Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 1812, 2022 Apr 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1778602

ABSTRACT

About 10% of people infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience post COVID-19 disease. We analysed data from 968 adult patients (5350 person-months) with a confirmed infection enroled in the ComPaRe long COVID cohort, a disease prevalent prospective e-cohort of such patients in France. Day-by-day prevalence of post COVID-19 symptoms was determined from patients' responses to the Long COVID Symptom Tool, a validated self-reported questionnaire assessing 53 symptoms. Among patients symptomatic after 2 months, 85% still reported symptoms one year after their symptom onset. Evolution of symptoms showed a decreasing prevalence over time for 27/53 symptoms (e.g., loss of taste/smell); a stable prevalence over time for 18/53 symptoms (e.g., dyspnoea), and an increasing prevalence over time for 8/53 symptoms (e.g., paraesthesia). The disease impact on patients' lives began increasing 6 months after onset. Our results are of importance to understand the natural history of post COVID-19 disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Taste Disorders/epidemiology
2.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-322898

ABSTRACT

About 10% of the people infected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are reported to experience “long COVID,” that is, persistence of symptoms several weeks after infection. Day-by-day prevalence of long COVID symptoms was determined from responses to the Long COVID Symptom Tool by 837 patients (3075 person-months) with a confirmed infection and enrolled in the ComPaRe long COVID cohort, a prospective cohort of such patients in France. Nine months after disease onset, 88.7% patients reported persistent symptoms and 70% reported a high burden of disease. Over time, the prevalence progressively decreased for 19/53 symptoms (e.g., loss of taste/smell) and was stable for 29/53 symptoms (e.g., fatigue). For 5/53 symptoms (e.g., memory problems), prevalence increased rapidly over the first two months and then reached a plateau. These findings are important for understanding the underlying etiologies and mechanisms of long COVID.

3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319866

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 outbreak threatens to saturate healthcare systems in most Western countries. We describe how digital technologies may be used to automatically and remotely monitor patients at home. Patients answer simple self-reported questionnaires and their data is transmitted, in real time, to a Command Centre in the nearest reference hospital. Patient reported data are automatically filtered by algorithms to identify those with early warning signs. Open-source code of all software components required to deploy the remote digital monitoring platform and Command Centres is available.

4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-312304

ABSTRACT

Background: In moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dexamethasone (DEX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) reduce the occurrence of death and ventilatory support. The efficacy and safety of combining the two drugs remains to be investigated.Methods: Patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia (WHO class 5) requiring oxygen (>3 L/min) were randomly assigned to receive DEX (10mg/d 5 days tapering up to 10 days) alone or combined with TCZ (8mg/kg IV) at day 1 possibly repeated with a fixed dose of 400 mg i.v at day 3. The primary outcome was time from randomization to mechanical ventilation support or death up to day 14, analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis using a Bayesian approach.Findings: A total of 453 patients were randomized, 3 withdrew consent, 450 were analyzed of whom 226 and 224 patients were assigned to receive DEX or TCZ+DEX, respectively. At day 14, mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 32/226 (14%) and 27/224 (12%) in the DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively (Hazard ratio (HR) [90% credible interval (CrI)], 0.85 [0.55-1.31]). At day 14, WHO CPS scale was significantly improved in the TCZ+DEX arm (OR 0.69, (95% CrI, 0.49 to 0.97). On day 90, 24 deaths (11%) were observed in the DEX arm and 18 (8%) in the TCZ+DEX arm (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42-1.41). Patients with at least one serious adverse event were observed in 25 and 21% in DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively.Interpretation: Mechanical ventilation need and mortality were not improved with combination of TCZ and DEX compared with DEX alone. The safety of both treatments was similar. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, the findings do not allow for a definitive interpretation.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04476979.Funding: Funded by PHRCDeclaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: The CORIMUNO Cohort and all embedded trials (i.e. trials using data collected in the CORIMUNO cohort) were approved by an ethics committee (CPP Île-de-France VI) and relevant authorities.

5.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327403

ABSTRACT

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision making. We assessed the transparency, completeness and consistency of reporting of 244 reports (120 peer-reviewed journal publications;124 preprints) of RCTs assessing pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 published the first 17 months of the pandemic (up to May 31, 2021). Transparency was poor. Only 55% of trials were prospectively registered;39% made their full protocols available and 29% provided access to their statistical analysis plan. Only 6% completely reported the most important information. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 47% of trials. Of the 124 RCTs published as preprint, 76 were secondarily published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the peer-review process. Lack of transparency, completeness and consistency of reporting is an important barrier to trust, interpretation and synthesis in COVID-19 clinical trials.

6.
Eur Respir J ; 2022 Feb 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1673901

ABSTRACT

QUESTION: To determine whether anti-IL-6 Receptors improve outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, Bayesian randomised controlled clinical trials. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either usual care (UC) or UC+Tocilizumab (TCZ) 8 mg/kg (TOCI-2 trial), or UC or UC+ Sarilumab (SARI) 200 mg (SARI-2 trial), both intravenously on day 1 (D1) and on D3 if clinically indicated. RESULTS: Between 31 March and 20 April 2020, 97 patients were randomised in the TOCI-2 trial, to receive UC (n=46) or UC+TCZ (n=51). At day 14, numbers of patients who did not need NIV, MV and alive with TCZ or UC were similar (47% versus 42%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 90% CrI, 0.71 to 2.04), with a posterior probability of HR>1 of 71.4%.Between 27 March and 4 April 2020, 91 patients were randomised in the SARI-2 trial, to receive UC (n=41) or UC+SARI (n=50). At day 14, numbers of patients who did not need NIV, MV and alive with SARI or UC were similar (38% versus 33%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 90% CrI, 0.55 to 2.07), with a posterior probability of HR>1 of 54.9%.Overall, the risk of death up to day 90 was: UC+TCZ versus UC (24% versus 30%, HR 0.67 [0.30 to 1.49]); UC+SARI versus UC (29% versus 39%, (HR 0.74 ([0.35 to 1.58]). Both TCZ and SARI increased serious infectious events. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, anti-IL-6 Receptors did not significantly increase the number of patients alive without any NIV, MV by D14. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov numbers: (NCT04331808 and NCT04324073).

7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(2): 278-287, 2022 01 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662112

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To develop and validate patient-reported instruments, based on patients' lived experiences, for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long coronavirus disease (covid). METHODS: The long covid Symptom and Impact Tools (ST and IT) were constructed from the answers to a survey with open-ended questions to 492 patients with long COVID. Validation of the tools involved adult patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and symptoms extending over 3 weeks after onset. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relations of the ST and IT scores with health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), function (PCFS, post-COVID functional scale), and perceived health (MYMOP2, Measure yourself medical outcome profile 2). Reliability was determined by a test-retest. The "patient acceptable symptomatic state" (PASS) was determined by the percentile method. RESULTS: Validation involved 1022 participants (55% with confirmed COVID-19, 79% female, and 12.5% hospitalized for COVID-19). The long COVID ST and IT scores were strongly correlated with the EQ-5D-5L (rs = -0.45 and rs = -0.59, respectively), the PCFS (rs = -0.39 and rs = -0.55), and the MYMOP2 (rs = -0.40 and rs = -0.59). Reproducibility was excellent with an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95% confidence interval .80 to .86) for the ST score and 0.84 (.80 to .87) for the IT score. In total, 793 (77.5%) patients reported an unacceptable symptomatic state, thereby setting the PASS for the long covid IT score at 30 (28 to 33). CONCLUSIONS: The long covid ST and IT tools, constructed from patients' lived experiences, provide the first validated and reliable instruments for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long covid.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Psychometrics , Quality of Life , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD015308, 2022 01 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1653145

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Interleukin-1/antagonists & inhibitors , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial
9.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2141233, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596574

ABSTRACT

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of alternative care modalities (eg, teleconsultations and task shifting) that will continue to be implemented in parallel to traditional care after the pandemic. An ideal balance between alternative and traditional care modalities is unknown. Objectives: To quantify the ideal postpandemic balance between alternative and traditional care modalities among patients with chronic illness and to qualify the circumstances in which patients consider it appropriate to replace traditional care with alternative care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study invited 5999 adults with chronic illness in ComPaRe, a French nationwide e-cohort of adults with chronic conditions who volunteer their time to participate in research projects, to participate in this study, which was performed from January 27 to February 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants rated the ideal proportion at which they would use 3 alternative care modalities instead of the traditional care equivalent on a 0% to 100% scale (with 0% indicating using alternative care modalities for none of one's future care and 100% indicating using alternative care modalities for all of one's future care) of their overall future care: (1) teleconsultations, (2) online symptom-checkers to react to new symptoms, and (3) remote monitoring to adapt treatment outside consultations. The median ideal proportion of alternative care use was calculated. Perceived appropriate circumstances in which each alternative modality could replace traditional care were collected with open-ended questions. Analyses were performed on a weighted data set representative of patients with chronic illness in France. Results: Of the 5999 invited individuals, 1529 (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [14.7] years; 1072 [70.1%] female) agreed to participate (participation rate, 25.5%). Participants would choose teleconsultations for 50.0% of their future consultations (IQR, 11.0%-52.0%), online symptom-checkers over contacting their physician for 22.0% of new symptoms (IQR, 2.0%-50.0%), and remote monitoring instead of consultations for 52.3% of their treatment adaptations (IQR, 25.4%-85.4%). Participants reported 67 circumstances for which replacing traditional with alternative care modalities was considered appropriate, including 31 care activities (eg, prescription renewal and addressing acute or minor complaints), 25 patient characteristics (eg, stable chronic condition and established patient-physician relationship), and 11 required characteristics of the alternative care modalities (eg, quality assurance). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this survey study suggest that after the pandemic, patients would choose alternative over traditional care for 22% to 52% of the time across different care needs. Participants proposed 67 criteria to guide clinicians in replacing traditional care with alternative care. These findings provide a guide for redesigning care in collaboration with patients after the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chronic Disease/therapy , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Patient Preference , Adult , Female , France , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine
11.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-292721

ABSTRACT

About 10% of people infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience post COVID-19 disease. We analysed data from 968 adult patients (5350 person-months) with a confirmed infection enrolled in the ComPaRe long COVID cohort, a disease prevalent prospective e-cohort of such patients in France. Day-by-day prevalence of post COVID-19 symptoms was determined from patients’ responses to the Long COVID Symptom Tool, an online validated self-reported questionnaire assessing 53 post COVID-19 disease symptoms. One year after symptom onset, 84.9% patients still reported their persistence, with a progressively lower prevalence of 27/53 symptoms (e.g., loss of taste/smell);18/53 symptoms (e.g., dyspnoea) were stable, while the prevalence of 8/53 symptoms (e.g., paraesthesia) had increased. The disease impact on patients’ lives began increasing 6 months after onset, as patients realized they had a chronic disease. Our results should be useful for researchers seeking the potential pathophysiological mechanisms underlying post COVID-19 disease.

13.
JAMA ; 326(6): 499-518, 2021 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1413703

ABSTRACT

Importance: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cause of Death , Coinfection , Disease Progression , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial
14.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ; 21(1): 228, 2021 07 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331942

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In France, about 30% of the population refuses COVID-19 vaccination outright, and 9 to 40% are hesitant. We developed and evaluated an interactive web tool providing transparent and reliable information on the benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: The most recent scientific data at the time of the study were implemented into an interactive web tool offering individualized information on the risks of COVID-19 infection-related events versus vaccination-related serious adverse events. The tool was evaluated during a before-and-after impact study nested in ComPaRe, a French e-cohort of adult patients with chronic conditions. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients intending to receive vaccination after using the tool, among those not intending to receive it at baseline. RESULTS: Between January 8 and 14, 2021, we enrolled 3152 patients in the study [mean age 55.2 (SD: 16.9), 52.9% women and 63% with ≥ 2 chronic conditions]. Before consulting the tool, 961 (30.5%) refused to be vaccinated until further data on efficacy/safety was obtained and 239 (7.5%) outright refused vaccination. Among these 1200 patients, 96 (8.0%, number needed to treat: 12.5) changed their mind after consulting the tool and would subsequently accept vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Our interactive web tool represents a scalable method to help increase the intent to receive COVID-19 vaccination among patients with chronic conditions and address vaccine hesitancy. Since April 2021, our tool has been embedded on the official webpage of the French Government for COVID-19 information.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Female , France , Humans , Intention , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
16.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(2): 278-287, 2022 01 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1207268

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To develop and validate patient-reported instruments, based on patients' lived experiences, for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long coronavirus disease (covid). METHODS: The long covid Symptom and Impact Tools (ST and IT) were constructed from the answers to a survey with open-ended questions to 492 patients with long COVID. Validation of the tools involved adult patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and symptoms extending over 3 weeks after onset. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relations of the ST and IT scores with health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), function (PCFS, post-COVID functional scale), and perceived health (MYMOP2, Measure yourself medical outcome profile 2). Reliability was determined by a test-retest. The "patient acceptable symptomatic state" (PASS) was determined by the percentile method. RESULTS: Validation involved 1022 participants (55% with confirmed COVID-19, 79% female, and 12.5% hospitalized for COVID-19). The long COVID ST and IT scores were strongly correlated with the EQ-5D-5L (rs = -0.45 and rs = -0.59, respectively), the PCFS (rs = -0.39 and rs = -0.55), and the MYMOP2 (rs = -0.40 and rs = -0.59). Reproducibility was excellent with an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95% confidence interval .80 to .86) for the ST score and 0.84 (.80 to .87) for the IT score. In total, 793 (77.5%) patients reported an unacceptable symptomatic state, thereby setting the PASS for the long covid IT score at 30 (28 to 33). CONCLUSIONS: The long covid ST and IT tools, constructed from patients' lived experiences, provide the first validated and reliable instruments for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long covid.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Psychometrics , Quality of Life , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
17.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(4): 603-610, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174168

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids on outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring oxygen without mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We used routine care data from 51 hospitals in France and Luxembourg to assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids at 0.8 mg/kg/day eq. prednisone (CTC group) versus standard of care (no-CTC group) among adults 18-80 years old with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen without mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was intubation or death by day 28. In our main analysis, characteristics of patients at baseline (i.e. time when patients met all inclusion criteria) were balanced by using propensity-score inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Among the 891 patients included in the analysis, 203 were assigned to the CTC group. Use of corticosteroids was not significantly associated with risk of intubation or death by day 28 (weighted hazard ratio (wHR) 0.92, 95%CI 0.61-1.39) nor cumulative death rate (wHR 1.03, 95%CI 0.54-1.98). However, use of corticosteroids was associated with reduced risk of intubation or death by day 28 in the prespecified subgroups of patients requiring oxygen ≥3 L/min (wHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.30-0.85) or C-reactive protein level ≥100 mg/L (wHR 0.44, 95%CI 0.23-0.85). The number of hyperglycaemia events was higher for patients with corticosteroids than for those without, but the number of infections was similar. CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between the use of corticosteroids and intubation or death in the broad population of patients 18-80 years old, with COVID-19, hospitalized in settings non intensive care units. However, the treatment was associated with a reduced risk of intubation or death for patients with ≥3 L/min oxygen or C-reactive protein level ≥100 mg/L at baseline. Further research is needed to confirm the right timing for corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen only.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Prednisone/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
18.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(7): 1020-1021, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1168786
19.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD013881, 2021 03 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1139209

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I2 = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I2 = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I2 = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I2 = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Bias , COVID-19/mortality , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
20.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 130: 107-116, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065303

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Researchers worldwide are actively engaging in research activities to search for preventive and therapeutic interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to describe the planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of timing related to the course of the COVID-19 epidemic and research question evaluated. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a living mapping of RCTs registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We systematically search the platform every week for all RCTs evaluating preventive interventions and treatments for COVID-19 and created a publicly available interactive mapping tool at https://covid-nma.com to visualize all trials registered. RESULTS: By August 12, 2020, 1,568 trials for COVID-19 were registered worldwide. Overall, the median ([Q1-Q3]; range) delay between the first case recorded in each country and the first RCT registered was 47 days ([33-67]; 15-163). For the 9 countries with the highest number of trials registered, most trials were registered after the peak of the epidemic (from 100% trials in Italy to 38% in the United States). Most trials evaluated treatments (1,333 trials; 85%); only 223 (14%) evaluated preventive strategies and 12 postacute period intervention. A total of 254 trials were planned to assess different regimens of hydroxychloroquine with an expected sample size of 110,883 patients. CONCLUSION: This living mapping analysis showed that COVID-19 trials have relatively small sample size with certain redundancy in research questions. Most trials were registered when the first peak of the pandemic has passed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , Epidemiologic Research Design , Female , Geographic Mapping , Humans , Internet , Italy , Male , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Sample Size , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL