Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother ; : e0240421, 2022 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1949959

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged to cause pandemic respiratory disease in the past 2 years, leading to significant worldwide morbidity and mortality. At the beginning of the pandemic, only nonspecific treatments were available, but recently two oral antivirals have received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Molnupiravir targets the viral polymerase and causes lethal mutations within the virus during replication. Nirmatrelvir targets SARS-CoV-2's main protease, and it is combined with ritonavir to delay its metabolism and allow nirmatrelvir to inhibit proteolytic cleavage of viral polyproteins during replication, preventing efficient virus production. Both drugs inhibit in vitro viral replication of all variants tested to date. Each is taken orally twice daily for 5 days. When started in the first 5 days of illness in persons at risk for complications due to COVID-19, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir significantly decreased severe outcomes (hospitalizations and death) with adjusted relative risk reductions of 30% and 88%, respectively, for the two treatments. Molnupiravir should not be used in children or pregnant persons due to concerns about potential toxicity, and reliable contraception should be used in persons of childbearing potential. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir may cause significant drug-to-drug interactions that limit its use in persons taking certain medications metabolized by certain cytochrome P450 enzymes. Both treatment regimens are important additions to the management of early COVID-19 in at-risk patients in the outpatient setting.

2.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(7): ofac219, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931882

ABSTRACT

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

3.
Cell Rep Med ; 3(7): 100679, 2022 07 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895507

ABSTRACT

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibits reduced susceptibility to vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, requiring a boost to generate protective immunity. We assess the magnitude and short-term durability of neutralizing antibodies after homologous and heterologous boosting with mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. All prime-boost combinations substantially increase the neutralization titers to Omicron, although the boosted titers decline rapidly within 2 months from the peak response compared with boosted titers against the prototypic D614G variant. Boosted Omicron neutralization titers are substantially higher for homologous mRNA vaccine boosting, and for heterologous mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine boosting, compared with homologous Ad26.COV2.S boosting. Homologous mRNA vaccine boosting generates nearly equivalent neutralizing activity against Omicron sublineages BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3 but modestly reduced neutralizing activity against BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 compared with BA.1. These results have implications for boosting requirements to protect against Omicron and future variants of SARS-CoV-2. This trial was conducted under ClincalTrials.gov: NCT04889209.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , Ad26COVS1 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
4.
SSRN; 2022.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-333335

ABSTRACT

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 exhibits reduced susceptibility to vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, requiring a boost to generate protective immunity. Little is known about the durability of vaccine-boosted omicron neutralizing antibodies and the potential impact of boosting with heterologous vaccine modalities. We assessed the magnitude and short-term durability of neutralizing antibodies after homologous and heterologous boosting with mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. Using pseudovirus and live virus neutralization assays, all prime-boost combinations substantially increased the neutralization titers to Omicron although the boosted titers declined rapidly within 2 months from the peak response compared to boosted titers against the prototypic D614G variant. Boosted Omicron neutralization titers were substantially higher for homologous mRNA vaccine boosting, and for heterologous mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine boosting, compared to homologous Ad26.COV2.S boosting. Homologous mRNA vaccine boosting generated nearly equivalent neutralizing activity against Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.3. These results have implications for boosting requirements to protect against Omicron and future variants of SARS-CoV-2.

5.
N Engl J Med ; 386(11): 1046-1057, 2022 03 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1655751

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although the three vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) that have received emergency use authorization in the United States are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Data are needed on the serial use of homologous boosters (same as the primary vaccine) and heterologous boosters (different from the primary vaccine) in fully vaccinated recipients. METHODS: In this phase 1-2, open-label clinical trial conducted at 10 sites in the United States, adults who had completed a Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier and had no reported history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines: mRNA-1273 (Moderna) at a dose of 100 µg, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) at a dose of 5×1010 virus particles, or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) at a dose of 30 µg. The primary end points were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on trial days 15 and 29. RESULTS: Of the 458 participants who were enrolled in the trial, 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.COV2.S, and 153 received BNT162b2 as booster vaccines; 1 participant did not receive the assigned vaccine. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. More than half the recipients reported having injection-site pain, malaise, headache, or myalgia. For all combinations, antibody neutralizing titers against a SARS-CoV-2 D614G pseudovirus increased by a factor of 4 to 73, and binding titers increased by a factor of 5 to 55. Homologous boosters increased neutralizing antibody titers by a factor of 4 to 20, whereas heterologous boosters increased titers by a factor of 6 to 73. Spike-specific T-cell responses increased in all but the homologous Ad26.COV2.S-boosted subgroup. CD8+ T-cell levels were more durable in the Ad26.COV2.S-primed recipients, and heterologous boosting with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine substantially increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells in the mRNA vaccine recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Homologous and heterologous booster vaccines had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in adults who had completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; DMID 21-0012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04889209.).


Subject(s)
/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Immunization, Secondary/adverse effects , Injections, Intramuscular/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/immunology
7.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1365-1376, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472211

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Japan , Male , Mexico , Middle Aged , Oxygen , Republic of Korea , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore , Treatment Outcome , United States
8.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 7(12): ofaa509, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1010601

ABSTRACT

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has progressed, a large volume of literature has developed delineating the clinical manifestations of acute infection. Recent reports have also started to describe persistent symptoms extending beyond the period of initial illness or hospitalization. Anecdotes of different signs and symptoms occurring after acute infection have also arisen in the lay press. Here we describe the current existing medical literature on the emerging concept of postacute COVID-19 and suggest an approach to classifying different manifestations of the syndrome. We also review long-term clinical manifestations observed in patients who recovered from infection due to other epidemic coronaviruses and briefly discuss potential mechanisms driving the phenomenon of postacute COVID-19.

10.
N Engl J Med ; 383(19): 1813-1826, 2020 11 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-884844

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Double-Blind Method , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Young Adult
12.
MMWR Recomm Rep ; 69(8): 1-24, 2020 08 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-727540

ABSTRACT

This report updates the 2019-20 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2019;68[No. RR-3]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) are expected to be available. Most influenza vaccines available for the 2020-21 season will be quadrivalent, with the exception of MF59-adjuvanted IIV, which is expected to be available in both quadrivalent and trivalent formulations.Updates to the recommendations described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 23, 2019; February 26, 2020; and June 24, 2020. Primary updates to this report include the following two items. First, the composition of 2020-21 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, influenza A(H3N2), and influenza B/Victoria lineage components. Second, recent licensures of two new influenza vaccines, Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent and Fluad Quadrivalent, are discussed. Both new vaccines are licensed for persons aged ≥65 years. Additional changes include updated discussion of contraindications and precautions to influenza vaccination and the accompanying Table, updated discussion concerning use of LAIV4 in the setting of influenza antiviral medication use, and updated recommendations concerning vaccination of persons with egg allergy who receive either cell culture-based IIV4 (ccIIV4) or RIV4.The 2020-21 influenza season will coincide with the continued or recurrent circulation of SARS-CoV-2 (the novel coronavirus associated with coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient illnesses, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html.This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2020-21 season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Advisory Committees , Aged , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Infant , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype , Influenza B virus , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pregnancy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment , Seasons , United States/epidemiology , Vaccines, Attenuated/therapeutic use , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL