Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
2.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-333033

ABSTRACT

Following the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe, the intense response that was demanded of diagnostic centers and research laboratories prompted the use of numerous products and protocols for the management of SARS-CoV-2 specimens. In these settings, proper handling of such infectious specimen is necessary to ensure the safety of personnel and to reduce the risk of active transmission. Our aim was to evaluate the inactivation efficacy of different inactivating methods, notably from commercial lysis buffers available in diagnostic kits. Heat and sodium dodecyl sulfate detergent were also included in our investigations. A cell culture-based assay was used, and supported by molecular qRT-PCR detection, to show in vitro infectivity reduction after inactivation treatment. Overall, all the investigated methods were successful in inactivating SARS-CoV-2. Ten minutes of contact with the commercial buffers completely stopped in vitro SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Fifteen minutes at 68°C and 30 minutes at 56°C as well as one hour with sodium dodecyl sulfate detergent at 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.1% yielded the same results. These findings demonstrate the reliability of these protocols with regards to biosafety. Inactivation by heat and sodium dodecyl sulfate detergent are rather simple and can be readily available methods for rendering an infectious SARS-CoV-2 specimen inactive, especially in settings where commercial buffers are not available.

3.
Preprints.org ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1786431

ABSTRACT

Following the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe, the intense response that was demanded of diagnostic centers and research laboratories prompted the use of numerous products and protocols for the management of SARS-CoV-2 specimens. In these settings, proper handling of such infectious specimen is necessary to ensure the safety of personnel and to reduce the risk of active transmission. Our aim was to evaluate the inactivation efficacy of different inactivating methods, notably from commercial lysis buffers available in diagnostic kits. Heat and sodium dodecyl sulfate detergent were also included in our investigations. A cell culture-based assay was used, and supported by molecular qRT-PCR detection, to show in vitro infectivity reduction after inactivation treatment. Overall, all the investigated methods were successful in inactivating SARS-CoV-2. Ten minutes of contact with the commercial buffers completely stopped in vitro SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Fifteen minutes at 68°C and 30 minutes at 56°C as well as one hour with sodium dodecyl sulfate detergent at 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.1% yielded the same results. These findings demonstrate the reliability of these protocols with regards to biosafety. Inactivation by heat and sodium dodecyl sulfate detergent are rather simple and can be readily available methods for rendering an infectious SARS-CoV-2 specimen inactive, especially in settings where commercial buffers are not available.

4.
EBioMedicine ; 78: 103967, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1757276

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In critically ill COVID-19 patients, the initial response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterized by major immune dysfunctions. The capacity of these severe patients to mount a robust and persistent SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell response despite the presence of severe immune alterations during the ICU stay is unknown. METHODS: Critically ill COVID-19 patients were sampled five times during the ICU stay and 9 and 13 months afterwards. Immune monitoring included counts of lymphocyte subpopulations, HLA-DR expression on monocytes, plasma IL-6 and IL-10 concentrations, anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and T cell proliferation in response to three SARS-CoV-2 antigens. FINDINGS: Despite the presence of major lymphopenia and decreased monocyte HLA-DR expression during the ICU stay, convalescent critically ill COVID-19 patients consistently generated adaptive and humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 maintained for more than one year after hospital discharge. Patients with long hospital stays presented with stronger anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell response but no difference in anti-SARS-CoV2 IgG levels. INTERPRETATION: Convalescent critically ill COVID-19 patients consistently generated a memory immune response against SARS-CoV-2 maintained for more than one year after hospital discharge. In recovered individuals, the intensity of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell response was dependent on length of hospital stay. FUNDING: This observational study was supported by funds from the Hospices Civils de Lyon, Fondation HCL, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University and Région Auvergne Rhône-Alpes and by partial funding by REACTing (Research and ACTion targeting emerging infectious diseases) INSERM, France and a donation from Fondation AnBer (http://fondationanber.fr/).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Immunologic Memory , T-Lymphocytes , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Critical Illness , HLA-DR Antigens , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , T-Lymphocytes/immunology
5.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 77(5): 1404-1412, 2022 04 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1722504

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-304820

ABSTRACT

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and/or ventilator support.Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948;EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care alone or in combination with intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once-daily for 9 days or until discharge). Treatment assignation was performed via web-based randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 832 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=418;remdesivir, n=414). There was no difference in the clinical status neither at day 15 between treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.85) nor at day 29. The proportion of deaths at day 28 was not significantly different between control (8.9%) and remdesivir (8.2%) treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.93 95%CI 0.57 to 1.52, P=0.77). There was also no difference on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics (effect of remdesivir on viral load slope, -0.004 log10 cp/10,000 cells/day, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02, P=0.75). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups.Interpretation: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15 or day 29, nor with a reduction in mortality, nor with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Trial Registration: DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948;EudraCT2020-000936-23Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB;Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE)Declaration of Interests: Dr. Costagliola reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mentré reports grants from INSERM Reacting (French Government), grants from Ministry of Health (French Government), grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study;grants from Sanofi, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hites reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), grants from Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB, during the conduct of the study;personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mootien reports non-financial support from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaborit reports non-financial support from Gilead, non- financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Botelho-Nevers reports other from Pfizer, other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lacombe reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wallet reports personal fees and non-financial support from Jazz pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and nonPage financial support from Kite-Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kimmoun reports personal fees from Aguettan, personal fees from Aspen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Thiery reports personal fees from AMGEN, outside the submitted work. Dr. Burdet reports personal fees from Da Volterra, personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Poissy reports personal fees from Gilead for lectures, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goehringer reports personal fees from G lead Sciences, non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants from Biomerieux, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peytavin reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Merck France, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from TheraTechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Danion reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Raffi reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gallien reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work;and has received consulting fee from Gilead in August 2020 to check the registration file of remdesivir for the French administration. Dr. Nseir reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Biomérieux, personal fees from BioRad, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lefèvre reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Guedj reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee (CPP Ile-de-France-III, approval #20.03.06.51744), and is sponsored by the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm, France);it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all included participants (or their legal representatives if unable to consent). The present analysis is based on the protocol v11.0 of December 12th, 2020.

7.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-310936

ABSTRACT

Background: Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic cause by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) threatens the world for few months. Few cases of prolonged positivity of viral tests and clinical recurrence of COVID-19 have been described. We report the case of a 78-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer who developed possible COVID-19 recurrence in a post-acute and rehabilitation unit. Case presentation: A 78-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer and hypertension developed COVID-19. After symptom improvement and RT-PCR negativation, she regained symptom (fever, fall) and lymphopenia on Day 26 and we note a turned positive RT-PCR even though she was tested positive for antibody against SARS-CoV-2. After the diagnosis of possible COVID-19 recurrence, she was transferred back to an acute “COVID-19” unit and she then quickly clinically recovered. Conclusions: : This clinical case allows us to discuss the risk of recurrence and possible specific causes in older patients. Moreover, prolonged symptoms and lymphopenia could be associated to worse outcomes in older patients. Finally, at a collective level, even if traces of virus detected by RT-PCR were not necessarily correlated with the contagiousness, the importance of possible COVID-19 recurrence in the care pathway for older adults must be taken into account , since they are often surrounded by frail older people.

8.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327725

ABSTRACT

Objectives: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-beta-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. Methods We conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity ( NCT04315948 , EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. Results The intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147;lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a, n=147;hydroxychloroquine, n=150;control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36);lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08);hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of Serious Adverse Events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. Conclusion In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

9.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(10): 1494-1501, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454090

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine if commercially available mouthwash with ß-cyclodextrin and citrox (bioflavonoids) (CDCM) could decrease the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) salivary viral load. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR-positive patients aged 18-85 years with asymptomatic to mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms for <8 days were recruited. A total of 176 eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to CDCM or placebo. Three rinses daily were performed for 7 days. Saliva sampling was performed on day 1 at 09.00 (T1), 13.00 (T2) and 18.00 (T3). On the following 6 days, one sample was taken at 15.00. Quantitative RT-PCR was used to detect SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that, over the course of 1 day, CDCM was significantly more effective than placebo 4 hours after the first dose (p 0.036), with a median percentage (log10 copies/mL) decrease T1-T2 of -12.58% (IQR -29.55% to -0.16%). The second dose maintained the low median value for the CDCM (3.08 log10 copies/mL; IQR 0-4.19), compared with placebo (3.31 log10 copies/mL; IQR 1.18-4.75). At day 7, there was still a greater median percentage (log10 copies/mL) decrease in salivary viral load over time in the CDCM group (-58.62%; IQR -100% to -34.36%) compared with the placebo group (-50.62%; IQR -100% to -27.66%). These results were confirmed by the per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This trial supports the relevance of using CDCM on day 1 (4 hours after the initial dose) to reduce the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva. For long-term effect (7 days), CDMC appears to provide a modest benefit compared with placebo in reducing viral load in saliva.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Mouthwashes/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antiviral Agents/chemistry , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/transmission , Double-Blind Method , Female , Flavonoids/analysis , Flavonoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Mouthwashes/chemistry , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , Viral Load/drug effects , Young Adult , beta-Cyclodextrins/analysis , beta-Cyclodextrins/therapeutic use
10.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(2): 209-221, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1428619

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. METHODS: DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome). INTERPRETATION: No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support. FUNDING: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Standard of Care , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Europe , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial
11.
Placenta ; 112: 97-104, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1333705

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women with covid-19 are more likely to experience preterm birth. The virus seems to be associated with a wide range of placental lesions, none of them specific. METHOD: We collected cases of Covid-19 maternal infection during pregnancy associated with poor pregnancy outcomes, for which we received the placenta. We studied clinical data and described pathological findings of placenta and post-mortem examination of fetuses. We performed an immunohistochemical study and RT-PCR of SARS-Cov-2 on placenta samples. RESULTS: We report 5 cases of poor fetal outcome, 3 fetal deaths and 2 extreme premature neonates, one with growth restriction, without clinical and biological sign of SARS-Cov-2 infection. All placenta presented massive perivillous fibrin deposition and large intervillous thrombi associated with strong SARS-Cov-2 expression in trophoblast and SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity in amniotic fluid or on placenta samples. Chronic histiocytic intervillositis was present in 4/5 cases. Placental ultrasound was abnormal and the sFLT1-PIGF ratio was increased in one case. Timing between mothers' infection and the poor fetal outcome was ≤10 days in 4 cases. The massive placental damage are directly induced by the virus whose receptors are expressed on trophoblast, leading to trophoblast necrosis and massive inflammation in villous chamber, in a similar way it occurs in diffuse alveolar damage in adults infected by SARS-Cov-2. DISCUSSION: SARS-Cov-2 can be associated to a rare set of placental lesions which can lead to fetal demise, preterm birth, or growth restriction. Stronger surveillance of mothers infected by SARS-Cov-2 is required.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Placenta Diseases/etiology , Premature Birth/etiology , Stillbirth , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/pathology , Female , Fetal Death/etiology , France , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Perinatal Death/etiology , Placenta/pathology , Placenta/virology , Placenta Diseases/diagnosis , Placenta Diseases/pathology , Placenta Diseases/virology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/pathology , Pregnancy Outcome , Premature Birth/pathology , Premature Birth/virology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Trophoblasts/pathology , Trophoblasts/virology
13.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(12): 1826-1837, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-ß-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. METHODS: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. CONCLUSION: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome
14.
Viruses ; 13(5)2021 05 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1227069

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to determine whether self-collected pure saliva (SCPS) is comparable to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in the quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in asymptomatic, mild patients with confirmed COVID-19. Thirty-one patients aged from 18 to 85 years were included between 9 June and 11 December 2020. A SCPS sample and a NP sample were taken for each patient. Quantitative PCR was performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Results of SCPS vs. NP samples testing were compared. Statistical analyses were performed. Viral load was significantly correlated (r = 0.72). The concordance probability was estimated at 73.3%. In symptomatic adults, SCPS performance was similar to that of NP swabs (Percent Agreement = 74.1%; p = 0.11). Thus, the salivary test based on pure oral saliva samples easily obtained by noninvasive techniques has a fair agreement with the nasopharyngeal one in asymptomatic, mild patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , Adult , Aged , Asymptomatic Diseases , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Specimen Handling/methods , Viral Load/methods , Young Adult
15.
Clin Infect Dis ; 71(15): 825-832, 2020 07 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-908926

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: On 7 February 2020, French Health authorities were informed of a confirmed case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in an Englishman infected in Singapore who had recently stayed in a chalet in the French Alps. We conducted an investigation to identify secondary cases and interrupt transmission. METHODS: We defined as a confirmed case a person linked to the chalet with a positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction sample for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: The index case stayed 4 days in the chalet with 10 English tourists and a family of 5 French residents; SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 5 individuals in France, 6 in England (including the index case), and 1 in Spain (overall attack rate in the chalet: 75%). One pediatric case, with picornavirus and influenza A coinfection, visited 3 different schools while symptomatic. One case was asymptomatic, with similar viral load as that of a symptomatic case. Seven days after the first cases were diagnosed, 1 tertiary case was detected in a symptomatic patient with from the chalet a positive endotracheal aspirate; all previous and concurrent nasopharyngeal specimens were negative. Additionally, 172 contacts were monitored; all contacts tested for SARS-CoV-2 (N = 73) were negative. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence in this cluster of 1 asymptomatic case with similar viral load as a symptomatic patient suggests transmission potential of asymptomatic individuals. The fact that an infected child did not transmit the disease despite close interactions within schools suggests potential different transmission dynamics in children. Finally, the dissociation between upper and lower respiratory tract results underscores the need for close monitoring of the clinical evolution of suspected cases of coronavirus disease 2019.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Cluster Analysis , Female , France , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods
16.
Eur Radiol ; 31(2): 795-803, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-722374

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performances of chest CT for triage of patients in multiple emergency departments during COVID-19 epidemic, in comparison with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. METHOD: From March 3 to April 4, 2020, 694 consecutive patients from three emergency departments of a large university hospital, for which a hospitalization was planned whatever the reasons, i.e., COVID- or non-COVID-related, underwent a chest CT and one or several RT-PCR tests. Chest CTs were rated as "Surely COVID+," "Possible COVID+," or "COVID-" by experienced radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using the final RT-PCR test as standard of reference. The delays for CT reports and RT-PCR results were recorded and compared. RESULTS: Among the 694 patients, 287 were positive on the final RT-PCR exam. Concerning the 694 chest CT, 308 were rated as "Surely COVID+", 34 as "Possible COVID+," and 352 as "COVID-." When considering only the "Surely COVID+" CT as positive, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV reached 88.9%, 90.2%, 88%, 84.1%, and 92.7%, respectively, with respect to final RT-PCR test. The mean delay for CT reports was three times shorter than for RT-PCR results (187 ± 148 min versus 573 ± 327 min, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: During COVID-19 epidemic phase, chest CT is a rapid and most probably an adequately reliable tool to refer patients requiring hospitalization to the COVID+ or COVID- hospital units, when response times for virological tests are too long. KEY POINTS: • In a large university hospital in Lyon, France, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of chest CT for COVID-19 reached 88.9%, 90.2%, 88%, 84.1%, and 92.7%, respectively, using RT-PCR as standard of reference. • The mean delay for CT reports was three times shorter than for RT-PCR results (187 ± 148 min versus 573 ± 327 min, p < 0.0001). • Due to high accuracy of chest CT for COVID-19 and shorter time for CT reports than RT-PCR results, chest CT can be used to orient patients suspected to be positive towards the COVID+ unit to decrease congestion in the emergency departments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Triage , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Epidemics , Female , France , Hospitals, University , Humans , Male , Predictive Value of Tests , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
17.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 20(6): 697-706, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-17918

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: On Dec 31, 2019, China reported a cluster of cases of pneumonia in people at Wuhan, Hubei Province. The responsible pathogen is a novel coronavirus, named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We report the relevant features of the first cases in Europe of confirmed infection, named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with the first patient diagnosed with the disease on Jan 24, 2020. METHODS: In this case series, we followed five patients admitted to Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital (Paris, France) and Pellegrin University Hospital (Bordeaux, France) and diagnosed with COVID-19 by semi-quantitative RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. We assessed patterns of clinical disease and viral load from different samples (nasopharyngeal and blood, urine, and stool samples), which were obtained once daily for 3 days from hospital admission, and once every 2 or 3 days until patient discharge. All samples were refrigerated and shipped to laboratories in the National Reference Center for Respiratory Viruses (The Institut Pasteur, Paris, and Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France), where RNA extraction, real-time RT-PCR, and virus isolation and titration procedures were done. FINDINGS: The patients were three men (aged 31 years, 48 years, and 80 years) and two women (aged 30 years and 46 years), all of Chinese origin, who had travelled to France from China around mid-January, 2020. Three different clinical evolutions are described: (1) two paucisymptomatic women diagnosed within a day of exhibiting symptoms, with high nasopharyngeal titres of SARS-CoV-2 within the first 24 h of the illness onset (5·2 and 7·4 log10 copies per 1000 cells, respectively) and viral RNA detection in stools; (2) a two-step disease progression in two young men, with a secondary worsening around 10 days after disease onset despite a decreasing viral load in nasopharyngeal samples; and (3) an 80-year-old man with a rapid evolution towards multiple organ failure and a persistent high viral load in lower and upper respiratory tract with systemic virus dissemination and virus detection in plasma. The 80-year-old patient died on day 14 of illness (Feb 14, 2020); all other patients had recovered and been discharged by Feb 19, 2020. INTERPRETATION: We illustrated three different clinical and biological types of evolution in five patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 with detailed and comprehensive viral sampling strategy. We believe that these findings will contribute to a better understanding of the natural history of the disease and will contribute to advances in the implementation of more efficient infection control strategies. FUNDING: REACTing (Research & Action Emerging Infectious Diseases).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adult , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Blood/virology , COVID-19 , China , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Feces/virology , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel , Urine/virology , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL