Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 31
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Mar 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831053

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Older age is associated with increased severity and death from respiratory infections, including coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The tuberculosis vaccine Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) may provide heterologous protection against non-tuberculous infections, and has been proposed as a potential preventive strategy against Covid-19. METHODS: In this multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned elderly individuals (60 years or older, n=2014) to intracutaneous vaccination with BCG (n=1008) or placebo (n=1006). The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of respiratory tract infections that required medical intervention, during 12 months of follow-up. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of Covid-19, and the effect of BCG vaccination on the cellular and humoral immune responses. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of respiratory tract infection requiring medical intervention was 0.029 in the BCG-vaccinated group and 0.024 in the control group (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.26; 98.2% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 2.44). 51 and 48 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR in the BCG and placebo group, respectively (SHR, 1.053; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.56). No difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events. BCG vaccination was associated with enhanced cytokines responses after influenza, and partially also after SARS-CoV-2 stimulation. In patients diagnosed with Covid-19, antibody responses after infection were significantly stronger if the volunteers had previously received BCG. CONCLUSIONS: BCG-vaccination had no effect on the incidence of respiratory tract infections, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, in elderly volunteers. However, BCG vaccination improved cytokine responses stimulated by influenza and SARS-CoV-2, and induced stronger antibody titers after Covid-19 infection.

2.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 2022 Apr 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1814271

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic increases healthcare worker (HCW) absenteeism. The Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine may provide non-specific protection against respiratory infections through enhancement of trained immunity. We investigated the impact of BCG vaccination on HCW absenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients in nine Dutch hospitals were randomized to BCG vaccine or placebo in a 1:1 ratio, and followed for one year using a mobile phone application. The primary endpoint was the self-reported number of days of unplanned absenteeism for any reason. Secondary endpoints included documented COVID-19, acute respiratory symptoms or fever. This was an investigator-funded study, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03987919). RESULTS: In March/April 2020, 1511 HCWs were enrolled. The median duration of follow-up was 357 person-days (IQR, 351 to 361). Unplanned absenteeism for any reason was observed in 2.8% of planned working days in the BCG group and 2.7% in the placebo group (adjusted relative risk 0.94, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.15). Cumulative incidences of documented COVID-19 were 14.2% in the BCG and 15.2% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.94, 95%CI: 0.72 to 1.24). First episodes of self-reported acute respiratory symptoms or fever occurred in 490 (66.2%) and 443 (60.2%) participants, respectively (aHR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.28). Thirty-one serious adverse events were reported (13 after BCG, 18 after placebo), none considered related to study medication. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, BCG-vaccination of HCW exposed to COVID-19 patients did not reduce unplanned absenteeism nor documented COVID-19.

3.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(5): e153-e158, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1805378

ABSTRACT

Clinicians have worked feverishly to treat patients with COVID-19 while also carrying out clinical research studies. We discuss how the clinical research community responded to the pandemic in Europe, what lessons were learned, and provide recommendations for future clinical research response during pandemics. We focused on two platform trials: RECOVERY and REMAP-CAP. Both trials were able to enrol patients very rapidly during the beginning of the pandemic because of pre-established structures and procedures, and because they share simple execution and flexibility to adjust when evidence emergences. However, contracting, regulatory hurdles, and competition with (often inadequately designed or underpowered) national trials was a major challenge in several EU countries. We recommend the creation of structures and partnerships that facilitate prioritisation of clinical research, simplification of clinical trial delivery, development of digital models and procedures for data collection and sharing, development of a mechanism to rapidly leverage pandemic funding and to connect EU funding with national funding, and investment in clinical trial networks, platform trials, and master protocols. Finally, the future pandemic clinical research response of the EU should be embedded in the global response. We believe that globally connected clinical trial networks will be essential to respond more effectively to future infectious diseases outbreaks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Disease Outbreaks , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics
4.
JAMA ; 327(13): 1247-1259, 2022 04 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1801957

ABSTRACT

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Venous Thromboembolism , Adult , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Aspirin/adverse effects , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Respiration, Artificial , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology
5.
J Thromb Haemost ; 20(5): 1206-1212, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1745875

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) occurs in one-third of critically-ill COVID-19 patients. Although prior studies identified several pathways contributing to thrombogenicity, it is unknown whether this is COVID-19-specific or also occurs in ARDS patients with another infection. OBJECTIVE: To compare pathway activity among patients having COVID-19 with PE (C19PE+), COVID-19 without PE (C19PE-), and influenza-associated ARDS (IAA) using a targeted proteomics approach. METHODS: We exploited an existing biorepository containing daily plasma samples to carefully match C19PE+ cases to C19PE- and IAA controls on mechanical ventilation duration, PEEP, FiO2, and cardiovascular-SOFA (n = 15 per group). Biomarkers representing various thrombosis pathways were measured using proximity extension- and ELISA-assays. Summed z-scores of individual biomarkers were used to represent total pathway activity. RESULTS: We observed no relevant between-group differences among 22 biomarkers associated with activation of endothelium, platelets, complement, coagulation, fibrinolysis or inflammation, except sIL-1RT2 and sST2, which were lower in C19PE- than IAA (log2-Foldchange -0.67, p = .022 and -1.78, p = .022, respectively). However, total pathway analysis indicated increased activation of endothelium (z-score 0.2 [-0.3-1.03] vs. 0.98 [-2.5--0.3], p = .027), platelets (1.0 [-1.3-3.0] vs. -3.3 [-4.1--0.6], p = .023) and coagulation (0.8 [-0.5-2.0] vs. -1.0 [-1.6-1.0], p = .023) in COVID-19 patients (C19PE+/C19PE- groups combined) compared to IAA. CONCLUSION: We observed only minor differences between matched C19PE+, C19PE-, and IAA patients, which suggests individual biomarkers mostly reflect disease severity. However, analysis of total pathway activity suggested upregulation of some distinct processes in COVID-19 could be etiologically related to increased PE-risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Pulmonary Embolism , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Thrombosis , Biomarkers , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Influenza, Human/complications , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Proteomics , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2
6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-314526

ABSTRACT

Background: Additional safe and effective vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: HERALD is an ongoing phase 2b/3 randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. SARS-CoV-2 naïve adults were randomised 1:1 to receive two doses of CVnCoV mRNA vaccine candidate or placebo 28 days apart. Primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 more than 14 days after second dose. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were assessed in phase 2b participants and unsolicited AEs in all participants. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04652102).Findings: Between 11 December 2020 and 12 April 2021, 39 680 participants were randomised and 39 529 received CVnCoV (19 783) or placebo (19 746). Overall VE was 48·2% (95% CI: 31·0–61·4;83/12 851 vs. 145/12 221 in CVnCoV and placebo recipients, respectively). Overall VE against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI: 42·5–86·1;12/12 851 vs. 37/12 211, respectively). In participants aged 18–60 years VE was 52·5% (95% CI: 36·2–64·8;71/11 532 vs. 136/11 031, respectively). Too few cases occurred in participants aged ≥61 years (CVnCoV: 12, placebo: 9) precluding VE evaluation. Wild type SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 7/204 (3%) sequenced cases, with 14 variants being responsible for the other cases. Solicited adverse events, mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients;542/2002 CVnCoV recipients and 61/1980 placebo recipients reported grade 3 events. Unsolicited serious AEs were reported for 82/19 746 CVnCoV recipients and 66/19 746 placebo recipients;8 and 2 SAEs, respectively were considered related to vaccination. Fatal SAEs were reported for 8 and 6 CVnCoV and placebo recipients.Interpretation: CVnCoV is efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and has an acceptable safety profile.Trial Registration: Study number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04652102. Funding: This trial was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant01KI20703), and CureVac AG.Declaration of Interest: MB declares institutional funding from CureVac during the conduct of this study, from Janssen Vaccines, molecular partners, and Merck outside of the submitted work, and consulting fees from Janssen Vaccines. EJLDB, and MFMR, TO and XSL declare institutional funding from CureVac during the conduct of this study. LE, and LG declare institutional funding from CureVac during the conduct of this study and outside of the submitted work. CFL declares institutional funding from CureVac during the conduct of this study, and outside of the submitted work, and is a member of WHO Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Working Group and WHO Product Development for Vaccines Advisory Committee (PDVAC). CL declares institutional funding from CureVac during the conduct of this study, and is a member of the of German Society of Infection board. ILR declares institutional funding from CureVac during the conduct of this study and from J &J, and OSE Immunotherapeutics outside of the submitted work. PGK declares institutional funding from CureVac during the conduct of this study, and is a member of the scientific advisory board for the HERALD clinical trial. VVRH declares institutional funding from CureVac during the conduct of this study, and speakers fees from Gilead outside of the submitted work. HJ declares consultant fees from CureVac, is the Medical Responsible Person for the HERALD clinical trial, and is co-chair of DSMB for the HERALD clinical trial. AK and PM are employed by CureVac, and hold stock options. OSK declares consultant fees from CureVac during the conduct of this study, and is a member of the DSMB for a CVnCoV phase 1 trial. TV declares consultant fees from CureVac during the conduct of this study, and consultant fees from CureVac, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Johnson&Johnson, and Moderna outside of the submitted work. LO is employed by CureVac, and holds stock options, and is the holder of a pending patent. The other authors declare no competing interests.Ethical Approval: The trial protocol and amendments have been approved by the appropriate independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each study centre

7.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-307109

ABSTRACT

The human body produces a vast variety of circulating immunoglobulins (Igs) to recognize and combat pathogens and other non-self molecular components. In human plasma the most abundant class of Igs is the immunoglobulin G subclass I (IgG1) 1. Through somatic recombination and hypermutation, our bodies can theoretically produce several billions of distinct IgG1 variants 2,3. The theoretically available IgG1 repertoire thereby far exceeds the physical number of memory B cells available 4. The theoretical possibilities are highly suggestive of a vastly complex IgG1 plasma repertoire, but here we show that in all studied individuals, this repertoire is dominated by only a few dozens of clones. Our data indicate that each person’s IgG1 repertoire is distinctly unique, representing a personalized barcode. We sequentially measured IgG1 repertoires of critically ill individuals with hospital-acquired sepsis, revealing the occurrence and disappearance of specific IgG1 clones during the evolution of the disease. We demonstrate here that 1) personalized IgG1 profiling by LC-MS is feasible, 2) each person exhibits a unique serological IgG1 repertoire, 3) this repertoire adapts to changes in physiology, and 4) that individual plasma IgG clones can be de novo sequenced by integrative protein-centric and peptide-centric proteomic approaches. We foresee that the presented mass spectrometric approach will accommodate more rapid development of monoclonal antibody treatments, immediately assessing fully human, matured, and optimized molecules. The potential of repertoires from disease survivors can then be used to prevent disease excesses, as was demonstrated for Ebola 5-7, and is the hope for the current COVID-19 pandemic.

8.
Nat Med ; 28(1): 39-50, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1641982

ABSTRACT

Immune dysregulation is an important component of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. A large body of literature has reported the effect of immune-based therapies in patients with COVID-19, with some remarkable successes such as the use of steroids or anti-cytokine therapies. However, challenges in clinical decision-making arise from the complexity of the disease phenotypes and patient heterogeneity, as well as the variable quality of evidence from immunotherapy studies. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence generated by major clinical trials of host-directed therapy. We discuss patient stratification and propose an algorithm to guide the use of immunotherapy strategies in the clinic. This will not only help guide treatment decisions, but may also help to design future trials that investigate immunotherapy in other severe infections.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Complement Inactivating Agents/therapeutic use , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , Immunomodulation , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Azetidines/therapeutic use , Bradykinin/analogs & derivatives , Bradykinin/therapeutic use , Bradykinin B2 Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , COVID-19/immunology , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Imatinib Mesylate/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1b/therapeutic use , Interferon-gamma/therapeutic use , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein/therapeutic use , Kallikrein-Kinin System , Piperidines/therapeutic use , Purines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Pyrimidines/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use
9.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(3): 329-340, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531918

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. METHODS: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18-60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 µg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020-003998-22, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0-61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5-86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18-60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2-64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccines, Synthetic , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/pharmacology , Double-Blind Method , Europe , Female , Humans , Latin America , Male , Middle Aged , Vaccination
10.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1690-1702, 2021 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525402

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , ABO Blood-Group System , Adult , Aged , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Failure , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
11.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Nov 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1522156

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the non-inferiority of fosfomycin, compared to ciprofloxacin, as oral stepdown treatment for E. coli febrile urinary tract infections (fUTIs) in women. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomised controlled trial in 15 Dutch hospitals. Adult women receiving 2-5 days of empirical intravenous antimicrobials for E.coli fUTI, were assigned to stepdown treatment with once-daily 3 gr fosfomycin or twice-daily 0.5 gr ciprofloxacin, for 10 days of total antibiotic treatment. For the primary endpoint clinical cure at day 6-10 post-end-of-treatment a non-inferiority margin of 10% was chosen. The trial was registered on Trialregister.nl (NTR6449). RESULTS: After enrolment of 97 patients between 2017-2020, the trial ended prematurely because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The primary endpoint was met in 36/48 patients (75.0%) assigned to fosfomycin and 30/46 patients (65.2%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (Risk Difference: 9.6%, 95%-Confidence-Interval: -8.8% to 28.0%). In patients assigned to fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin, microbiological cure at day 6-10 post-end-of-treatment occurred in 29/37 (78.4%) and 33/35 (94.3%; RD: -16.2%, 95%CI: -32.7 to -0.0%), and clinical cure at day 30-35 post-end-of-treatment occurred in 35/47 (75.6%) and 33/44 (75.0%; RD: 0.4%, 95%CI: -18·4% to 17·6%) respectively. Any adverse event was reported in 35/48 (72.9%) and 32/46 (69.6%) patients (RD: 3.3%, 95%CI: -15.0% to 21.6%%), and any gastro-intestinal adverse event in 25/48 (52.1%) and 14/46 (30.4%) patients (RD: 20.8%, 95%CI: 1.6% to 40.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fosfomycin is non-inferior to ciprofloxacin as oral stepdown treatment for fUTI caused by E.coli in women. Fosfomycin use is associated with more gastro-intestinal events.

12.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e052101, 2021 10 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1495466

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: BCG vaccination modulates immune responses to unrelated pathogens. This off-target effect could reduce the impact of emerging pathogens. As a readily available, inexpensive intervention that has a well-established safety profile, BCG is a good candidate for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) and other vulnerable groups against COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This international multicentre phase III randomised controlled trial aims to determine if BCG vaccination reduces the incidence of symptomatic and severe COVID-19 at 6 months (co-primary outcomes) compared with no BCG vaccination. We plan to randomise 10 078 HCWs from Australia, The Netherlands, Spain, the UK and Brazil in a 1:1 ratio to BCG vaccination or no BCG (control group). The participants will be followed for 1 year with questionnaires and collection of blood samples. For any episode of illness, clinical details will be collected daily, and the participant will be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The secondary objectives are to determine if BCG vaccination reduces the rate, incidence, and severity of any febrile or respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2), as well as work absenteeism. The safety of BCG vaccination in HCWs will also be evaluated. Immunological analyses will assess changes in the immune system following vaccination, and identify factors associated with susceptibility to or protection against SARS-CoV-2 and other infections. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical and governance approval will be obtained from participating sites. Results will be published in peer-reviewed open-access journals. The final cleaned and locked database will be deposited in a data sharing repository archiving system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04327206.


Subject(s)
BCG Vaccine , COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Vaccination
13.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 211, 2021 08 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470617

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emergence of more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants requires more efficient control measures to limit nosocomial transmission and maintain healthcare capacities during pandemic waves. Yet the relative importance of different strategies is unknown. METHODS: We developed an agent-based model and compared the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE), screening of healthcare workers (HCWs), contact tracing of symptomatic HCWs and restricting HCWs from working in multiple units (HCW cohorting) on nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The model was fit on hospital data from the first wave in the Netherlands (February until August 2020) and assumed that HCWs used 90% effective PPE in COVID-19 wards and self-isolated at home for 7 days immediately upon symptom onset. Intervention effects on the effective reproduction number (RE), HCW absenteeism and the proportion of infected individuals among tested individuals (positivity rate) were estimated for a more transmissible variant. RESULTS: Introduction of a variant with 56% higher transmissibility increased - all other variables kept constant - RE from 0.4 to 0.65 (+ 63%) and nosocomial transmissions by 303%, mainly because of more transmissions caused by pre-symptomatic patients and HCWs. Compared to baseline, PPE use in all hospital wards (assuming 90% effectiveness) reduced RE by 85% and absenteeism by 57%. Screening HCWs every 3 days with perfect test sensitivity reduced RE by 67%, yielding a maximum test positivity rate of 5%. Screening HCWs every 3 or 7 days assuming time-varying test sensitivities reduced RE by 9% and 3%, respectively. Contact tracing reduced RE by at least 32% and achieved higher test positivity rates than screening interventions. HCW cohorting reduced RE by 5%. Sensitivity analyses show that our findings do not change significantly for 70% PPE effectiveness. For low PPE effectiveness of 50%, PPE use in all wards is less effective than screening every 3 days with perfect sensitivity but still more effective than all other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the emergence of more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, PPE use in all hospital wards might still be most effective in preventing nosocomial transmission. Regular screening and contact tracing of HCWs are also effective interventions but critically depend on the sensitivity of the diagnostic test used.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
14.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e048206, 2021 10 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1467702

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antigen-based point-of-care tests for identification of SARS-CoV-2 may markedly enhance effectiveness of population-based controlling strategies. Previous studies have demonstrated >70% sensitivity and high specificity compared with reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) in symptomatic individuals, but test performance for asymptomatic individuals is unknown. METHODS: Test performance of the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) was compared with RT-PCR in a longitudinal cohort study of asymptomatic football players and staff members of professional football clubs. Based on timing of symptoms and prior and subsequent test results, positive RT-PCR tests were categorised as presymptomatic, early or late infection, or persistent RNA shedding. FINDINGS: 2425 tests were performed in 824 individuals, of which 52 (6.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive based on RT-PCR. There were 2406 paired sets from asymptomatic subjects for analysis. Sixteen Panbio tests were inconclusive, for which sensitivity analyses were performed (considering results as either positive or negative or being excluded). Sensitivity of Panbio for screening of asymptomatic individuals ranged from 80.0% (61.4-92.3) to 86.67% (69.2-96.2) and specificity from 99.53% (95% CI 99.2 to 99.8) to 100% (95% CI 99.8 to 100). Sensitivity of Panbio to detect subjects with presymptomatic/early infection (n=42) ranged from 81.82% (95% CI 67.3 to 91.8) to 90.91% (95% CI 78.3 to 97.5) with specificity always above 99%. INTERPRETATION: The Panbio COVID-19 Ag rapid test identifies 81%-90% of presymptomatic and early asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections with high specificity. This test may therefore be adopted in testing strategies such as targeted screening of specific populations where prevalence is low.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral , Cohort Studies , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Prospective Studies , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity
15.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 9: 100210, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466767

ABSTRACT

The majority of emerging infectious diseases originate in animals. Current routine surveillance is focused on known diseases and clinical syndromes, but the increasing likelihood of emerging disease outbreaks shows the critical importance of early detection of unusual illness or circulation of pathogens - prior to human disease manifestation. In this Viewpoint, we focus on one key pillar of preparedness-the need for early warning surveillance at the human, animal, environmental interface. The COVID-19 pandemic has revolutionized the scale of sequencing of pathogen genomes, and the current investments in global genomic surveillance offer great potential for a novel, truly integrated Disease X (with epidemic or pandemic potential) surveillance arm provided we do not make the mistake of developing them solely for the case at hand. Generic tools include metagenomic sequencing as a catch-all technique, rather than detection and sequencing protocols focusing on what we know. Developing agnostic or more targeted metagenomic sequencing to assess unusual disease in humans and animals, combined with random sampling of environmental samples capturing pathogen circulation is technically challenging, but could provide a true early warning system. Rather than rebuilding and reinforcing the pre-existing silo's, a real step forward would be to take the lessons learned and bring in novel essential partnerships in a One Health approach to preparedness.

16.
Cell ; 181(5): 969-977, 2020 05 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1385208

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 infection is mild in the majority of individuals but progresses into severe pneumonia in a small proportion of patients. The increased susceptibility to severe disease in the elderly and individuals with co-morbidities argues for an initial defect in anti-viral host defense mechanisms. Long-term boosting of innate immune responses, also termed "trained immunity," by certain live vaccines (BCG, oral polio vaccine, measles) induces heterologous protection against infections through epigenetic, transcriptional, and functional reprogramming of innate immune cells. We propose that induction of trained immunity by whole-microorganism vaccines may represent an important tool for reducing susceptibility to and severity of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/physiology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Immunity, Innate , Immunomodulation , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , SARS Virus/physiology , Animals , BCG Vaccine/immunology , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Humans , Immunity, Innate/drug effects , Lung/immunology , Lung/pathology , Lymphopenia/pathology , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/physiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/immunology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/pathology , Virus Replication
17.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 790-802, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343498

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Survival Analysis
18.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 777-789, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343497

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial , Treatment Failure
19.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 867-886, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305144

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ritonavir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Drug Combinations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 1614, 2021 03 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1132071

ABSTRACT

The role of school-based contacts in the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 is incompletely understood. We use an age-structured transmission model fitted to age-specific seroprevalence and hospital admission data to assess the effects of school-based measures at different time points during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. Our analyses suggest that the impact of measures reducing school-based contacts depends on the remaining opportunities to reduce non-school-based contacts. If opportunities to reduce the effective reproduction number (Re) with non-school-based measures are exhausted or undesired and Re is still close to 1, the additional benefit of school-based measures may be considerable, particularly among older school children. As two examples, we demonstrate that keeping schools closed after the summer holidays in 2020, in the absence of other measures, would not have prevented the second pandemic wave in autumn 2020 but closing schools in November 2020 could have reduced Re below 1, with unchanged non-school-based contacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Basic Reproduction Number/prevention & control , Basic Reproduction Number/statistics & numerical data , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/transmission , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Holidays , Hospitalization , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Biological , Models, Statistical , Netherlands/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Schools , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL