Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 22
Filter
2.
Viruses ; 14(7)2022 06 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1917786

ABSTRACT

Belgium has actively participated in clinical research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) since the beginning of the pandemic to help identify effective and safe treatments for COVID-19. The objective of this review is to provide a picture of the clinical studies carried out in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Belgium. We collected data on all randomized, interventional trials in patients with COVID-19 that were registered on two recognized clinical trial registers, started enrollment before 31 December 2021, and included at least one patient in a Belgian center. Data were collected concerning the therapies investigated and the nature of the trials performed. Thirty-three hospitals (32% of all Belgian hospitals) participated in at least one of 28 trials (13 sponsored by the industry and 15 by academic centers) on therapeutics for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients: 7 (25%) evaluated antivirals, 17 (61%) immunomodulators, 2 (7%) anti-coagulants, and 1 (3%) nitric oxide to improve respiratory function. Nineteen (68%) were phase II trials. Only three (11%) of the trials were international platform trials. Despite numerous trials, less than 3% of all Belgian patients hospitalized with COVID-19 participated in a clinical trial on therapeutics. As in many other countries, more efforts could have been made to avoid running small, under-powered, mono- or bicenter trials, to create better collaboration between the different Belgian hospitals, and to participate in more international clinical trials, and more specifically in adaptive, platform trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Belgium/epidemiology , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
3.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 11(6)2022 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911141

ABSTRACT

Few data are available on infectious complications in critically ill patients with different viral infections. We performed a retrospective monocentric study including all of the patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed COVID-19 (as of 13 March 2020) or Influenza A and/or B infections (as of 1 January 2015) until 20 April 2020. Coinfection and secondary infections (occurring within and after 48 h from admission, respectively) were recorded. Fifty-seven COVID-19 and 55 Influenza patients were included. Co-infections were documented in 13/57 (23%) COVID-19 patients vs. 40/55 (73%) Influenza patients (p < 0.001), most of them being respiratory (9/13, 69% vs. 35/40, 88%; p = 0.13) and of bacterial origin (12/13, 92% vs. 29/40, 73%; p = 0.25). Invasive aspergillosis infections were observed only in Influenza patients (8/55, 15%). The COVID-19 and Influenza patients presented 1 (0-4) vs. 0 (0-4) secondary infections (p = 0.022), with comparable sites being affected (lungs: 35/61, 57% vs. 13/31, 42%; p = 0.16) and causative pathogens occurring (Gram-negative bacteria: 51/61, 84% vs. 23/31, 74%; p > 0.99). The COVID-19 patients had longer ICU lengths of stay (15 (-65) vs. 5 (1-89) days; p = 0.001), yet the two groups had comparable mortality rates (20/57, 35% vs. 23/55, 41%; p = 0.46). We report fewer co-infections but more secondary infections in the ICU COVID-19 patients compared to the Influenza patients. Most of the infectious complications were respiratory and of bacterial origin.

6.
Antibiotics ; 11(6):704, 2022.
Article in English | MDPI | ID: covidwho-1857463

ABSTRACT

Few data are available on infectious complications in critically ill patients with different viral infections. We performed a retrospective monocentric study including all of the patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed COVID-19 (as of 13 March 2020) or Influenza A and/or B infections (as of 1 January 2015) until 20 April 2020. Coinfection and secondary infections (occurring within and after 48 h from admission, respectively) were recorded. Fifty-seven COVID-19 and 55 Influenza patients were included. Co-infections were documented in 13/57 (23%) COVID-19 patients vs. 40/55 (73%) Influenza patients (p < 0.001), most of them being respiratory (9/13, 69% vs. 35/40, 88%;p = 0.13) and of bacterial origin (12/13, 92% vs. 29/40, 73%;p = 0.25). Invasive aspergillosis infections were observed only in Influenza patients (8/55, 15%). The COVID-19 and Influenza patients presented 1 (0–4) vs. 0 (0–4) secondary infections (p = 0.022), with comparable sites being affected (lungs: 35/61, 57% vs. 13/31, 42%;p = 0.16) and causative pathogens occurring (Gram-negative bacteria: 51/61, 84% vs. 23/31, 74%;p > 0.99). The COVID-19 patients had longer ICU lengths of stay (15 (–65) vs. 5 (1–89) days;p = 0.001), yet the two groups had comparable mortality rates (20/57, 35% vs. 23/55, 41%;p = 0.46). We report fewer co-infections but more secondary infections in the ICU COVID-19 patients compared to the Influenza patients. Most of the infectious complications were respiratory and of bacterial origin.

7.
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
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.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-307075

ABSTRACT

Background: Whether the risk of multidrug resistant bacteria (MDRB) acquisition in the intensive care unit (ICU) is increased during the COVID-19 crisis is unknown. Our aim was to measure the rate of MDRB acquisition in patients admitted in COVID-19 ICU and to compare it with pre-COVID-19 controls. Methods: : This single center case control study included adult patients admitted to COVID-19 ICUs for more than 48h. Patients were screen twice a week for MDRB carriage during ICU stay. We compared the rate of MDRB acquisition of COVID-19 patients with a cohort of patients admitted for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and matched on length of ICU stay using a competing risk analysis. Results: : Among 72 patients admitted to the COVID-19 ICUs, 24 (33%) patients acquired 31 MDRB during ICU stay. The rate of MDRB acquisition was 30/1000 patient-days. Patients that acquired MDRB had received more antimicrobial therapy [22 (92%) vs 34 (78%, p=0.05] and had a longer exposure time [12 days (8-18) vs 5 days (2-18), p=0.02]. The rate of MDRB acquisition in matched SAH patients was 18/1000 patient-days. When compared to SAH retrospective cohort, being admitted to a COVID-19 ICU was associated with a numerically higher proportion of MDRB acquisition. This association did not reach statistical significance in the multivariable competing risk analysis (sHR 1.71 (CI 95% 0.93-3.21). Conclusion: Acquisition of MDRB was frequent during the COVID-19 first wave in ICU patients. Despite physical isolation, it was similar to patients admitted to the same ICU in previous years.

10.
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.

12.
Lancet ; 399(10323): 461-472, 2022 01 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1641748

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A range of safe and effective vaccines against SARS CoV 2 are needed to address the COVID 19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019. METHODS: This ongoing phase 2 and 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done in adults aged 18 years and older who were in good health or with a stable chronic health condition, at 31 sites in five countries (Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Philippines, and South Africa). The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 using a centralised internet randomisation system to receive two 0·5 mL intramuscular doses of SCB-2019 (30 µg, adjuvanted with 1·50 mg CpG-1018 and 0·75 mg alum) or placebo (0·9% sodium chloride for injection supplied in 10 mL ampoules) 21 days apart. All study staff and participants were masked, but vaccine administrators were not. Primary endpoints were vaccine efficacy, measured by RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 of any severity with onset from 14 days after the second dose in baseline SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants (the per-protocol population), and the safety and solicited local and systemic adverse events in the phase 2 subset. This study is registered on EudraCT (2020-004272-17) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04672395). FINDINGS: 30 174 participants were enrolled from March 24, 2021, until the cutoff date of Aug 10, 2021, of whom 30 128 received their first assigned vaccine (n=15 064) or a placebo injection (n=15 064). The per-protocol population consisted of 12 355 baseline SARS-CoV-2-naive participants (6251 vaccinees and 6104 placebo recipients). Most exclusions (13 389 [44·4%]) were because of seropositivity at baseline. There were 207 confirmed per-protocol cases of COVID-19 at 14 days after the second dose, 52 vaccinees versus 155 placebo recipients, and an overall vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 of 67·2% (95·72% CI 54·3-76·8), 83·7% (97·86% CI 55·9-95·4) against moderate-to-severe COVID-19, and 100% (97·86% CI 25·3-100·0) against severe COVID-19. All COVID-19 cases were due to virus variants; vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 due to the three predominant variants was 78·7% (95% CI 57·3-90·4) for delta, 91·8% (44·9-99·8) for gamma, and 58·6% (13·3-81·5) for mu. No safety issues emerged in the follow-up period for the efficacy analysis (median of 82 days [IQR 63-103]). The vaccine elicited higher rates of mainly mild-to-moderate injection site pain than the placebo after the first (35·7% [287 of 803] vs 10·3% [81 of 786]) and second (26·9% [189 of 702] vs 7·4% [52 of 699]) doses, but the rates of other solicited local and systemic adverse events were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Two doses of SCB-2019 vaccine plus CpG and alum provides notable protection against the entire severity spectrum of COVID-19 caused by circulating SAR-CoV-2 viruses, including the predominating delta variant. FUNDING: Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.


Subject(s)
Adjuvants, Immunologic/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Alum Compounds/therapeutic use , Belgium , Brazil , Colombia , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oligodeoxyribonucleotides/therapeutic use , Philippines , Protein Multimerization , Recombinant Proteins/therapeutic use , Risk , SARS-CoV-2 , South Africa , Young Adult
13.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1427-1438, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621131

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Infections with SARS-CoV-2 continue to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 blockade have been proposed as therapeutic strategies in COVID-19, but study outcomes have been conflicting. We sought to study whether blockade of the IL-6 or IL-1 pathway shortened the time to clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, and signs of systemic cytokine release syndrome. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial, in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, hypoxia, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome across 16 hospitals in Belgium. Eligible patients had a proven diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms between 6 and 16 days, a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) of less than 350 mm Hg on room air or less than 280 mm Hg on supplemental oxygen, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome in their serum (either a single ferritin measurement of more than 2000 µg/L and immediately requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation, or a ferritin concentration of more than 1000 µg/L, which had been increasing over the previous 24 h, or lymphopenia below 800/mL with two of the following criteria: an increasing ferritin concentration of more than 700 µg/L, an increasing lactate dehydrogenase concentration of more than 300 international units per L, an increasing C-reactive protein concentration of more than 70 mg/L, or an increasing D-dimers concentration of more than 1000 ng/mL). The COV-AID trial has a 2 × 2 factorial design to evaluate IL-1 blockade versus no IL-1 blockade and IL-6 blockade versus no IL-6 blockade. Patients were randomly assigned by means of permuted block randomisation with varying block size and stratification by centre. In a first randomisation, patients were assigned to receive subcutaneous anakinra once daily (100 mg) for 28 days or until discharge, or to receive no IL-1 blockade (1:2). In a second randomisation step, patients were allocated to receive a single dose of siltuximab (11 mg/kg) intravenously, or a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) intravenously, or to receive no IL-6 blockade (1:1:1). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement, defined as time from randomisation to an increase of at least two points on a 6-category ordinal scale or to discharge from hospital alive. The primary and supportive efficacy endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the safety population. This study is registered online with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04330638) and EudraCT (2020-001500-41) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 4, and Dec 6, 2020, 342 patients were randomly assigned to IL-1 blockade (n=112) or no IL-1 blockade (n=230) and simultaneously randomly assigned to IL-6 blockade (n=227; 114 for tocilizumab and 113 for siltuximab) or no IL-6 blockade (n=115). Most patients were male (265 [77%] of 342), median age was 65 years (IQR 54-73), and median Systematic Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at randomisation was 3 (2-4). All 342 patients were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. The estimated median time to clinical improvement was 12 days (95% CI 10-16) in the IL-1 blockade group versus 12 days (10-15) in the no IL-1 blockade group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·73-1·21]). For the IL-6 blockade group, the estimated median time to clinical improvement was 11 days (95% CI 10-16) versus 12 days (11-16) in the no IL-6 blockade group (HR 1·00 [0·78-1·29]). 55 patients died during the study, but no evidence for differences in mortality between treatment groups was found. The incidence of serious adverse events and serious infections was similar across study groups. INTERPRETATION: Drugs targeting IL-1 or IL-6 did not shorten the time to clinical improvement in this sample of patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, low SOFA score, and low baseline mortality risk. FUNDING: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center and VIB Grand Challenges program.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Aged , Belgium , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/virology , Female , Ferritins , Humans , Hypoxia , Interleukin-1/antagonists & inhibitors , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/drug therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
15.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-296226

ABSTRACT

Deficiency of the element zinc is associated with cytokine releasing syndrome (CRS) and the related acute respiratory distress syndrome as well as impaired antiviral response. Similar complications associate with severe SARS-CoV-2. We conducted a prospective, single-center, observational study in a tertiary university hospital (CUB-Hopital Erasme, Brussels) to address the zinc status, the association between the plasma zinc concentration, development of CRS, and the clinical outcomes in PCR-confirmed and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. One hundred and thirty-nine eligible patients were included between May 2020 and November 2020 (median age of 65 years [IQR, 54 to 77]). Our cohort’s mean plasma zinc concentration was 56.2 µg/dL (standard deviation [SD], 14.8) compared to 75.7 µg/dL (SD = 18.9 µg/dL) in the retrospective non-COVID-19 control group (N = 1513;P <.001). Markedly, the absolute majority of patients (96%) were zinc deficient (<80 µg/dL). The mean zinc concentration was lower in patients with CRS compared to those without CRS (−5 µg/dL;95% CI, -10.5 to 0.051;P = 0.048). Among the tested outcomes, zinc concentration is significantly correlated with only the length of hospital stay (rho = -0.19;P = 0.022), but not with mortality or morbidity. As such, our findings do not support the role of zinc as a robust prognostic marker among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who in our cohort presented high prevalence of zinc deficiency. It might be more beneficial to explore the role of zinc as a biomarker for assessing the risk of developing a tissue-damaging CRS and predicting outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at the early stage of the disease.

18.
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
19.
Int Immunopharmacol ; 100: 108163, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1415472

ABSTRACT

Zinc deficiency is associated with impaired antiviral response, cytokine releasing syndrome (CRS), and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Notably, similar complications are being observed during severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. We conducted a prospective, single-center, observational study in a tertiary university hospital (CUB-Hôpital Erasme, Brussels) to address the zinc status, the association between the plasma zinc concentration, development of CRS, and the clinical outcomes in PCR-confirmed and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. One hundred and thirty-nine eligible patients were included between May 2020 and November 2020 (median age of 65 years [IQR = 54, 77]). Our cohort's median plasma zinc concentration was 57 µg/dL (interquartile range [IQR] = 45, 67) compared to 74 µg/dL (IQR = 64, 84) in the retrospective non-COVID-19 control group (N = 1513; p < 0.001). Markedly, the absolute majority of COVID-19 patients (96%) were zinc deficient (<80 µg/dL). The median zinc concentration was lower in patients with CRS compared to those without CRS (-5 µg/dL; 95% CI = -10.5, 0.051; p = 0.048). Among the tested outcomes, zinc concentration is significantly correlated with only the length of hospital stay (rho = -0.19; p = 0.022), but not with mortality or morbidity. As such, our findings do not support the role of zinc as a robust prognostic marker among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who in our cohort presented a high prevalence of zinc deficiency. It might be more beneficial to explore the role of zinc as a biomarker for assessing the risk of developing a tissue-damaging CRS and predicting outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at the early stage of the disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Zinc/blood , Aged , COVID-19/blood , Cytokine Release Syndrome/blood , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Zinc/physiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL