Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 30
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(11): e3978-e3979, 2021 12 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700359
2.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316254

ABSTRACT

Using administrative data on all veterans who enter Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers throughout the United States, this paper uses machine learning methods to predict mortality rates for COVID-19 patients between March and August 2020. First, using comprehensive data on over 10,000 veterans' medical history, demographics, and lab results, we estimate five AI models. Our XGBoost model performs the best, producing an AUROC and AUPRC of 0.87 and 0.41, respectively. Second, through a unique collaboration with the Washington D.C. VA medical center, we develop a dashboard that incorporates these risk factors and the contributing sources of risk, which we deploy across local VA medical centers.

3.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(4): 327-336, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1665591

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The oral, selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib has shown efficacy in studies of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. COV-BARRIER (NCT04421027) was a multinational, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of baricitinib in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care in critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. METHODS: This exploratory trial followed the study design of COV-BARRIER in a critically ill cohort not included in the main phase 3 trial. The study was conducted across 18 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the USA. Participants (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection on baseline invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were randomly assigned (1:1) to baricitinib (4 mg) or placebo once daily for up to 14 days in combination with standard of care. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to study group assignment. Prespecified endpoints included all-cause mortality through days 28 and 60, number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery through day 28. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and the safety analysis was done in the safety population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2020, and April 10, 2021, 101 participants were enrolled into the exploratory trial and assigned to baricitinib (n=51) or placebo (n=50) plus standard of care. Standard of care included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 87 (86%) participants. Treatment with baricitinib significantly reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared with placebo (20 [39%] of 51 participants died in the baricitinib group vs 29 [58%] of 50 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·31-0·96]; p=0·030; 46% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 19%). A significant reduction in 60-day mortality was also observed in the baricitinib group compared with the placebo group (23 [45%] events vs 31 [62%]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·33-0·97]; p=0·027; 44% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 17%). In every six baricitinib-treated participants, one additional death was prevented compared with placebo at days 28 and 60. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between treatment groups (mean 8·1 days [SD 10·2] in the baricitinib group vs 5·5 days [8·4] in the placebo group; p=0·21). The mean duration of hospitalisation in baricitinib-treated participants was not significantly shorter than in placebo-treated participants (23·7 days [SD 7·1] vs 26·1 days [3·9]; p=0·050). The rates of infections, blood clots, and adverse cardiovascular events were similar between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: In critically ill hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, treatment with baricitinib compared with placebo (in combination with standard of care, including corticosteroids) reduced mortality, which is consistent with the mortality reduction observed in less severely ill patients in the hospitalised primary COV-BARRIER study population. However, this was an exploratory trial with a relatively small sample size; therefore, further phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Adolescent , Adult , Azetidines , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Purines , Pyrazoles , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Standard of Care , Sulfonamides , Treatment Outcome
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(49): 1700-1705, 2021 Dec 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1614365

ABSTRACT

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech) provide strong protection against severe COVID-19, including hospitalization, for at least several months after receipt of the second dose (1,2). However, studies examining immune responses and differences in protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in real-world settings, including by vaccine product, are limited. To understand how vaccine effectiveness (VE) might change with time, CDC and collaborators assessed the comparative effectiveness of Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization at two periods (14-119 days and ≥120 days) after receipt of the second vaccine dose among 1,896 U.S. veterans at five Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) during February 1-September 30, 2021. Among 234 U.S. veterans fully vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and without evidence of current or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2 were also compared. Adjusted VE 14-119 days following second Moderna vaccine dose was 89.6% (95% CI = 80.1%-94.5%) and after the second Pfizer-BioNTech dose was 86.0% (95% CI = 77.6%-91.3%); at ≥120 days VE was 86.1% (95% CI = 77.7%-91.3%) for Moderna and 75.1% (95% CI = 64.6%-82.4%) for Pfizer-BioNTech. Antibody levels were significantly higher among Moderna recipients than Pfizer-BioNTech recipients across all age groups and periods since vaccination; however, antibody levels among recipients of both products declined between 14-119 days and ≥120 days. These findings from a cohort of older, hospitalized veterans with high prevalences of underlying conditions suggest the importance of booster doses to help maintain long-term protection against severe COVID-19.†.


Subject(s)
/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , /statistics & numerical data , /administration & dosage , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology , Veterans/statistics & numerical data , Veterans Health Services
6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(11): e3978-e3979, 2021 12 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575770
8.
Open Forum Infectious Diseases ; 8(Supplement_1):S29-S29, 2021.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1569742

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID19 pneumonia results from a hyperinflammatory immune response (cytokine storm, CS), characterized by GM CSF mediated activation and trafficking of myeloid cells, leading to elevation of downstream inflammatory chemokines (MCP1, IL8, IP10), cytokines (IL6, IL1), and other markers of systemic inflammation (CRP, D dimer, ferritin). CS leads to fever, hypotension, coagulopathy, respiratory failure, ARDS, and death. Lenzilumab is a novel Humaneered anti-human GM CSF monoclonal antibody that directly binds GM CSF and prevents signaling through its receptor. The LIVE AIR Phase 3 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab to assess the potential for lenzilumab to improve the likelihood of ventilator free survival (referred to herein as survival without ventilation, SWOV), beyond standard supportive care, in hospitalized subjects with severe COVID-19. METHODS: Subjects with COVID-19 (n=520), >18 years <94% oxygen saturation on room air and/or requiring supplemental oxygen, but not invasive mechanical ventilation, were randomized to receive lenzilumab (600 mg, n=261) or placebo (n=259) via three intravenous infusions administered 8 hours apart. Subjects were followed through Day 28 following treatment. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were comparable between the two treatment groups: male, 64.7%;mean age, 60.5 years;mean BMI, 32.5 kg/m2;mean CRP, 98.36 mg/L;CRP was <150 mg/L in 77.9% of subjects. The most common comorbidities were obesity (55.1%), diabetes (53.4%), chronic kidney disease (14.0%), and coronary artery disease (13.6%). Subjects received steroids (93.7%), remdesivir (72.4%), or both (69.1%). Lenzilumab improved the likelihood of SWOV by 54% in the mITT population (HR: 1.54;95% CI: 1.02 to 2.31, p=0.041) and by 90% in the ITT population (HR: 1.90;1.02 to 3.52, nominal p=0.043) compared to placebo. SWOV also relatively improved by 92% in subjects who received both corticosteroids and remdesivir (1.92;1.20 to 3.07, nominal p=0.0067);by 2.96-fold in subjects with CRP<150 mg/L and age <85 years (2.96;1.63 to 5.37, nominal p=0.0003);and by 88% in subjects hospitalized <2 days prior to randomization (1.88;1.13 to 3.12, nominal p=0.015). Survival was improved by 2.17-fold in subjects with CRP<150 mg/L and age <85 years (2.17;1.04 to 4.54, nominal p=0.040). CONCLUSION: Lenzilumab significantly improved SWOV in hospitalized, hypoxic subjects with COVID-19 pneumonia over and above treatment with remdesivir and/or corticosteroids. Subjects with CRP<150 mg/L and age <85 years demonstrated an improvement in survival and had the greatest benefit from lenzilumab. NCT04351152

9.
J Allergy Clin Immunol ; 149(2): 565-568, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1565578

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):S808-S809, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564089

ABSTRACT

Background Interventions to reduce mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are a crucial unmet medical need. Baricitinib (BARI) is an oral, selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor with efficacy in hospitalized adults with COVID-19. Treatment with BARI 4-mg was evaluated in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 with baseline need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods COV-BARRIER (NCT04421027) was a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and elevation of ≥ 1 serum inflammatory marker. In this newly completed substudy, enrolled participants (not previously reported) from 4 countries on IMV or ECMO at study entry were randomly assigned 1:1 to once-daily BARI 4-mg or placebo (PBO) for up to 14 days plus standard of care (SOC), which included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 86% of patients. The prespecified exploratory endpoints included all-cause mortality and number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) through Day 28. Results Characteristics for 101 participants are shown in Table 1. Treatment with BARI significantly reduced all-cause mortality by Day 28 compared to PBO [39.2% vs 58.0%, respectively;hazard ratio (HR) = 0.54 (95%CI 0.31, 0.96), p=0.030, relative risk (RR) = 0.68 (95%CI 0.45, 1.02);Figure 1A]. One additional death was prevented for every six BARI-treated patients. Significant reduction in mortality was also observed by Day 60 [45.1% vs 62.0%;HR = 0.56 (95%CI 0.33, 0.97), p=0.027, RR = 0.73 (95%CI 0.50, 1.06);Figure 1B]. Patients treated with BARI showed a numerical reduction in the duration of IMV and duration of hospitalization vs PBO and more BARI treated patients recovered (Table 2). No new safety findings were observed (Table 2). Conclusion Treatment with BARI+SOC (corticosteroids) resulted in an absolute risk reduction in mortality of 19% at Day 28 and 17% at Day 60 in patients with COVID-19 who were on IMV or ECMO at enrollment. These results are consistent with the reduction in mortality observed in the less severely ill hospitalized patients in the primary COV-BARRIER study population. Disclosures E. Wesley Ely, MD, CDC (Grant/Research Support)Eli Lilly (Other Financial or Material Support, Unpaid consultant)NIH (Grant/Research Support)VA (Grant/Research Support) Athimalaipet V. Ramanan, FRCP, AbbVie (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Eli Lilly and Company (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Speaker’s Bureau)Novartis (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Pfizer (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Roche (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Sobi (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)UCB (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau) Cynthia E. Kartman, RN BSN, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Stephanie de Bono, MD PhD, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Ran Liao, PhD, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Maria Lucia B Piruzeli, MD, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Sujatro Chakladar, PhD, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Vincent Marconi, MD, Bayer (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Eli Lilly (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ViiV (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)

11.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):29-29, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564907

ABSTRACT

Background Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often results from the immune-mediated cytokine storm, triggered by granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), potentially leading to respiratory failure and death. Lenzilumab, a novel anti-human GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, neutralizes GM-CSF and demonstrated potential to improve clinical outcomes in a matched case-cohort study of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab to improve the likelihood of survival without invasive mechanical ventilation (SWOV), beyond available treatments. Methods Hypoxic patients, hospitalized with COVID-19 (n=520), requiring supplemental oxygen, but not invasive mechanical ventilation, were randomized on Day 0 to receive lenzilumab (1800mg, n=261) or placebo (n=259), and available treatments, including remdesivir and/or corticosteroids;and were followed through Day 28. Results Baseline demographics were comparable between groups: male, 64.7%;mean age, 60.5 years;median CRP, 79.0 mg/L. Patients across both groups received steroids (93.7%), remdesivir (72.4%), or both (69.1%). Lenzilumab improved the primary endpoint, likelihood of SWOV in the mITT population, by 1.54-fold (HR: 1.54;95%CI: 1.02-2.32, p=0.0403). Lenzilumab improved SWOV by 1.91-fold (nominal p=0.0073) and 1.92-fold (nominal p=0.0067) in patients receiving remdesivir or remdesivir and corticosteroids, respectively. A key secondary endpoint of incidence of IMV, ECMO or death was also improved in patients receiving remdesivir (p=0.020) or remdesivir and corticosteroids (p=0.0180). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were similar across both groups. Conclusion Lenzilumab significantly improved SWOV in hypoxic COVID-19 patients upon hospitalization, with the greatest benefit observed in patients receiving treatment with remdesivir and corticosteroids. NCT04351152 Disclosures Zelalem Temesgem, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support) Jason Baker, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support) Christopher Polk, MD, Atea (Research Grant or Support)Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Humanigen (Research Grant or Support)Regeneron (Research Grant or Support) Claudia R. Libertin, MD, Gilead (Grant/Research Support) Colleen F. Kelley, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support;Moderna (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support;Novavax (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support;Viiv (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support Vincent Marconi, MD, Bayer (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Eli Lilly (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ViiV (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Victoria Catterson, PhD, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) William Aronstein, MD, PhD, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) Cameron Durrant, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Dale Chappell, MD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Omar Ahmed, PharmD, Humanigen, Inc (Employee) Gabrielle Chappell, MSc, Humanigen, Inc (Consultant) Andrew Badley, M.D., AbbVie (Consultant) for the LIVE-AIR Study Group, n/a, Humanigen, Inc (Grant/Research Support)

12.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-295408

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Background The efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care (SOC) in hospitalised adults with COVID-19 is unknown. Methods In this phase 3, global, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04421027 ). Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving SOC were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-daily baricitinib 4-mg or placebo for up to 14 days. SOC included systemic corticosteroids in 79·3% of participants (dexamethasone ∼90%). The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28. All-cause mortality by days 28 and 60 were key secondary and exploratory endpoints, respectively. Efficacy and safety analyses included the intent-to-treat and safety populations, respectively. Findings Between June 11, 2020 and January 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to baricitinib 4-mg (n=764) or matched placebo (n=761). Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib vs 30·5% receiving placebo progressed (primary endpoint, odds ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·67-1·08;p=0·18). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8·1% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13·1% (n=100) for placebo, corresponding to a 38·2% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·41-0·78;nominal p=0·0018). The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10·3% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15·2% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·47-0·83;p=0·0050). Frequency of serious adverse events (14·7% [n=110] vs 18·0% [n=135]), serious infections (8·5% [n=64] vs 9·8% [n=74]), and venous thromboembolic events (2·7% [n=20] vs 2·5% [n=19]) was similar between baricitinib and placebo, respectively. Interpretation While reduction of disease progression did not achieve statistical significance, treatment with baricitinib in addition to SOC (including dexamethasone) significantly reduced mortality, with a similar safety profile to SOC, in hospitalised COVID-19 participants. Funding Eli Lilly and Company. Research in context Evidence before this study We searched PubMed using the terms “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “treatment”, “baricitinib” and “JAK inhibitor” for articles in English published up to April 31, 2020, regardless of article type. We considered previous and current clinical trials of investigational medications in COVID-19, as well as previous clinical trials of the Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor, baricitinib, before undertaking this study. At the time the COV-BARRIER study was designed, there were no approved therapies for the treatment of COVID-19. Management of COVID-19 was supportive, and limited phase 3 randomised placebo-controlled studies had been completed. Limited phase 2 and 3 data on the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine and protease inhibitor lopinavir/ritonavir were available, and trials investigating the use of the antiviral remdesivir were ongoing. Baricitinib’s mechanism of action as a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor was identified as a potential intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 given its known anti-cytokine properties and potential for targeting host proteins for its antiviral mechanism. Additionally, early case series evaluating the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in the hospitalised patient population supported further evaluation of baricitinib as a potential treatment option for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. While COV-BARRIER was enrolling, ACTT-2, a phase 3 study evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir was completed showing that baricitinib added to remdesivir improved time to recovery and other outcomes. Added value of this study This was the first phase 3 study to evaluate baricitinib in addition to the current standard of care (SOC) and included antivirals, anticoagulants, and cort costeroids. After the earliest publication of the RECOVERY study in June 2020, the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 changed with the adoption of dexamethasone as SOC. As a result of its design, COV-BARRIER became the first trial to evaluate the benefit/risk of baricitinib when added to the most current SOC (dexamethasone) in these patients. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted globally in regions with high COVID-19 hospitalisation rates. The reduction in the composite primary endpoint of progression to non-invasive ventilation, high flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death for baricitinib plus SOC (including dexamethasone) compared to placebo plus SOC did not reach statistical significance. However, in a pre-specified key secondary endpoint, treatment with baricitinib reduced 28-day all-cause mortality by 38·2% compared to placebo (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·41-0·78;nominal p=0·0018);one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The reduction of all-cause mortality with baricitinib was maintained by day 60 in an exploratory analysis. The frequency of serious adverse events, serious infections, and venous thromboembolic events was similar between baricitinib and placebo, respectively. Implications of all the available evidence In this phase 3 trial, baricitinib given in addition to SOC (which predominantly included dexamethasone) did not reduce a composite endpoint of disease progression, but showed a strong effect on reducing mortality by 28 days, an effect which was maintained by 60 days. In the ACTT-2 study, baricitinib further reduced time to recovery above the background use of remdesivir. Taken together, these findings suggest that baricitinib has synergistic effects to other SOC treatment modalities including remdesivir and dexamethasone. Based on all available evidence, baricitinib is a potentially effective oral treatment option to decrease mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

13.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-294654

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Background The oral, selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor baricitinib demonstrated efficacy in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in critically ill adults with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods COV-BARRIER was a global, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04421027 ). This addendum trial added a critically ill cohort not included in the main COV-BARRIER trial. Participants on baseline IMV/ECMO were randomly assigned 1:1 to baricitinib 4-mg (n=51) or placebo (n=50) for up to 14 days in combination with standard of care (SOC). Prespecified endpoints included all-cause mortality through days 28 and 60, and number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery through day 28. Efficacy and safety analyses included the intent-to-treat and safety populations, respectively. Findings SOC included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 86% of participants. Treatment with baricitinib significantly reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared to placebo (39·2% vs 58·0%;hazard ratio [HR]=0·54 [95%CI 0·31–0·96];p=0·030). One additional death was prevented for every six baricitinib-treated participants. Significant reduction in 60-day mortality was also observed (45·1% vs 62·0%;HR=0·56 [95%CI 0·33–0·97];p=0·027). Baricitinib-treated participants showed numerically more ventilator-free days (8.1 vs 5.5 days, p=0.21) and spent over 2 days less in the hospital than placebo-treated participants (23·7 vs 26·1 days, p=0·050). The rates of infections, blood clots, and adverse cardiovascular events were similar between treatment arms. Interpretation In critically ill patients with COVID-19 already receiving IMV/ECMO, treatment with baricitinib as compared to placebo (in combination with SOC, including corticosteroids) showed mortality HR of 0·56, corresponding to a 44% relative reduction at 60 days. This is consistent with the mortality reduction observed in less severely ill hospitalised primary COV-BARRIER study population. Funding Eli Lilly and Company. Research in context Evidence before this study We evaluated current and prior studies assessing the efficacy and safety of interventions in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and searched current PubMed using the terms “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “treatment”, “critical illness”, “invasive mechanical ventilation”, “baricitinib”, and “JAK inhibitor” for articles in English, published until December 1, 2020, regardless of article type. We also reviewed the NIH and IDSA COVID-19 guidelines and reviewed similar terms on clinicaltrials.gov. When the critical illness addendum study to COV-BARRIER study was designed, there was only one open-label study of dexamethasone showing mortality benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring IMV. Small studies of interleukin-6 inhibitors had shown no effect and larger trials were underway. Guidelines recommended use of dexamethasone with or without remdesivir and recommended against the use of interleukin-6 inhibitors, except in a clinical trial. Overall, there were no reported double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials which included corticosteroids as part of SOC investigating the efficacy and safety of novel treatments in the NIAID-OS 7 population. Baricitinib’s mechanism of action as a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor was identified as a potential intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 given its known anti-cytokine properties and potential antiviral mechanism for targeting host proteins mediating viral endocytosis Data from the NIAID sponsored ACTT-2 trial showed that baricitinib when added to remdesivir improved time to recovery and other outcomes including mortality compared to placebo plus remdesivir. A numerically larg r proportion of participants who received baricitinib plus remdesivir showed an improvement in ordinal scale compared to those who received placebo plus remdesivir at day 15 in participants requiring IMV (NIAID-OS score of 7) at baseline. We designed COV-BARRIER, a phase 3, global, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with SOC (including corticosteroids) for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 who did not require mechanical ventilation (i.e., NIAID-OS 4-6). A significant reduction in mortality was found after 28 days between baricitinib and placebo (HR 0·57, corresponding to a 43% relative reduction, p=0·0018);one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. In the more severely ill NIAID-OS 6 subgroup, one additional death was prevented per nine baricitinib-treated participants (HR 0·52, corresponding to a 48% relative reduction, p=0·0065). We therefore implemented an addendum to the COV-BARRIER trial to evaluate the benefit/risk of baricitinib in the critically ill NIAID-OS 7 population and considered the sample size of 100 participants sufficient for this trial. Added value of this study This was the first phase 3 study to evaluate baricitinib in addition to the current standard of care (SOC), including antivirals, anticoagulants, and corticosteroids, in patients who were receiving IMV or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at enrolment. This was a multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in regions with high COVID-19 hospitalisation rates. Treatment with baricitinib reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared to placebo (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·31–0·96;nominal p=0·030), corresponding to a 46% relative reduction, and significantly reduced 60-day all-cause mortality (HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·33–0·97;p=0·027);overall, one additional death was prevented per six baricitinib-treated participants. Numerical improvements in endpoints such as number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery were demonstrated. The frequency of serious adverse events, serious infections, and venous thromboembolic events was similar between baricitinib and placebo, respectively. The COV-BARRIER study overall trial results plus these COV-BARRIER addendum study data in mechanically ventilated and ECMO patients provide important information in context of other large, phase 3 randomised trials in participants with invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline. The RECOVERY study reported mortality of 29·3% following treatment with dexamethasone compared to 41·4% for usual care (rate ratio of 0·64, corresponding to a 36% relative reduction) and 49% mortality in participants who received tocilizumab compared to 51% for usual care (rate ratio of 0.93, corresponding to a 7% relative reduction). The ACTT-2 study reported 28-day mortality of 23·1% and 22·6% in the baricitinib plus remdesivir and placebo plus remdesivir groups, respectively, in this critically ill patient population;however, the primary outcome of this trial was time to recovery, so was not powered to detect a change in mortality. Implications of all the available evidence In this phase 3 addendum trial, baricitinib given in addition to SOC (which predominantly included corticosteroids) had a significant effect on mortality reduction by 28 days in critically ill patients, an effect which was maintained by 60 days. These data were comparable with those seen in the COV-BARRIER primary study population of hospitalised patients, but which excluded patients who required IMV or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at enrolment. These findings suggest that baricitinib has synergistic effects to other SOC treatment modalities including remdesivir and dexamethasone. Based on the available evidence, baricitinib is a novel treatment option to decrease mortality in hospitalised, critically ill patients with COVID-19 even when started late in the disease process after steroids, mechanical ventilat on, and ECMO have already been implemented.

14.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(3): 237-246, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1550165

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes immune-mediated hyperinflammation, which could potentially lead to respiratory failure and death. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is among cytokines that contribute to the inflammatory processes. Lenzilumab, a GM-CSF neutralising monoclonal antibody, was investigated in the LIVE-AIR trial to assess its efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 beyond available treatments. METHODS: In LIVE-AIR, a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were recruited from 29 sites in the USA and Brazil and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three intravenous doses of lenzilumab (600 mg per dose) or placebo delivered 8 h apart. All patients received standard supportive care, including the use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified at randomisation by age and disease severity. The primary endpoint was survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), comprising all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study drug under the documented supervision of the principal investigator or sub-investigator. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04351152, and is completed. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled from May 5, 2020, until Jan 27, 2021. 528 patients were screened, of whom 520 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. 479 of these patients (n=236, lenzilumab; n=243, placebo) were included in the mITT analysis for the primary outcome. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. 311 (65%) participants were males, mean age was 61 (SD 14) years at baseline, and median C-reactive protein concentration was 79 (IQR 41-137) mg/L. Steroids were administered to 449 (94%) patients and remdesivir to 347 (72%) patients; 331 (69%) patients received both treatments. Survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 was achieved in 198 (84%; 95% CI 79-89) participants in the lenzilumab group and in 190 (78%; 72-83) patients in the placebo group, and the likelihood of survival was greater with lenzilumab than placebo (hazard ratio 1·54; 95% CI 1·02-2·32; p=0·040). 68 (27%) of 255 patients in the lenzilumab group and 84 (33%) of 257 patients in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event that was at least grade 3 in severity based on CTCAE criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were related to respiratory disorders (26%) and cardiac disorders (6%) and none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Lenzilumab significantly improved survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The added value of lenzilumab beyond other immunomodulators used to treat COVID-19 alongside steroids remains unknown. FUNDING: Humanigen.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
15.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1407-1418, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545515

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company. TRANSLATIONS: For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Azetidines/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Purines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , Adult , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents , Asia , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone , Double-Blind Method , Europe , Humans , North America , SARS-CoV-2 , South America , Treatment Outcome
16.
Eur Respir J ; 2021 Nov 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1538054

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone decreases mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on intensive respiratory support (IRS) but is of uncertain benefit if less severely ill. We determined whether early (within 48 h) dexamethasone was associated with mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 not on IRS. METHODS: We included patients admitted to Veterans Affairs hospitals between June 7, 2020-May 31, 2021 within 14-days after SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Exclusions included recent prior corticosteroids and IRS within 48 h. We used inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to balance exposed and unexposed groups, and Cox proportional hazards models to determine 90-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 19 973 total patients (95% men, median age 71, 27% black), 15 404 (77%) were without IRS within 48 h. Of these, 3514/9450 (34%) patients on no oxygen received dexamethasone and 1042 (11%) died; 4472/5954 (75%) patients on low-flow nasal cannula (NC) received dexamethasone and 857 (14%) died. In IPTW stratified models, patients on no oxygen who received dexamethasone experienced 76% increased risk for 90-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47 to 2.12); there was no association with mortality among patients on NC (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.36). CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, early initiation of dexamethasone was common and was associated with no mortality benefit among those on no oxygen or NC in the first 48 h; instead, we found evidence of potential harm. These real-world findings do not support the use of early dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients without IRS.

17.
Front Public Health ; 9: 739076, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1518570

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rapidly initiated COVID-19 surveillance by leveraging existing hospital networks to assess disease burden among hospitalized inpatients and inform prevention efforts. Materials and Methods: The Surveillance Platform for Enteric and Respiratory Infectious Organisms at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (SUPERNOVA) is a network of five United States Veterans Affairs Medical Centers which serves nearly 400,000 Veterans annually and conducts laboratory-based passive and active monitoring for pathogens associated with acute gastroenteritis and acute respiratory illness among hospitalized Veterans. This paper presents surveillance methods for adapting the SUPERNOVA surveillance platform to prospectively evaluate COVID-19 epidemiology during a public health emergency, including detecting, characterizing, and monitoring patients with and without COVID-19 beginning in March 2020. To allow for case-control analyses, patients with COVID-19 and patients with non-COVID-19 acute respiratory illness were included. Results: SUPERNOVA included 1,235 participants with COVID-19 and 707 participants with other acute respiratory illnesses hospitalized during February through December 2020. Most participants were male (93.1%), with a median age of 70 years, and 45.8% non-Hispanic Black and 32.6% non-Hispanic White. Among those with COVID-19, 28.2% were transferred to an intensive care unit, 9.4% received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 13.9% died. Compared with controls, after adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, COVID-19 case-patients had significantly higher risk of mortality, respiratory failure, and invasive mechanical ventilation, and longer hospital stays. Discussion: Strengths of the SUPERNOVA platform for COVID-19 surveillance include the ability to collect and integrate multiple types of data, including clinical and illness outcome information, and SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results from respiratory and serum specimens. Analysis of data from this platform also enables formal comparisons of participants with and without COVID-19. Surveillance data collected during a public health emergency from this key U.S. population of Veterans will be useful for epidemiologic investigations of COVID-19 spectrum of disease, underlying medical conditions, virus variants, and vaccine effectiveness, according to public health priorities and needs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Veterans , Adult , Aged , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
18.
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology ; 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1498764
19.
J Int AIDS Soc ; 24 Suppl 6: e25810, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487489

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest provider of HIV care in the United States. Changes in healthcare delivery became necessary with the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared HIV healthcare delivery during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to a prior similar calendar period. METHODS: We included 27,674 people with HIV (PWH) enrolled in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study prior to 1 March 2019, with ≥1 healthcare encounter from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2020 (2019) and/or 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 (2020). We counted monthly general medicine/infectious disease (GM/ID) clinic visits and HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) tests. We determined the percentage with ≥1 clinic visit (in-person vs. telephone/video [virtual]) and ≥1 VL test (detectable vs. suppressed) for 2019 and 2020. Using pharmacy records, we summarized antiretroviral (ARV) medication refill length (<90 vs. ≥90 days) and monthly ARV coverage. RESULTS: Most patients had ≥1 GM/ID visit in 2019 (96%) and 2020 (95%). For 2019, 27% of visits were virtual compared to 64% in 2020. In 2019, 82% had VL measured compared to 74% in 2020. Of those with VL measured, 92% and 91% had suppressed VL in 2019 and 2020. ARV refills for ≥90 days increased from 39% in 2019 to 51% in 2020. ARV coverage was similar for all months of 2019 and 2020 ranging from 76% to 80% except for March 2019 (72%). Women were less likely than men to be on ARVs or to have a VL test in both years. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the VA increased the use of virtual visits and longer ARV refills, while maintaining a high percentage of patients with suppressed VL among those with VL measured. Despite decreased in-person services during the pandemic, access to ARVs was not disrupted. More follow-up time is needed to determine whether overall health was impacted by the use of differentiated service delivery and to evaluate whether a long-term shift to increased virtual healthcare could be beneficial, particularly for PWH in rural areas or with transportation barriers. Programmes to increase ARV use and VL testing for women are needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Veterans , Cohort Studies , Female , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
20.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses ; 2021 Nov 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475725

ABSTRACT

We explored experiences with telemedicine among persons with HIV (PWH) during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A convenience sample of adults (>18 years) receiving care in an urban clinic in Atlanta were invited to participate. Patients completed a structured survey that assessed the usefulness, quality, satisfaction, and concerns with telemedicine services (telephone calls) received during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-May 2020). Demographic, plasma HIV-1 RNA, and CD4+ T cell count data were obtained through medical chart abstraction. Bootstrapped t-tests and chi-square tests were used to examine differences in patient experiences by age, sex, and race. Of 406 PWH contacted, 101 completed the survey (median age 55 years, 84% men, 77% Black, 98% virally suppressed, median CD4 count 572 cells/µL). The main HIV care disruptions experienced were delays in follow-up visits (40%), difficulty getting viral load measured (35%), and difficulty accessing antiretroviral therapy (21%). Participant ratings for quality (median score 6.5/7), usefulness (median score 6.0/7), and satisfaction (median score 6.3/7) with telemedicine were high. However, 28% of patients expressed concerns about providers' ability to examine them and about the lack of laboratory tests. More women had concerns about providers' ability to examine them (92% vs. 50%, p = .005) and about the safety of their personal information (69% vs. 23%, p = .002) compared with men. No age or race differences were observed. Although PWH are generally satisfied with telephone-based telemedicine, concerns with its use were notable, particularly among women. Future HIV telemedicine models should address these.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL