Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Bradbury, Charlotte A. M. D. PhD, Lawler, Patrick R. M. D. M. P. H.; Stanworth, Simon J. M. D.; McVerry, Bryan J. M. D.; McQuilten, Zoe PhD, Higgins, Alisa M. PhD, Mouncey, Paul R. MSc, Al-Beidh, Farah PhD, Rowan, Kathryn M. PhD, Berry, Lindsay R. PhD, Lorenzi, Elizabeth PhD, Zarychanski, Ryan M. D. MSc, Arabi, Yaseen M. M. D.; Annane, Djillali M. D. PhD, Beane, Abi PhD, van Bentum-Puijk, Wilma MSc, Bhimani, Zahra M. P. H.; Bihari, Shailesh PhD, M Bonten, Marc J. M. D. PhD, Brunkhorst, Frank M. M. D. PhD, Buzgau, Adrian MSc, Buxton, Meredith PhD, Carrier, Marc M. D. MSc, Cheng, Allen C. Mbbs PhD, Cove, Matthew Mbbs, Detry, Michelle A. PhD, Estcourt, Lise J. MBBCh PhD, Fitzgerald, Mark PhD, Girard, Timothy D. M. D. Msci, Goligher, Ewan C. M. D. PhD, Goossens, Herman PhD, Haniffa, Rashan PhD, Hills, Thomas Mbbs PhD, Huang, David T. M. D. M. P. H.; Horvat, Christopher M. M. D.; Hunt, Beverley J. M. D. PhD, Ichihara, Nao M. D. M. P. H. PhD, Lamontagne, Francois M. D.; Leavis, Helen L. M. D. PhD, Linstrum, Kelsey M. M. S.; Litton, Edward M. D. PhD, Marshall, John C. M. D.; McAuley, Daniel F. M. D.; McGlothlin, Anna PhD, McGuinness, Shay P. M. D.; Middeldorp, Saskia M. D. PhD, Montgomery, Stephanie K. MSc, Morpeth, Susan C. M. D. PhD, Murthy, Srinivas M. D.; Neal, Matthew D. M. D.; Nichol, Alistair D. M. D. PhD, Parke, Rachael L. PhD, Parker, Jane C. B. N.; Reyes, Luis F. M. D. PhD, Saito, Hiroki M. D. M. P. H.; Santos, Marlene S. M. D. Mshs, Saunders, Christina T. PhD, Serpa-Neto, Ary PhD MSc M. D.; Seymour, Christopher W. M. D. MSc, Shankar-Hari, Manu M. D. PhD, Singh, Vanessa, Tolppa, Timo Mbbs, Turgeon, Alexis F. M. D. MSc, Turner, Anne M. M. P. H.; van de Veerdonk, Frank L. M. D. PhD, Green, Cameron MSc, Lewis, Roger J. M. D. PhD, Angus, Derek C. M. D. M. P. H.; McArthur, Colin J. M. D.; Berry, Scott PhD, G Derde, Lennie P. M. D. PhD, Webb, Steve A. M. D. PhD, Gordon, Anthony C. Mbbs M. D..
JAMA ; 327(13):1247, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1801957

ABSTRACT

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

2.
JAMA ; 327(13): 1247-1259, 2022 Apr 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1750260

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Adult , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Aspirin/adverse effects , Bayes Theorem , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy
4.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 867-886, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305144

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ritonavir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Drug Combinations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Pediatr Infect Dis J ; 40(6): 503-512, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1197052

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severity of viral respiratory illnesses can be increased with bacterial coinfection and can vary by sex, but influence of coinfection and sex on human endemic coronavirus (CoV) species, which generally cause mild to moderate respiratory illness, is unknown. We evaluated CoV and pneumococcal co-detection by sex in childhood pneumonia. METHODS: In the 2011-2014 Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health study, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP/OP) swabs and other samples were collected from 3981 children <5 years hospitalized with severe or very severe pneumonia in 7 countries. Severity by NP/OP detection status of CoV (NL63, 229E, OC43 or HKU1) and high-density (≥6.9 log10 copies/mL) pneumococcus (HDSpn) by real-time polymerase chain reaction was assessed by sex using logistic regression adjusted for age and site. RESULTS: There were 43 (1.1%) CoV+/HDSpn+, 247 CoV+/HDSpn-, 449 CoV-/HDSpn+ and 3149 CoV-/HDSpn- cases with no significant difference in co-detection frequency by sex (range 51.2%-64.0% male, P = 0.06). More CoV+/HDSpn+ pneumonia was very severe compared with other groups for both males (13/22, 59.1% versus range 29.1%-34.7%, P = 0.04) and females (10/21, 47.6% versus 32.5%-43.5%, P = 0.009), but only male CoV+/HDSpn+ required supplemental oxygen more frequently (45.0% versus 20.6%-28.6%, P < 0.001) and had higher mortality (35.0% versus 5.3%-7.1%, P = 0.004) than other groups. For females with CoV+/HDSpn+, supplemental oxygen was 25.0% versus 24.8%-33.3% (P = 0.58) and mortality was 10.0% versus 9.2%-12.9% (P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Co-detection of endemic CoV and HDSpn was rare in children hospitalized with pneumonia, but associated with higher severity and mortality in males. Findings may warrant investigation of differences in severity by sex with co-detection of HDSpn and SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Coinfection/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumococcal Infections/diagnosis , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis , Animals , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Child, Preschool , Coinfection/diagnosis , Coinfection/virology , Coronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/virology , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Logistic Models , Male , Nasopharynx/virology , Pneumococcal Infections/epidemiology , Pneumococcal Infections/virology , Pneumonia/diagnosis , Pneumonia/virology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Streptococcus pneumoniae
6.
Pathology ; 53(4): 530-535, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1142192

ABSTRACT

We conducted a multicentre cross sectional observational study of laboratory, public health and hospitalisation data for PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases within the New Zealand Northern Region, between 12 February and 8 June 2020. The aim of this study was to describe population level SARS-CoV-2 upper respiratory tract (URT) viral load dynamics by stratifying positivity rates and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycle threshold (Ct) values of URT samples from COVID-19 cases by days since symptom onset, and to explore utility of Ct values in determining length of time post-infection and thus potential infectivity. Of 123,124 samples tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR, 579 samples (407 positive and 172 negative) from 368 symptomatic non-hospitalised individuals with PCR-confirmed infection were included. Sample positivity rate was 61.5% (8/13) for pre-symptomatic samples, rising to 93.2% (317/340) for samples collected during the purported symptomatic infectious period (days 0-10 post-symptom onset), and dropping to 36.3% (82/226) for post-infectious period samples (day 11 onwards). URT viral load peaked shortly after symptom onset, with median Ct values ranging 20.00-29.99 until 15 days post-symptom onset, and >30.00 after this time. Of samples with a Ct value of <20.00, 96.1% were collected during the symptomatic infectious period. However, of samples with a Ct value ≥30.00 and ≥35.00, 46.9% and 18.5%, respectively, were also collected during the symptomatic infectious period. The findings of this study indicate that at or soon after symptom onset represents the optimum time to test for SARS-CoV-2 in the URT, with median Ct values suggesting the useful testing window extends until around 15 days post-symptom onset. In asymptomatic individuals or those with unknown dates of symptom onset, Ct values <20.00 imply recent onset/potential infectivity, but Ct values ≥30.00 or ≥35.00 do not exclude recent onset/potential infectivity. Individual sample Ct values should not be used as an absolute marker of length of time post-infection or to exclude infectivity where date of symptom onset is unavailable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New Zealand , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Young Adult
7.
Clin Transl Immunology ; 10(3): e1261, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135089

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Circulating antibodies are important markers of previous infection and immunity. Questions remain with respect to the durability and functionality of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study explored antibody responses in recovered COVID-19 patients in a setting where the probability of re-exposure is effectively nil, owing to New Zealand's successful elimination strategy. METHODS: A triplex bead-based assay that detects antibody isotype (IgG, IgM and IgA) and subclass (IgG1, IgG2, IgG3 and IgG4) responses against Nucleocapsid (N) protein, the receptor binding domain (RBD) and Spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 was developed. After establishing baseline levels with pre-pandemic control sera (n = 113), samples from PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients with mild-moderate disease (n = 189) collected up to 8 months post-infection were examined. The relationship between antigen-specific antibodies and neutralising antibodies (NAbs) was explored with a surrogate neutralisation assay that quantifies inhibition of the RBD/hACE-2 interaction. RESULTS: While most individuals had broad isotype and subclass responses to each antigen shortly after infection, only RBD and S protein IgG, as well as NAbs, were relatively stable over the study period, with 99%, 96% and 90% of samples, respectively, having responses over baseline 4-8 months post-infection. Anti-RBD antibodies were strongly correlated with NAbs at all time points (Pearson's r ≥ 0.87), and feasibility of using finger prick sampling to accurately measure anti-RBD IgG was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 persist for up to 8 months following mild-to-moderate infection. This robust response can be attributed to the initial exposure without immune boosting given the lack of community transmission in our setting.

8.
N Engl J Med ; 384(16): 1491-1502, 2021 04 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101727

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial
9.
PeerJ ; 8: e9863, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-782434

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Serological assays that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are critical for determining past infection and investigating immune responses in the COVID-19 pandemic. We established ELISA-based immunoassays using locally produced antigens when New Zealand went into a nationwide lockdown and the supply chain of diagnostic reagents was a widely held domestic concern. The relationship between serum antibody binding measured by ELISA and neutralising capacity was investigated using a surrogate viral neutralisation test (sVNT). METHODS: A pre-pandemic sera panel (n = 113), including respiratory infections with symptom overlap with COVID-19, was used to establish assay specificity. Sera from PCR­confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (n = 21), and PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 (n = 82) that presented to the two largest hospitals in Auckland during the lockdown period were included. A two-step IgG ELISA based on the receptor binding domain (RBD) and spike protein was adapted to determine seropositivity, and neutralising antibodies that block the RBD/hACE­2 interaction were quantified by sVNT. RESULTS: The calculated cut-off (>0.2) in the two-step ELISA maximised specificity by classifying all pre-pandemic samples as negative. Sera from all PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were classified as seropositive by ELISA ≥7 days after symptom onset. There was 100% concordance between the two-step ELISA and the sVNT with all 7+ day sera from PCR­confirmed COVID-19 patients also classified as positive with respect to neutralising antibodies. Of the symptomatic PCR-negative cohort, one individual with notable travel history was classified as positive by two-step ELISA and sVNT, demonstrating the value of serology in detecting prior infection. CONCLUSIONS: These serological assays were established and assessed at a time when human activity was severely restricted in New Zealand. This was achieved by generous sharing of reagents and technical expertise by the international scientific community, and highly collaborative efforts of scientists and clinicians across the country. The assays have immediate utility in supporting clinical diagnostics, understanding transmission in high-risk cohorts and underpinning longer­term 'exit' strategies based on effective vaccines and therapeutics.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL