Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 36
Filter
1.
Journal of Clinical Medicine ; 11(8):2172, 2022.
Article in English | MDPI | ID: covidwho-1785785

ABSTRACT

Predictive scores assessing the risk of respiratory failure in COVID-19 mostly focused on the prediction of early intubation. A combined assessment of clinical parameters and biomarkers of endotheliopathy could allow to predict late worsening of acute respiratory failure (ARF), subsequently warranting intubation in COVID-19. Retrospective single-center derivation (n = 92 subjects) and validation cohorts (n = 59 subjects), including severe COVID-19 patients with non-invasive respiratory support, were assessed for at least 48 h following intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We used stepwise regression to construct the COVID endothelial and respiratory failure (CERES) score in a derivation cohort, and secondly assessed its accuracy for the prediction of late ARF worsening, requiring intubation within 15 days following ICU admission in an independent validation cohort. Platelet count, fraction of inspired oxygen, and endocan measured on ICU admission were identified as the top three predictive variables for late ARF worsening and subsequently included in the CERES score. The area under the ROC curve of the CERES score to predict late ARF worsening was calculated in the derivation and validation cohorts at 0.834 and 0.780, respectively. The CERES score is a simple tool with good performances to predict respiratory failure worsening, leading to secondary intubation, in COVID-19 patients.

2.
Front Immunol ; 13: 851497, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775682

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause life-threatening acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Recent data suggest a role for neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in COVID-19-related lung damage partly due to microthrombus formation. Besides, pulmonary embolism (PE) is frequent in severe COVID-19 patients, suggesting that immunothrombosis could also be responsible for increased PE occurrence in these patients. Here, we evaluate whether plasma levels of NET markers measured shorty after admission of hospitalized COVID-19 patients are associated with clinical outcomes in terms of clinical worsening, survival, and PE occurrence. Patients and Methods: Ninety-six hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included, 50 with ARDS (severe disease) and 46 with moderate disease. We collected plasma early after admission and measured 3 NET markers: total DNA, myeloperoxidase (MPO)-DNA complexes, and citrullinated histone H3. Comparisons between survivors and non-survivors and patients developing PE and those not developing PE were assessed by Mann-Whitney test. Results: Analysis in the whole population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients revealed increased circulating biomarkers of NETs in patients who will die from COVID-19 and in patients who will subsequently develop PE. Restriction of our analysis in the most severe patients, i.e., the ones who enter the hospital for COVID-19-related ARDS, confirmed the link between NET biomarker levels and survival but not PE occurrence. Conclusion: Our results strongly reinforce the hypothesis that NETosis is an attractive therapeutic target to prevent COVID-19 progression but that it does not seem to be linked to PE occurrence in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracellular Traps , Pulmonary Embolism , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Biomarkers , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology
3.
Res Sq ; 2022 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1766249

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate (IFR) doubles with every five years of age from childhood onward. Circulating autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α, IFN-ω, and/or IFN-ß are found in ~20% of deceased patients across age groups. In the general population, they are found in ~1% of individuals aged 20-70 years and in >4% of those >70 years old. With a sample of 1,261 deceased patients and 34,159 uninfected individuals, we estimated both IFR and relative risk of death (RRD) across age groups for individuals carrying autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs, relative to non-carriers. For autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, the RRD was 17.0[95% CI:11.7-24.7] for individuals under 70 years old and 5.8[4.5-7.4] for individuals aged 70 and over, whereas, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules, the RRD was 188.3[44.8-774.4] and 7.2[5.0-10.3], respectively. IFRs increased with age, from 0.17%[0.12-0.31] for individuals <40 years old to 26.7%[20.3-35.2] for those ≥80 years old for autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, and from 0.84%[0.31-8.28] to 40.5%[27.82-61.20] for the same two age groups, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs increase IFRs, and are associated with high RRDs, particularly those neutralizing both IFN-α2 and -ω. Remarkably, IFR increases with age, whereas RRD decreases with age. Autoimmunity to type I IFNs appears to be second only to age among common predictors of COVID-19 death.

4.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-330837

ABSTRACT

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is ongoing. The pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection is beginning to be elucidated but the role of microRNAs (miRNAs), small non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression, remains incompletely understood. They play a role in the pathophysiology of viral infections with potential use as biomarkers. The objective of this study was to identify miRNAs as biomarkers of severe COVID-19 and to analyze their role in the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods miRNA expression was measured in nasopharyngeal swabs from 20 patients with severe COVID-19, 21 patients with non-severe COVID-19 and 20 controls. Promising miRNAs to differentiate non-severe from severe COVID-19 patients were identified by differential expression analysis and sparse Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA). ROC analysis, target prediction, GO enrichment and pathway analysis were used to analyze the role and the pertinence of these miRNAs in severe COVID-19. Results The number of expressed miRNAs was lower in severe COVID-19 patients compared to non-severe COVID-19 patients and controls. Among the differentially expressed miRNAs between severe COVID-19 and controls, 5 miRNAs were also differentially expressed between severe and non-severe COVID-19. sPLS-DA analysis highlighted 8 miRNAs, that allowed to discriminate the severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases. Target and functional analysis revealed enrichment for genes involved in viral infections and the cellular response to infection as well as one miRNA, hsa-miR-15b-5p, that targeted the SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The comparison of results of differential expression analysis and discriminant analysis revealed three miRNAs, namely hsa-miR-125a-5p, hsa-miR-491-5p and hsa-miR-200b-3p. These discriminated severe from non-severe cases with areas under the curve ranging from 0.76 to 0.80. Conclusions Our analysis of miRNA expression in nasopharyngeal swabs revealed several miRNAs of interest to discriminate severe and non-severe COVID-19. These miRNAs represent promising biomarkers and possibly targets for antiviral or anti-inflammatory treatment strategies.

5.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 2022 Mar 02.
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.

6.
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.

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316533

ABSTRACT

Background: The impact of the variant of concern (VOC) Alpha on the severity of COVID-19 is debated and has to be analyzed in different epidemiological situations. We report our analysis in France.Methods: We conducted an exposed/unexposed cohort study with retrospective data collection, comparing patients infected by VOC Alpha to patients infected by historical lineages. Participants were matched on age (+/- 2.5 years), sex and region of hospitalization. The primary endpoint was the proportion of hospitalized participants with severe COVID-19, defined as a WHO-scale >5 or by the need of a non-rebreather mask, occurring up to day 29 after admission. We used a logistic regression model stratified on each matched pair and accounting for factors known to be associated with the severity of the disease (age, BMI and comorbidities) to compare the 2 groups. Findings: We included 650 pairs of patients hospitalized between Jan 1, 2021, and Feb 28, 2021, in 47 hospitals. Median age was 70 years and 61.3% of participants were male. The proportion of participants with comorbidities was high in both groups (85.0% vs 90%, p=0.004). Infection by VOC Alpha was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 (41.7% vs 38.5% - aOR=1.33 95% CI [1.03-1.72]). The rate of mortality was 24.0% vs 19.0% (aHR 1.21 95% CI [0.93-1.58]).Interpretation: Infection by the VOC Alpha was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 during the third COVID-19 epidemic wave in France.Clinical Trial Registration Details: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04863547). Funding Information: The study was funded by the ANRS Maladies Infectieuses Emergentes.Declaration of Interests: DC reports HIV grants from Janssen (2017-2018, 2019-2020), personal fees from Janssen (2018) and Gilead (2018, 2020) for lectures on HIV outside the submitted work. CC reports personal fees from Janssen (2018), MSD (2019), Gilead (2018-2020), Theratechnologies (2020) and ViiV Healthcare (2018-2020). HC reports personal fees from MSD (2020) and ViiV Healthcare (2020) for lectures on HIV. GMB reports support for attending meetings and personal fees from BMS, MSD, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer and Gilead for lectures outside the submitted work. JP reports support for attending meetings and personal fees from Gilead, Pfizer and Eumedica Gilead for lectures. DD reports personal fees from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare and Janssen for participation on an advisory Board. Other authors declare that they have no competing interest.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the SPILF Ethics Committee.

8.
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.

9.
J Clin Med ; 11(4)2022 Feb 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686845

ABSTRACT

Innate immune response, especially type 1 interferon (IFN) response is considered to play a substantial role in the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A reduced and delayed IFN response has been associated with progression to severe COVID-19. In this study, we investigated levels of circulating IFNα and serum neutralizing activity in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We found a significant association of levels of IFNα with age (p = 0.007). This association has also been observed in a cohort of COVID-19 outpatients with mild infection (p = 0.02). The impact of senescence on IFN response can explain the higher susceptibility of the elderly to severe COVID-19.

10.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-292398

ABSTRACT

Neuroinvasion by SARS-CoV-2 is now accepted. To investigate whether low testosterone levels observed in men with severe COVID-19 could be of central origin, we retrospectively analyzed blood samples from 60 male intensive-care patients and explored SARS-CoV-2 brain entry using animal and cellular models as well as adult COVID-19 patient and fetal human brains. Most hypotestosteronemic patients displayed hypogonadotropic hypogonadism or abnormal hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis regulation. Neurons producing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), the master molecule controlling fertility, expressed angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and neuropilin-1, two host-cell factors mediating infection, and were infected and dying in all COVID-19 patient brains. Tanycytes - hypothalamic glia that regulate GnRH secretion - were also infected. Additionally, human fetal olfactory and vomeronasal epithelia, from which GnRH neurons arise, richly expressed both the above host-cell susceptibility factors and formyl peptide receptor 2, a putative vomeronasal receptor that also appeared involved in SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis in humans and mice. Finally, a fetal human GnRH cell line expressing all these receptors could be infected by a SARS-CoV-2-like pseudovirus. Together, our findings suggest that GnRH neurons, which may be implicated in brain development and aging in addition to reproduction, are particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 in both adults and fetuses/newborns, with potentially devastating long-term consequences.

11.
J Clin Med ; 10(21)2021 Oct 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480816

ABSTRACT

We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients under veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) for COVID-19-Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (CARDS) between the first and the second wave. From 1 March 2020 to 30 November 2020, fifty patients requiring a V-V ECMO support for CARDS were included. Patient demographics, pre-ECMO, and day one, three, and seven on-ECMO data and outcomes were collected. The 90-day mortality was 11% higher during the second wave (18/26 (69%)) compared to the first wave (14/24 (58%) (p = 0.423). During the second wave, all of the patients were given steroids compared to 16.7% during the first wave (p < 0.001). The second wave's patients had been on non-invasive ventilation support for a longer period than in the first wave, with the median time from ICU admission to ECMO implantation being significantly higher (14 (11-20) vs. 7.7 (5-12) days; p < 0.001). Mechanical properties of the lung were worsened in the second wave's CARDS patients before ECMO implantation (median static compliance 20 (16-26) vs. 29 (25-37) mL/cmH2O; p < 0.001) and during ECMO days one, three, and seven. More bacterial co-infections before implantation and under ECMO were documented in the second wave group. Despite a better evidence-driven critical care management, we depicted fewer encouraging outcomes during the second wave.

12.
Sci Immunol ; 6(62)2021 08 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434875

ABSTRACT

Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/mL, in plasma diluted 1 to 10) of IFN-α and/or -ω are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 pneumonia, but not in subjects with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω (100 pg/mL, in 1/10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3,595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients > 80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1,124 deceased patients (aged 20 days-99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-ß. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected subjects from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of subjects carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals <70 years, 2.3% between 70 and 80 years, and 6.3% >80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-ß do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over-80s, and total fatal COVID-19 cases.


Subject(s)
Autoantibodies/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Interferon Type I/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Autoantibodies/blood , COVID-19/mortality , Case-Control Studies , Child , Child, Preschool , Critical Illness , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Interferon-alpha/immunology , Middle Aged , Young Adult
13.
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
16.
Eur J Dermatol ; 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1379878

ABSTRACT

Various skin manifestations have been reported during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Among these are acral vascular skin lesions in non-severe patients, but few studies have focused specifically on patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) We aimed to assess the frequency of acral vascular skin manifestations (AVSM) in patients admitted to the ICU based on systematic dermatological examination We conducted a clinical, observational and prospective study in the ICU of Lille University Hospital (France). All adult patients with RT-PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were included on May 5th and 6th, 2020 A total of 39 patients with severe COVID-19 were examined (34 males and five females; median age: 61 [55-59]). We observed AVSM in 11/39 patients (28%) including five with acral necrotic lesions, three with haemorrhagic blisters, one with acral livedoid rash, and one with erosive distal lesions. Chilblain or chilblain-like lesions were not seen, unlike ambulatory or non-severe patients described in the literature. There was no difference regarding the median length of stay in the ICU, initial symptoms of COVID-19 or baseline characteristics, except for a lower BMI in patients with AVSM. All patients had biological coagulation abnormalities (e.g. higher levels of fibrinogen or D-dimers), but there was no difference between patients with and without AVSM AVSM are infrequent and heterogenous and seem to be non-specific to patients with severe SARS-CoV-2, and possibly unrelated to COVID-19. The pathophysiology of AVSM described during the COVID-19 pandemic is not fully elucidated.

17.
Sci Immunol ; 6(62)2021 08 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367379

ABSTRACT

Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/mL, in plasma diluted 1 to 10) of IFN-α and/or -ω are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 pneumonia, but not in subjects with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω (100 pg/mL, in 1/10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3,595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients > 80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1,124 deceased patients (aged 20 days-99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-ß. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected subjects from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-α and/or -ω are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of subjects carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals <70 years, 2.3% between 70 and 80 years, and 6.3% >80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-ß do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over-80s, and total fatal COVID-19 cases.


Subject(s)
Autoantibodies/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Interferon Type I/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Autoantibodies/blood , COVID-19/mortality , Case-Control Studies , Child , Child, Preschool , Critical Illness , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Interferon-alpha/immunology , Middle Aged , Young Adult
18.
Thromb Res ; 205: 120-127, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1324320

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In intensive-care unit (ICU) patients, pathophysiological changes may affect the pharmacokinetics of enoxaparin and result in underdosing. OBJECTIVES: To develop a pharmacokinetic model of enoxaparin to predict the time-exposure profiles of various thromboprophylactic regimens in COVID-19 ICU-patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective study in ICUs of two French hospitals. Anti-Xa activities from consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with enoxaparin for the prevention or the treatment of venous thrombosis were used to develop a population pharmacokinetic model using non-linear mixed effects techniques. Monte Carlo simulations were then performed to predict enoxaparin exposure at steady-state after three days of administration. RESULTS: A total of 391 anti-Xa samples were measured in 95 patients. A one-compartment model with first-order kinetics best fitted the data. The covariate analysis showed that enoxaparin clearance (typical value 1.1 L.h-1) was related to renal function estimated by the CKD-EPI formula and volume of distribution (typical value 17.9 L) to actual body weight. Simulation of anti-Xa activities with enoxaparin 40 mg qd indicated that 64% of the patients had peak levels within the range 0.2 to 0.5 IU.mL-1 and 75% had 12-hour levels above 0.1 IU.mL-1. Administration of a total daily dose of at least 60 mg per day improved the probability of target attainment. CONCLUSION: In ICU COVID-19 patients, exposure to enoxaparin is reduced due to an increase in the volume of distribution and clearance. Consequently, enoxaparin 40 mg qd is suboptimal to attain thromboprophylactic anti-Xa levels.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Enoxaparin , Anticoagulants , Critical Illness , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(12): 1826-1837, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242906

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interferon beta-1a/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome
20.
Fundam Clin Pharmacol ; 35(6): 1141-1158, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1194121

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers on the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is debated. We assessed the association between chronic use of RAAS blockers and mortality among inpatients with COVID-19 and explored reasons for discrepancies in the literature. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included adult hypertensive patients from a prospective nationwide cohort of 3512 inpatients with COVID-19 up to June 30, 2020. Cox proportional hazard models with various adjustment or propensity weighting methods were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) of 30-day mortality for chronic users versus non-users of RAAS blockers. We analyzed data of 1160 hypertensive patients: 719 (62%) were male and 777 (67%) were older than 65 years. The main comorbidities were diabetes (n = 416, 36%), chronic cardiac disease (n = 401, 35%), and obesity (n = 340, 29%); 705 (61%) received oxygen therapy. We recorded 135 (11.6%) deaths within 30 days of diagnosis. We found no association between chronic use of RAAS blockers and mortality (unadjusted HR = 1.13, 95% CI [0.8-1.6]; propensity inverse probability treatment weighted HR = 1.09 [0.86-1.39]; propensity standardized mortality ratio weighted HR = 1.08 [0.79-1.47]). Our comprehensive review of previous studies highlighted that significant associations were mostly found in unrestricted populations with inappropriate adjustment, or with biased in-hospital exposure measurement. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support previous concerns regarding these drugs, nor a potential protective effect as reported in previous poorly designed studies and meta-analyses. RAAS blockers should not be discontinued during the pandemic, while in-hospital management of these drugs will be clarified by randomized trials. NCT04262921.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/adverse effects , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Renin-Angiotensin System/drug effects , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , France , Humans , Hypertension , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Propensity Score , Prospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL