Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
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.

2.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 170, 2021 12 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1582005

ABSTRACT

A survey of hospitals on three continents was performed to assess their infection control preparedness and measures, and their infection rate in hospital health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. All surveyed hospitals used similar PPE but differences in preparedness, PPE shortages, and infection rates were reported.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Infection Control/methods , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals , Humans , Internationality , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
Geroscience ; 43(4): 1877-1897, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1173978

ABSTRACT

COVID-19-associated case fatality rates up to 48% were reported among nursing facility residents. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, routine SARS-CoV-2 testing in long-term care facilities in the Province of Salzburg and centralized hospitalization in the COVID-19 unit of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg (Austria) irrespective of symptoms was implemented. Baseline characteristics and the course of COVID-19 disease were assessed among hospitalized long-term care facility residents within the COVID-19 Registry of the Austrian Group Medical Tumor Therapy (AGMT; NCT04351529). Between the 24th of March and the 20th of April 2020, 50 COVID-19-positive residents were hospitalized. The median age was 84.5 years (range: 79-88) and the median number of comorbidities and baseline medication classes was 6 (IQR: 4-7) and 5 (IQR: 3-6), respectively. At admission, 31 residents (62%) were symptomatic, nine residents (18%) pre-symptomatic whereas ten residents (20%) remained asymptomatic. The 30-day mortality rate from hospitalization was 32% and significantly higher in symptomatic residents at admission when compared to asymptomatic residents including pre-symptomatic residents (48% [95% CI: 27-63%] versus 5% [95% CI: 0-15%], p=0.006). The Early Warning Score (EWS) at admission was associated with 30-day mortality: high risk: 100%, intermediate risk: 50% (95% CI: 0-78%), and low risk: 21% (95% CI: 7-32%) (p<0.001). In light of comparably low mortality rates between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic hospitalized COVID-19-positive residents, we suggest the supply of comparable intensity and quality of monitoring and care in long-term care facilities as an alternative to immediate hospitalization upon a positive COVID-19 test in asymptomatic residents.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Testing , Hospitalization , Humans , Long-Term Care , Pandemics , Policy , Registries , SARS-CoV-2
4.
ESC Heart Fail ; 8(1): 37-46, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1064350

ABSTRACT

AIMS: COVID-19, a respiratory viral disease causing severe pneumonia, also affects the heart and other organs. Whether its cardiac involvement is a specific feature consisting of myocarditis, or simply due to microvascular injury and systemic inflammation, is yet unclear and presently debated. Because myocardial injury is also common in other kinds of pneumonias, we investigated and compared such occurrence in severe pneumonias due to COVID-19 and other causes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data from 156 critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation in four European tertiary hospitals, including all n = 76 COVID-19 patients with severe disease course requiring at least ventilatory support, matched to n = 76 from a retrospective consecutive patient cohort of severe pneumonias of other origin (matched for age, gender, and type of ventilator therapy). When compared to the non-COVID-19, mortality (COVID-19 = 38.2% vs. non-COVID-19 = 51.3%, P = 0.142) and impairment of systolic function were not significantly different. Surprisingly, myocardial injury was even more frequent in non-COVID-19 (96.4% vs. 78.1% P = 0.004). Although inflammatory activity [C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6] was indifferent, d-dimer and thromboembolic incidence (COVID-19 = 23.7% vs. non-COVID-19 = 5.3%, P = 0.002) driven by pulmonary embolism rates (COVID-19 = 17.1% vs. non-COVID-19 = 2.6%, P = 0.005) were higher. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial injury was frequent in severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation, but still less frequent than in similarly severe pneumonias of other origin, indicating that cardiac involvement may not be a specific feature of COVID-19. While mortality was also similar, COVID-19 is characterized with increased thrombogenicity and high pulmonary embolism rates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cardiomyopathies/etiology , Acute Disease , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cardiomyopathies/mortality , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Myocarditis/etiology , Myocarditis/mortality , Pneumonia/complications , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers
6.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 51(1): 226-231, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-648995

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been linked to a higher risk of mortality compared to influenza, which is mainly due to severe secondary diseases, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In turn, ARDS is characterized by an acute inflammation and an excessive activity of the coagulation cascade, rising the vulnerability for venous thromboembolic events. In order to investigate the relation of inflammation and the influence of coagulation factors on their release, human peripheral mononuclear blood cells (PBMCs) were treated with autologous serum, heparinized plasma and different doses of fibrin. Thereafter, the concentration of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in the secretome of PBMCs was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Our analyses revealed autologous serum to significantly increase the secretion of cytokines and chemokines after 24 h of incubation time. Furthermore, the addition of fibrin markedly increased the secretion of cytokines and chemokines by PBMCs in a dose-dependent manner. Consequently, in accordance with previous studies, our study outlines that anti-coagulation may constitute a promising tool for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2, reducing both, the cytokine storm, as well as the risk for thrombotic complications.


Subject(s)
Blood Coagulation , COVID-19/therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Fibrin , Inflammation , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , Blood Coagulation/immunology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/immunology , Cells, Cultured , Chemokines/immunology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/blood , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Fibrin/immunology , Fibrin/pharmacology , Fibrinolytic Agents/pharmacology , Heparin/pharmacology , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Inflammation/blood , Inflammation/therapy , Leukocytes, Mononuclear/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL