The National Early Warning Score on admission predicts severe disease and in-hospital mortality of the coronavirus disease 2019 Delta variant: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Clinical risk scores are widely used in emergency medicine, and some studies have evaluated their use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, no studies have evaluated their use in patients with the COVID-19 Delta variant. We aimed to study the performance of four different clinical scores (National Early Warning Score [NEWS], quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [qSOFA], Confusion, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, and Age ≥65 [CRB-65], and Kanagawa score) in predicting the risk of severe disease (defined as the need for intubation and in-hospital mortality) in patients with the COVID-19 Delta variant. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Delta variant infection between June 1 and December 31, 2021. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the aforementioned clinical risk scores at admission to predict severe disease. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were compared between the clinical risk scores and we identified new cut-off points for all four scores. Results: A total of 249 adult patients were included, of whom 18 developed severe disease. A NEWS ≥7 at admission predicted severe disease with 72.2% sensitivity and 86.2% specificity. The NEWS (AUROC 0.88) was superior to both the qSOFA (AUROC 0.74) and the CRB-65 (AUROC 0.67), and there was no significant difference between the NEWS and Kanagawa score (AUROC 0.86). Conclusion: The NEWS at hospital admission predicted the severity of the COVID-19 Delta variant with high accuracy.

Combination therapy with predicted body weight-based dexamethasone, remdesivir, and baricitinib in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A single-center retrospective cohort study during 5th wave in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone, remdesivir, and baricitinib reduce mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A single-arm study using combination therapy with all three drugs reported low mortality in patients with severe COVID-19. In this clinical setting, whether dexamethasone administered as a fixed dose of 6 mg has sufficient inflammatory modulation effects of reducing lung injury has been debated. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study was conducted to compare the treatment strategies/management in different time periods. A total of 152 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia who required oxygen therapy were included in this study. A predicted body weight (PBW)-based dose of dexamethasone with remdesivir and baricitinib was administered between May and June 2021. After this period, patients were administered a fixed dose of dexamethasone at 6.6 mg/day between July and August 2021. The additional respiratory support frequency of high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation was analyzed. Moreover, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the duration of oxygen therapy and the 30-day discharge alive rate, and they were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Intervention and prognostic comparisons were performed in 64 patients with PBW-based and 88 with fixed-dose groups. The frequency of infection or additional respiratory support did not differ statistically. The cumulative incidence of being discharged alive or oxygen-free rate within 30 days did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who required oxygen therapy, combination therapy with PBW-based dexamethasone, remdesivir, and baricitinib might not shorten the hospital stay's length or oxygen therapy's duration.

Relationship between Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and IFN-λ3 Levels in the Administration of Oxygen following COVID-19 Vaccination.

Although the effectiveness of vaccination at preventing hospitalization and severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been reported in numerous studies, the detailed mechanism of innate immunity occurring in host cells by breakthrough infection is unclear. One hundred forty-six patients were included in this study. To determine the effects of vaccination and past infection on innate immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection, we analyzed the relationship between anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and biomarkers associated with the deterioration of COVID-19 (IFN-λ3, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, procalcitonin, and D-dimer). Anti-S Abs were classified into two groups according to titer: high titer (≥250 U/ml) and low titer (<250 U/ml). A negative correlation was observed between anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and IFN-λ3 levels (r = -0.437, p < 0.001). A low titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs showed a significant association with oxygen demand in patients, excluding aspiration pneumonia. Finally, in a multivariate analysis, a low titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs was an independent risk factor for oxygen demand, even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, aspiration pneumonia, and IFN-λ3 levels. In summary, measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and IFN-λ3 may have clinical significance for patients with COVID-19. To predict the oxygen demand of patients with COVID-19 after hospitalization, it is important to evaluate the computed tomography findings to determine whether the pneumonia is the result of COVID-19 or aspiration pneumonia.

Multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled study of the efficacy and safety of favipiravir and nafamostat mesilate in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nafamostat combined with favipiravir for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel assignment study in hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive favipiravir alone (n = 24) or nafamostat with favipiravir (n = 21). The outcomes included changes in the World Health Organization clinical progression scale score, time to improvement in body temperature, and improvement in oxygen saturation (SpO2). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the changes in the clinical progression scale between nafamostat with favipiravir and favipiravir alone groups (median, -0.444 vs -0.150, respectively; least-squares mean difference, -0.294; P = 0.364). The time to improvement in body temperature was significantly shorter in the combination group (5.0 days; 95% confidence interval, 4.0-7.0) than in the favipiravir group (9.0 days; 95% confidence interval, 7.0-18.0; P =0.009). The changes in SpO2 were greater in the combination group than in the favipiravir group (0.526% vs -1.304%, respectively; least-squares mean difference, 1.831; P = 0.022). No serious adverse events or deaths were reported, but phlebitis occurred in 57.1% of the patients in the combination group. CONCLUSION: Although our study showed no differences in clinical progression, earlier defervescence, and recovery of SpO2 were observed in the combination group.

Development of a novel score model to predict hyperinflammation in COVID-19 as a forecast of optimal steroid administration timing.

Objectives: This study aims to create and validate a useful score system predicting the hyper-inflammatory conditions of COVID-19, by comparing it with the modified H-score. Methods: A total of 98 patients with pneumonia (without oxygen therapy) who received initial administration of casirivimab/imdevimab or remdesivir were included in the study. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: patients who required corticosteroid due to deterioration of pneumonia, assessed by chest X-ray or CT or respiratory failure, and those who did not, and clinical parameters were compared. Results: Significant differences were detected in respiratory rate, breaths/min, SpO2, body temperature, AST, LDH, ferritin, and IFN-λ3 between the two groups. Based on the data, we created a corticosteroid requirement score: (1) the duration of symptom onset to treatment initiation ≥ 7 d, (2) the respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths/min, (3) the SpO2 ≤ 95%, (4) BT ≥ 38.5°C, (5) AST levels ≥ 40 U/L, (6) LDH levels ≥ 340 U/L, (7) ferritin levels ≥ 800 ng/mL, and (8) IFN-λ3 levels ≥ 20 pg/mL. These were set as parameters of the steroid predicting score. Results showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of the steroid predicting score (AUC: 0.792, 95%CI: 0.698-0.886) was significantly higher than that of the modified H-score (AUC: 0.633, 95%CI: 0.502-0.764). Conclusion: The steroid predicting score may be useful to predict the requirement of corticosteroid therapy in patients with COVID-19. The data may provide important information to facilitate a prospective study on a larger scale in this field.

Impact of inhaled ciclesonide on asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: A randomized trial.

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide in the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as gauged by pneumonia progression. This multi-center, open-label randomized trial was conducted with patients recruited from 22 hospitals across Japan. Participants were patients admitted with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 without signs of pneumonia on chest X-rays. Asymptomatic participants were diagnosed after identification through contact tracing. Trial participants were randomized to either the ciclesonide or control arm. Participants in the treatment arm were administered 400 µg of ciclesonide three times a day over seven consecutive days. The primary endpoint was exacerbated pneumonia within seven days. Secondary outcomes were changes in clinical findings, laboratory findings, and changes over time in the amount of the viral genome. In the treatment group, 16 patients (39.0%) were classified as having exacerbated pneumonia compared to 9 (18.8%) in the control group. The risk ratio (RR) was 2.08 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-3.75), indicating a worsening of pneumonia in the ciclesonide group. Significant differences were noted in participants with a fever on admission (RR: 2.62, 90% CI: 1.17-5.85, 95% CI: 1.00-6.82) and individuals 60 years of age or older (RR: 8.80, 90% CI: 1.76-44.06, 95% CI: 1.29-59.99). The current results indicated that ciclesonide exacerbates signs of pneumonia on images in individuals with mild or asymptomatic symptoms of COVID-19 without worsening clinical symptoms.

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of camostat mesilate in patients with COVID-19 (CANDLE study).

BACKGROUND: In vitro drug screening studies have indicated that camostat mesilate (FOY-305) may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection into human airway epithelial cells. This study was conducted to investigate whether camostat mesilate is an effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Patients were enrolled if they were admitted to a hospital within 5 days of onset of COVID-19 symptoms or within 5 days of a positive test for asymptomatic patients. Severe cases (e.g., those requiring oxygenation/ventilation) were excluded. Patients were enrolled, randomized, and allocated to each group using an interactive web response system. Randomization was performed using a minimization method with the factors medical institution, age, and underlying diseases (chronic respiratory disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and obesity). The patients, investigators/subinvestigators, study coordinators, and other study personnel were blinded throughout the study. Patients were administered camostat mesilate (600 mg qid; four to eight times higher than the clinical doses in Japan) or placebo for up to 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to the first two consecutive negative tests for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: One-hundred fifty-five patients were randomized to receive camostat mesilate (n = 78) or placebo (n = 77). The median time to the first test was 11.0 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.0-12.0) in the camostat mesilate group and 11.0 days (95% CI: 10.0-13.0) in the placebo group. Conversion to negative viral status by day 14 was observed in 45 of 74 patients (60.8%) in the camostat mesilate group and 47 of 74 patients (63.5%) in the placebo group. The primary (Bayesian) and secondary (frequentist) analyses found no significant differences in the primary endpoint between the two groups. No additional safety concerns beyond those already known for camostat mesilate were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Camostat mesilate did not substantially reduce the time to viral clearance, based on upper airway viral loads, compared with placebo for treating patients with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04657497. Japan Registry for Clinical Trials, jRCT2031200198.

Potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among people handling linens used by COVID-19 patients before and after washing.

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when people handle linens is uncertain. We examined the presence of SARS-CoV-2 on linens, in the air, and on personal protective equipment (PPE) to assess potential infection risk among individuals who handle linens used by SARS-CoV-2-infected people. Patients in a hospital and an accommodation facility who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 participated in this study in 2020. Linen samples before washing or disinfection, rinse water after washing or disinfection, air in the workplace at the hospital and an accommodation facility, and the PPE worn by linen-handling people were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and viable viruses. Among 700 samples from 13 SARS-CoV-2-infected participants and their surrounding environment, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from 14% (52/362) of the linens used by COVID-19 patients (cycle threshold [Ct] value: 33-40). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from 8% (2/26) of rinse water after washing or disinfection, from 15% (16/104) of air samples in the workspace, and from 10% (5/52) of gowns worn by linen-handling people, all with high Ct values (> 36). No SARS-CoV-2 was isolated from any samples. The potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from handling linens used by SARS-CoV-2-infected people exists but appears to below.

Development of a novel score model to predict hyperinflammation in COVID-19 as a forecast of optimal steroid administration timing

Objectives This study aims to create and validate a useful score system predicting the hyper-inflammatory conditions of COVID-19, by comparing it with the modified H-score. Methods A total of 98 patients with pneumonia (without oxygen therapy) who received initial administration of casirivimab/imdevimab or remdesivir were included in the study. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: patients who required corticosteroid due to deterioration of pneumonia, assessed by chest X-ray or CT or respiratory failure, and those who did not, and clinical parameters were compared. Results Significant differences were detected in respiratory rate, breaths/min, SpO2, body temperature, AST, LDH, ferritin, and IFN-λ3 between the two groups. Based on the data, we created a corticosteroid requirement score: (1) the duration of symptom onset to treatment initiation ≥ 7 d, (2) the respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths/min, (3) the SpO2 ≤ 95%, (4) BT ≥ 38.5°C, (5) AST levels ≥ 40 U/L, (6) LDH levels ≥ 340 U/L, (7) ferritin levels ≥ 800 ng/mL, and (8) IFN-λ3 levels ≥ 20 pg/mL. These were set as parameters of the steroid predicting score. Results showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of the steroid predicting score (AUC: 0.792, 95%CI: 0.698–0.886) was significantly higher than that of the modified H-score (AUC: 0.633, 95%CI: 0.502–0.764). Conclusion The steroid predicting score may be useful to predict the requirement of corticosteroid therapy in patients with COVID-19. The data may provide important information to facilitate a prospective study on a larger scale in this field.

Favipiravir, camostat, and ciclesonide combination therapy in patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia with/without oxygen therapy: An open-label, single-center phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

Background: The effectiveness of combination therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia remains unclear. We evaluated favipiravir, camostat, and ciclesonide combination therapy in patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: In this open-label phase 3 study, hospitalized adults who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and had COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled prior to official vaccination drive in Japan. Participants were randomly assigned to favipiravir monotherapy or favipiravir + camostat + ciclesonide combination therapy. The primary outcome was the length of hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection after study treatment. The hospitalization period was calculated from the time of admission to the time of patient discharge using the clinical management guide of COVID-19 for front-line healthcare workers developed by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (Version 3). Cases were registered between November 11, 2020, and May 31, 2021. Japan Registry of Clinical Trials registration: jRCTs031200196. Findings: Of 121 enrolled patients, 56 received monotherapy and 61 received combination therapy. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the groups. The median time of hospitalization was 10 days for the combination and 11 days for the monotherapy group. The median time to discharge was statistically significantly lower in the combination therapy vs monotherapy group (HR, 1·67 (95% CI 1·03-2·7; P = 0·035). The hospital discharge rate was statistically significantly higher in the combination therapy vs monotherapy group in patients with less severe COVID-19 infections and those who were ≤60 years. There were no significant differences in clinical findings between the groups at 4, 8, 11, 15, and 29 days. Adverse events were comparable between the groups. There were two deaths, with one in each group. Interpretation: Combination oral favipiravir, camostat and, ciclesonide therapy could decrease the length of hospitalization stays without safety concerns in patients with moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. However, lack of hard clinical primary outcome is one of the major limitations of the study. Funding: This research was supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) under Grant Number 20fk0108261h0001.

Bilobectomy for synchronous multiple lung cancer after COVID-19 pneumonia: a case report.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel emerging disease and a major risk factor for postoperative complications, especially in thoracic surgery. However, it is unclear how previous COVID-19 infection may affect perioperative management of lung resection patients. A 70-year-old woman visited her primary doctor complaining of chest pain. Chest computed tomography (CT) revealed three abnormal nodules in the right upper and middle lung lobes and synchronous triple primary cancer was suspected. Before we could assess the patient for surgery, she developed a persistent fever. A second chest CT scan revealed newly emerged subpleural ground-glass opacities (GGO) in the right lung. The patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia and hospitalized. She was treated for COVID-19 (Clinical Trial: jRCTs031200196) and discharged in a satisfactory condition 10 days later. A right upper and middle bilobectomy was performed 60 days after the patient's initial COVID-19 diagnosis without any complications. Histopathological examination of the nodules identified synchronous triple primary lung cancer. The subpleural right upper and middle lung lobe tissue showed peribronchial lymphocyte infiltration and interstitial thickening. However, immunohistochemical staining for the SARS-CoV-2 antigen and PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 were both negative. In this case, bilobectomy for triple primary lung cancer was performed safely after COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies are needed to establish a safe and appropriate perioperative management system for thoracic surgery in patients recovering from COVID-19 pneumonia.

Elevated TAT in COVID-19 Patients with Normal D-Dimer as a Predictor of Severe Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Analysis of 797 Patients.

Although previous studies have revealed that elevated D-dimer in the early stage of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) indicates pulmonary intravascular coagulation, the state of coagulation/fibrinolysis disorder with normal D-dimer is unknown. The study aimed to investigate how coagulation/fibrinolysis markers affect severe respiratory failure in the early stage of COVID-19. Among 1043 patients with COVID-19, 797 patients were included in our single-center retrospective study. These 797 patients were divided into two groups, the normal D-dimer and elevated D-dimer groups and analyzed for each group. A logistic regression model was fitted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2, fibrinogen ≥ 617 mg/dL, thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT) ≥ 4.0 ng/mL, and plasmin-alpha2-plasmin inhibitor-complex (PIC) > 0.8 µg/mL. A multivariate analysis of the normal D-dimer group demonstrated that being male and TAT ≥ 4.0 ng/mL significantly affected severe respiratory failure. In a multivariate analysis of the elevated D-dimer group, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and fibrinogen ≥ 617 mg/dL significantly affected severe respiratory failure. The elevated PIC did not affect severe respiratory failure in any group. Our study demonstrated that hypercoagulation due to SARS-CoV-2 infection may occur even during a normal D-dimer level, causing severe respiratory failure in COVID-19.

Preliminary study regarding the predicted body weight-based dexamethasone therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The RECOVERY clinical trial reported that 6 mg of dexamethasone once daily for up to 10 days reduces the 28-day mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving respiratory support. In our clinical setting, a fixed dose of dexamethasone has prompted the question of whether inflammatory modulation effects sufficiently reduce lung injury. Therefore, preliminary verification on the possibility of predicted body weight (PBW)-based dexamethasone therapy was conducted in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study was conducted in a Japanese University Hospital to compare the treatment strategies/management in different periods. Consecutive patients (n = 90) with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen therapy and were treated with dexamethasone between June 2020 and May 2021 were analyzed. Initially, 60 patients administered a fixed dexamethasone dose of 6.6 mg/day were defined as the conventional group, and then, 30 patients were changed to PBW-based therapy. The 30-day discharged alive rate and duration of oxygen therapy were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. The multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate the effects of PBW-based dexamethasone therapy on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or mechanical ventilation (MV). RESULTS: In the PBW-based group, 9, 13, and 8 patients were administered 6.6, 9.9, and 13.2 mg/day of dexamethasone, respectively. Additional respiratory support including HFNC, NIV, or MV was significantly less frequently used in the PBW-based group (P = 0.0046), with significantly greater cumulative incidence of being discharged alive and shorter oxygen demand within 30 days (92 vs. 89%, log-rank P = 0.0094, 90 vs. 92%, log-rank P = 0.0002, respectively). Patients treated with PBW-based therapy significantly decreased the use of additional respiratory support after adjusting for baseline imbalances (adjusted odds ratio, 0.224; 95% confidence interval, 0.062-0.813, P = 0.023). Infection occurred in 13 (21%) and 2 (7%) patients in the conventional and PBW-based groups, respectively (P = 0.082). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen therapy, PBW-based dexamethasone therapy may potentially shorten the length of hospital stay and duration of oxygen therapy and risk of using HFNC, NPPV, or MV without increasing serious adverse events or 30-day mortality.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in hypoxic patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A retrospective cohort study confirming the utility of respiratory rate index.

BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen treatment has been frequently used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory failure after the 3rd wave of the pandemic in Japan, the usefulness of the indicators of ventilator avoidance, including respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index and other parameters, namely oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio and respiratory rate (RR), remain unclear. METHODS: Between January and May 2021, our institution treated 189 COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure requiring oxygen, among which 39 patients requiring HFNC treatment were retrospectively analyzed. The group that switched from HFNC treatment to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) was defined as the HFNC success group, and the group that switched from HFNC treatment to a ventilator was defined as the HFNC failure group. We followed the patients' oxygenation parameters for a maximum of 30 days. RESULTS: HFNC treatment success occurred in 24 of 39 patients (62%) treated with HFNC therapy. Compared with the HFNC failure group, the HFNC success group had a significantly higher degree of RR improvement in the univariate analysis. Logistic regression analysis of HFNC treatment success adjusting for age, respiratory improvement, and a ROX index ≥5.55 demonstrated that an improved RR was associated with HFNC treatment success. The total COT duration was significantly shorter in the HFNC success group than in the HFNC failure group. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC treatment can be useful for ventilator avoidance and allow the quick withdrawal of oxygen administration. RR improvement may be a convenient, useful, and simple indicator of HFNC treatment success.

Efficacy and Safety of Favipiravir in Moderate COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients without Oxygen Therapy: A Randomized, Phase III Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is an enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus. Favipiravir is an orally administrable antiviral drug whose mechanism of action is to selectively inhibit RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. A preliminary trial in COVID-19 patients reported significant improvements across a multitude of clinical parameters, but these findings have not been confirmed in an adequate well-controlled trial. We conducted a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial assessing the efficacy and safety of favipiravir in patients with moderate pneumonia not requiring oxygen therapy. METHODS: COVID-19 patients with moderate pneumonia (SpO2 ≥ 94%) within 10 days of onset of fever (temperature ≥ 37.5 °C) were assigned to receive either placebo or favipiravir (1800 mg twice a day on Day 1, followed by 800 mg twice a day for up to 13 days) in a ratio of 1:2. An adaptive design was used to re-estimate the sample size. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome defined as the time to improvement in temperature, oxygen saturation levels (SpO2), and findings on chest imaging, and recovery to SARS-CoV-2-negative. This endpoint was re-examined by the Central Committee under blinded conditions. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were randomized. The median time of the primary endpoint was 11.9 days in the favipiravir group and 14.7 days in the placebo group, with a significant difference (p = 0.0136). Favipiravir-treated patients with known risk factors such as obesity or coexisting conditions provided better effects. Furthermore, patients with early-onset in the favipiravir group showed higher odds ratio. No deaths were documented. Although adverse events in the favipiravir group were predominantly transient, the incidence was significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested favipiravir may be one of options for moderate COVID-19 pneumonia treatment. However, the risk of adverse events, including hyperuricemia, should be carefully considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.jp number: JapicCTI-205238.

Coronary artery calcium score may be a novel predictor of COVID-19 prognosis: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have reported an association between atherosclerosis-related diseases and COVID-19, the relationship between COVID-19 severity and atherosclerosis progression remains unclear. The aim of this study is to determine the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) prognostic value in patients with COVID-19 using indices such as deterioration in oxygenation and CT images of the chest. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective study of 53 consecutive patients with COVID-19 in Narita who were admitted to our hospital between March 2020 and August 2020. CACS was calculated based on non-gated CT scans of the chest performed on admission day. The patients were divided into the following two groups based on CACS: group 1 (CACS ≥180, n=11) and group 2 (CACS <180, n=42). Following univariate analysis of the main variables, multivariate analysis of variables that may be associated with COVID-19 progression was performed. RESULTS: Multivariable logistic regression analysis of age, sex, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, number of days from symptom onset to hospitalisation and CACS of ≥180 was performed. It revealed that unlike CACS of <180, CACS of ≥180 is associated with exacerbation of oxygenation or CT images of the chest during hospitalisation (OR: 12.879, 95% CI: 1.399 to 380.401). Furthermore, this model of eight variables showed good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.119). CONCLUSION: CACS may be a prognosis marker of COVID-19 severity. Although coronary artery calcification is not typically assessed in pneumonia cases, it may provide a valuable clinical indicator for predicting severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with mild to critically-ill COVID-19: a multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study.

Corticosteroids use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, especially in mild to severe patients who do not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation. Moreover, many factors remain unclear regarding the appropriate use of corticosteroids for COVID-19. In this context, this multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of systemic corticosteroid administration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranging in the degree of severity from mild to critically-ill disease. This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed January-April 2020 across 30 institutions in Japan. Clinical outcomes were compared for COVID-19 patients who received or did not receive corticosteroids, after adjusting for propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improvement on a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15. Of 1092 COVID-19 patients analyzed, 118 patients were assigned to either the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid group, after propensity score matching. At baseline, most patients did not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation (85.6% corticosteroid group vs. 89.8% non-corticosteroid group). The odds of improvement in a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15 was significantly lower for the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (OR, 0.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.388-0.962; p = 0.034). The time to improvement in radiological findings was significantly shorter in the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.758; 95% CI, 1.323-2.337; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline clinical status. The duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (HR, 1.466; 95% CI, 0.841-2.554; p = 0.177). Of the 106 patients who received methylprednisolone, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the pulse/semi-pulse versus standard dose group (HR, 2.831; 95% CI, 1.347-5.950; p = 0.006). In conclusion, corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not improve clinical status on Day 15, but reduced the time to improvement in radiological findings for all patients regardless of disease severity and also reduced the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who required intubation.Trial registration: This study was registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on April 21, 2020 (ID: UMIN000040211).

Combination therapy of favipiravir, camostat mesilate and inhaled ciclesonide for COVID-19 pneumonia