of hyperglycaemia events was higher for patients with corticosteroids than for those without, but the number of infections was similar. CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between the use of corticosteroids and intubation or death in the broad population of patients 18-80 years old, with COVID-19, hospitalized in settings non intensive care units. However, the treatment was associated with a reduced risk of intubation or death for patients with ≥3 L/min oxygen or C-reactive protein level ≥100 mg/L at baseline. Further research is needed to confirm the right timing for corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen only.

COVID-19-related perceptions, context and attitudes of adults with chronic conditions: Results from a cross-sectional survey nested in the ComPaRe e-cohort.

BACKGROUND: To avoid a surge of demand on the healthcare system due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must reduce transmission to individuals with chronic conditions who are at risk of severe illness with COVID-19. We aimed at understanding the perceptions, context and attitudes of individuals with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic to clarify their potential risk of infection. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was nested in ComPaRe, an e-cohort of adults with chronic conditions, in France. It assessed participants' perception of their risk of severe illness with COVID-19; their context (i.e., work, household, contacts with external people); and their attitudes in situations involving frequent or occasional contacts with symptomatic or asymptomatic people. Data were collected from March 23 to April 2, 2020, during the lockdown in France. Analyses were weighted to represent the demographic characteristics of French patients with chronic conditions. The subgroup of participants at high risk according to the recommendations of the French High Council for Public Health was examined. RESULTS: Among the 7169 recruited participants, 63% patients felt at risk because of severe illness. About one quarter (23.7%) were at risk of infection because they worked outside home, had a household member working outside home or had regular visits from external contacts. Less than 20% participants refused contact with symptomatic people and <20% used masks when in contact with asymptomatic people. Among patients considered at high risk according to the recommendations of the French High Council for Public Health, 20% did not feel at risk, which led to incautious attitudes. CONCLUSION: Individuals with chronic conditions have distorted perceptions of their risk of severe illness with COVID-19. In addition, they are exposed to COVID-19 due to their context or attitudes.