Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 May 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832818

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Whether COVID patients may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-Day mortality vs IMV only Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs. no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 <80 or PaCO2 ≥60 mmHg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model based on predefined variables. MAIN RESULTS: 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability at Day-7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs 83%, risk difference: 4%, 95% CI 0;9%) which decreased during follow-up (survival at Day-90: 63% vs 65%, risk difference: -2%, 95% CI -10;5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand, and when initiated within the first 4 days of MV and in profoundly hypoxemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an emulated trial based on a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and in regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

2.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 39(5): 427-435, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1707427

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) has become a major worldwide health concern since its appearance in China at the end of 2019. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intrinsic mortality and burden of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza pneumonia in ICUs in the city of Lyon, France. DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: Six ICUs in a single institution in Lyon, France. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted to an ICU with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia from 27 February to 4 April 2020 (COVID-19 group) and seasonal influenza pneumonia from 1 November 2015 to 30 April 2019 (influenza group). A total of 350 patients were included in the COVID-19 group (18 refused to consent) and 325 in the influenza group (one refused to consent). Diagnosis was confirmed by RT-PCR. Follow-up was completed on 1 April 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Differences in 90-day adjusted-mortality between the COVID-19 and influenza groups were evaluated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients were younger, mostly men and had a higher median BMI, and comorbidities, including immunosuppressive condition or respiratory history were less frequent. In univariate analysis, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding in-ICU mortality, 30, 60 and 90-day mortality. After Cox modelling adjusted on age, sex, BMI, cancer, sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, simplified acute physiology score SAPS II score, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and myocardial infarction, the probability of death associated with COVID-19 was significantly higher in comparison to seasonal influenza [hazard ratio 1.57, 95% CI (1.14 to 2.17); P = 0.006]. The clinical course and morbidity profile of both groups was markedly different; COVID-19 patients had less severe illness at admission (SAPS II score, 37 [28 to 48] vs. 48 [39 to 61], P < 0.001 and SOFA score, 4 [2 to 8] vs. 8 [5 to 11], P < 0.001), but the disease was more severe considering ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, PEEP level and prone positioning requirement. CONCLUSION: After ICU admission, COVID-19 was associated with an increased risk of death compared with seasonal influenza. Patient characteristics, clinical course and morbidity profile of these diseases is markedly different.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Pneumonia , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units , Male , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Seasons
3.
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.

4.
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.

5.
Med Phys ; 49(1): 420-431, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544357

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Motion-mask segmentation from thoracic computed tomography (CT) images is the process of extracting the region that encompasses lungs and viscera, where large displacements occur during breathing. It has been shown to help image registration between different respiratory phases. This registration step is, for example, useful for radiotherapy planning or calculating local lung ventilation. Knowing the location of motion discontinuity, that is, sliding motion near the pleura, allows a better control of the registration preventing unrealistic estimates. Nevertheless, existing methods for motion-mask segmentation are not robust enough to be used in clinical routine. This article shows that it is feasible to overcome this lack of robustness by using a lightweight deep-learning approach usable on a standard computer, and this even without data augmentation or advanced model design. METHODS: A convolutional neural-network architecture with three 2D U-nets for the three main orientations (sagittal, coronal, axial) was proposed. Predictions generated by the three U-nets were combined by majority voting to provide a single 3D segmentation of the motion mask. The networks were trained on a database of nonsmall cell lung cancer 4D CT images of 43 patients. Training and evaluation were done with a K-fold cross-validation strategy. Evaluation was based on a visual grading by two experts according to the appropriateness of the segmented motion mask for the registration task, and on a comparison with motion masks obtained by a baseline method using level sets. A second database (76 CT images of patients with early-stage COVID-19), unseen during training, was used to assess the generalizability of the trained neural network. RESULTS: The proposed approach outperformed the baseline method in terms of quality and robustness: the success rate increased from 53 % to 79 % without producing any failure. It also achieved a speed-up factor of 60 with GPU, or 17 with CPU. The memory footprint was low: less than 5 GB GPU RAM for training and less than 1 GB GPU RAM for inference. When evaluated on a dataset with images differing by several characteristics (CT device, pathology, and field of view), the proposed method improved the success rate from 53 % to 83 % . CONCLUSION: With 5-s processing time on a mid-range GPU and success rates around 80 % , the proposed approach seems fast and robust enough to be routinely used in clinical practice. The success rate can be further improved by incorporating more diversity in training data via data augmentation and additional annotated images from different scanners and diseases. The code and trained model are publicly available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , SARS-CoV-2
6.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0260656, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1533423

ABSTRACT

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is essential for voriconazole to ensure optimal drug exposure, mainly in critically ill patients for whom voriconazole demonstrated a large variability. The study aimed at describing factors associated with trough voriconazole concentrations in critically ill patients and evaluating the impact of voriconazole concentrations on adverse effects. A 2-year retrospective multicenter cohort study (NCT04502771) was conducted in six intensive care units. Adult patients who had at least one voriconazole TDM were included. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of voriconazole concentrations, and univariable logistic regression analysis, to study the relationship between voriconazole concentrations and adverse effects. During the 2-year study period, 70 patients were included. Optimal trough voriconazole concentrations were reported in 37 patients (52.8%), subtherapeutic in 20 (28.6%), and supratherapeutic in 13 (18.6%). Adverse effects were reported in six (8.6%) patients. SOFA score was identified as a factor associated with an increase in voriconazole concentration (p = 0.025), mainly in the group of patients who had SOFA score ≥ 10. Moreover, an increase in voriconazole concentration was shown to be a risk factor for occurrence of adverse effects (p = 0.011). In that respect, critically ill patients who received voriconazole treatment must benefit from a TDM, particularly if they have a SOFA score ≥ 10. Indeed, identifying patients who are overdosed will help to prevent voriconazole related adverse effects. This result is of utmost importance given the recognized COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis in ICU patients for whom voriconazole is among the recommended first-line treatment.


Subject(s)
Antifungal Agents/administration & dosage , Critical Illness/therapy , Drug Monitoring/methods , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Voriconazole/administration & dosage , Antifungal Agents/adverse effects , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Voriconazole/adverse effects
7.
Trials ; 22(1): 692, 2021 Oct 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463262

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe complication of COVID-19 pneumonia, with a mortality rate amounting to 34-50% in moderate and severe ARDS, and is associated with prolonged duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Such as in non-COVID ARDS, harmful mechanical ventilation settings might be associated with worse outcomes. Reducing the tidal volume down to 4 mL kg-1 of predicted body weight (PBW) to provide ultra-low tidal volume ventilation (ULTV) is an appealing technique to minimize ventilator-inducted lung injury. Furthermore, in the context of a worldwide pandemic, it does not require any additional material and consumables and may be applied in low- to middle-income countries. We hypothesized that ULTV without extracorporeal circulation is a credible option to reduce COVID-19-related ARDS mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: The VT4COVID study is a randomized, multi-centric prospective open-labeled, controlled superiority trial. Adult patients admitted in the intensive care unit with COVID-19-related mild to severe ARDS defined by a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 150 mmHg under invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 48 h, and consent to participate to the study will be eligible. Patients will be randomized into two balanced parallels groups, at a 1:1 ratio. The control group will be ventilated with protective ventilation settings (tidal volume 6 mL kg-1 PBW), and the intervention group will be ventilated with ULTV (tidal volume 4 mL kg-1 PBW). The primary outcome is a composite score based on 90-day all-cause mortality as a prioritized criterion and the number of ventilator-free days at day 60 after inclusion. The randomization list will be stratified by site of recruitment and generated using random blocks of sizes 4 and 6. Data will be analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this manuscript is to provide primary publication of study protocol to prevent selective reporting of outcomes, data-driven analysis, and to increase transparency. Enrollment of patients in the study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04349618 . Registered on April 16, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , Extracorporeal Circulation , Humans , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
8.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e048187, 2021 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376500

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: At the time of the worrying emergence and spread of bacterial resistance, reducing the selection pressure by reducing the exposure to antibiotics in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a public health issue. In this context, the combined use of molecular tests and biomarkers for guiding antibiotics discontinuation is attractive. Therefore, we have designed a trial comparing an integrated approach of diagnosis and treatment of severe CAP to usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The multiplex PCR and procalcitonin to reduce duration of antibiotics exposure in patients with severe-CAP (MULTI-CAP) trial is a multicentre (n=20), parallel-group, superiority, open-label, randomised trial. Patients are included if adult admitted to intensive care unit for a CAP. Diagnosis of pneumonia is based on clinical criteria and a newly appeared parenchymal infiltrate. Immunocompromised patients are excluded. Subjects are randomised (1:1 ratio) to either the intervention arm (experimental strategy) or the control arm (usual strategy). In the intervention arm, the microbiological diagnosis combines a respiratory multiplex PCR (mPCR) and conventional microbiological investigations. An algorithm of early antibiotic de-escalation or discontinuation is recommended, based on mPCR results and the procalcitonin value. In the control arm, only conventional microbiological investigations are performed and antibiotics de-escalation remains at the clinician's discretion. The primary endpoint is the number of days alive without any antibiotic from the randomisation to day 28. Based on our hypothesis of 2 days gain in the intervention arm, we aim to enrol a total of 450 patients over a 30-month period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The MULTI-CAP trial is conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, is registered in Clinical Trials and has been approved by the Committee for Protection of Persons and the National French Drug Safety Agency. Written informed consents are obtained from all the patients (or representatives). The results will be disseminated through educational institutions, submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at medical congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03452826; Pre-results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction , Pneumonia/drug therapy , Procalcitonin
10.
Clin Transl Immunology ; 10(8): e1327, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1359783

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Impairment of type I interferon (IFN-I) immunity has been reported in critically ill COVID-19 patients. This defect can be explained in a subset of patients by the presence of circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) against IFN-I. We set out to improve the detection and the quantification of IFN-I auto-Abs in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients, in order to better evaluate the prevalence of these Abs as the pandemic progresses, and how they correlate with the clinical course of the disease. METHODS: The concentration of anti-IFN-α2 Abs was determined in the serum of 84 critically ill COVID-19 patients who were admitted to ICU in Hospices Civils de Lyon, France, using a commercially available kit (Thermo Fisher, Catalog #BMS217). RESULTS: A total of 21 of 84 (25%) critically ill COVID-19 patients had circulating anti-IFN-α2 Abs above cut-off (> 34 ng mL-1). Among them, 15 of 21 had Abs with neutralising activity against IFN-α2, that is 15 of 84 (18%) critically ill patients. In addition, we noticed an impairment of the IFN-I response in the majority of patients with neutralising anti-IFN-α2 Abs. There was no significant difference in the clinical characteristics or outcome of with or without neutralising anti-IFN-α2 auto-Abs. We detected anti-IFN-α2 auto-Abs in COVID-19 patients' sera throughout their ICU stay. Finally, we also found auto-Abs against multiple subtypes of IFN-I including IFN-ω. CONCLUSIONS: We reported that 18% of critically ill COVID-19 patients were positive for IFN-I auto-Abs, whereas all mild COVID-19 patients were negative, confirming that the presence of these antibodies is associated with a higher risk of developing a critical COVID-19 form.

11.
J Exp Med ; 218(10)2021 10 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1345702

ABSTRACT

IFN-I and IFN-III immunity in the nasal mucosa is poorly characterized during SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analyze the nasal IFN-I/III signature, namely the expression of ISGF-3-dependent IFN-stimulated genes, in mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients and show its correlation with serum IFN-α2 levels, which peak at symptom onset and return to baseline from day 10 onward. Moreover, the nasal IFN-I/III signature correlates with the nasopharyngeal viral load and is associated with the presence of infectious viruses. By contrast, we observe low nasal IFN-I/III scores despite high nasal viral loads in a subset of critically ill COVID-19 patients, which correlates with the presence of autoantibodies (auto-Abs) against IFN-I in both blood and nasopharyngeal mucosa. In addition, functional assays in a reconstituted human airway epithelium model of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirm the role of such auto-Abs in abrogating the antiviral effects of IFN-I, but not those of IFN-III. Thus, IFN-I auto-Abs may compromise not only systemic but also local antiviral IFN-I immunity at the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
Autoantibodies/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Interferon Type I/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Animals , Antiviral Agents/immunology , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Autoantibodies/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/virology , Chlorocebus aethiops , Female , Humans , Interferon Type I/pharmacology , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Nasal Cavity/immunology , Nasal Cavity/virology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Vero Cells , Viral Load/drug effects , Viral Load/immunology , Virus Replication/drug effects , Virus Replication/immunology
12.
Sci Immunol ; 6(59)2021 05 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337429

ABSTRACT

Multiple Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) is a delayed and severe complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection that strikes previously healthy children. As MIS-C combines clinical features of Kawasaki disease and Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS), we aimed to compare the immunological profile of pediatric patients with these different conditions. We analyzed blood cytokine expression, and the T cell repertoire and phenotype in 36 MIS-C cases, which were compared to 16 KD, 58 TSS, and 42 COVID-19 cases. We observed an increase of serum inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α, IFNγ, CD25s, MCP1, IL-1RA) in MIS-C, TSS and KD, contrasting with low expression of HLA-DR in monocytes. We detected a specific expansion of activated T cells expressing the Vß21.3 T cell receptor ß chain variable region in both CD4 and CD8 subsets in 75% of MIS-C patients and not in any patient with TSS, KD, or acute COVID-19; this correlated with the cytokine storm detected. The T cell repertoire returned to baseline within weeks after MIS-C resolution. Vß21.3+ T cells from MIS-C patients expressed high levels of HLA-DR, CD38 and CX3CR1 but had weak responses to SARS-CoV-2 peptides in vitro. Consistently, the T cell expansion was not associated with specific classical HLA alleles. Thus, our data suggested that MIS-C is characterized by a polyclonal Vß21.3 T cell expansion not directed against SARS-CoV-2 antigenic peptides, which is not seen in KD, TSS and acute COVID-19.


Subject(s)
CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/pathology , Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell, alpha-beta/immunology , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/immunology , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/pathology , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Cytokines/blood , HLA-DR Antigens/immunology , Humans , Lymphocyte Activation/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
13.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 248, 2021 07 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1317127

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Differences in physiology of ARDS have been described between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to compare initial values and longitudinal changes in respiratory system compliance (CRS), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation. METHODS: 135 patients with COVID-19 ARDS from two centers were included in a physiological study; 767 non-COVID-19 ARDS from a clinical trial were used for the purpose of at least 1:2 matching. A propensity-matching was based on age, severity score, oxygenation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pulmonary cause of ARDS and allowed to include 112 COVID-19 and 198 non-COVID pulmonary ARDS. RESULTS: The two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher CRS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28-44] vs 32 [26-38] ml cmH2O-1, p = 0.037). At day 1, CRS was correlated with oxygenation only in non-COVID-19 patients; 61.6% and 68.2% of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS were still ventilated at day 7 (p = 0.241). Oxygenation became lower in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients at days 3 and 7, while CRS became similar. VR was lower at day 1 in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients but increased from day 1 to 7 only in COVID-19 patients. VR was higher at days 1, 3 and 7 in the COVID-19 patients ventilated using heat and moisture exchangers compared to heated humidifiers. After adjustment on PaO2/FiO2, PEEP and humidification device, CRS and VR were found not different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at day 7. Day-28 mortality did not differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients (25.9% and 23.7%, respectively, p = 0.666). CONCLUSIONS: For a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher CRS, dissociated from oxygenation. CRS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04385004.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , Blood Gas Analysis , Body Mass Index , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , Pulmonary Gas Exchange/physiology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Function Tests , Respiratory Mechanics/physiology , SARS-CoV-2
14.
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
15.
Eur J Immunol ; 51(4): 989-994, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1187983

ABSTRACT

Low concentrations of type-I interferon (IFN) in blood seem to be associated with more severe forms of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, following the type-I interferon response (IR) in early stage disease is a major challenge. We evaluated detection of a molecular interferon signature on a FilmArray® system, which includes PCR assays for four interferon stimulated genes. We analyzed three types of patient populations: (i) children admitted to a pediatric emergency unit for fever and suspected infection, (ii) ICU-admitted patients with severe COVID-19, and (iii) healthcare workers with mild COVID-19. The results were compared to the reference tools, that is, molecular signature assessed with Nanostring® and IFN-α2 quantification by SIMOA® (Single MOlecule Array). A strong correlation was observed between the IR measured by the FilmArray®, Nanostring®, and SIMOA® platforms (r-Spearman 0.996 and 0.838, respectively). The FilmArray® panel could be used in the COVID-19 pandemic to evaluate the IR in 45-min with 2 min hand-on-time at hospitalization and to monitor the IR in future clinical trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Interferon-alpha/blood , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/immunology , Child , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Interferon Type I/blood , Interferon Type I/genetics , Interferon-alpha/genetics , Male
17.
Ann Intensive Care ; 11(1): 38, 2021 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1115254

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We describe a frugal approach (focusing on needs, performance, and costs) to manage a massive influx of COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) using the Boussignac valve protected by a filter ("Filter Frugal CPAP", FF-CPAP) in and out the ICU. METHODS: (1) A bench study measured the impact of two filters with different mechanical properties on CPAP performances, and pressures were also measured in patients. (2) Non-ICU healthcare staff working in COVID-19 intermediate care units were trained with a video tutorial posted on a massive open online course. (3) A clinical study assessed the feasibility and safety of using FF-CPAP to maintain oxygenation and manage patients out of the ICU during a massive outbreak. RESULTS: Bench assessments showed that adding a filter did not affect the effective pressure delivered to the patient. The resistive load induced by the filter variably increased the simulated patient's work of breathing (6-34%) needed to sustain the tidal volume, depending on the filter's resistance, respiratory mechanics and basal inspiratory effort. In patients, FF-CPAP achieved pressures similar to those obtained on the bench. The massive training tool provided precious information on the use of Boussignac FF-CPAP on COVID-19 patients. Then 85 COVID-19 patients with ICU admission criteria over a 1-month period were studied upon FF-CPAP initiation for AHRF. FF-CPAP significantly decreased respiratory rate and increased SpO2. Thirty-six (43%) patients presented with respiratory indications for intubation prior to FF-CPAP initiation, and 13 (36%) of them improved without intubation. Overall, 31 patients (36%) improved with FF-CPAP alone and 17 patients (20%) did not require ICU admission. Patients with a respiratory rate > 32 breaths/min upon FF-CPAP initiation had a higher cumulative probability of intubation (p < 0.001 by log-rank test). CONCLUSION: Adding a filter to the Boussignac valve does not affect the delivered pressure but may variably increase the resistive load depending on the filter used. Clinical assessment suggests that FF-CPAP is a frugal solution to provide a ventilatory support and improve oxygenation to numerous patients suffering from AHRF in the context of a massive outbreak.

18.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 118(8)2021 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066042

ABSTRACT

The characterization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral kinetics in hospitalized patients and its association with mortality is unknown. We analyzed death and nasopharyngeal viral kinetics in 655 hospitalized patients from the prospective French COVID cohort. The model predicted a median peak viral load that coincided with symptom onset. Patients with age ≥65 y had a smaller loss rate of infected cells, leading to a delayed median time to viral clearance occurring 16 d after symptom onset as compared to 13 d in younger patients (P < 10-4). In multivariate analysis, the risk factors associated with mortality were age ≥65 y, male gender, and presence of chronic pulmonary disease (hazard ratio [HR] > 2.0). Using a joint model, viral dynamics after hospital admission was an independent predictor of mortality (HR = 1.31, P < 10-3). Finally, we used our model to simulate the effects of effective pharmacological interventions on time to viral clearance and mortality. A treatment able to reduce viral production by 90% upon hospital admission would shorten the time to viral clearance by 2.0 and 2.9 d in patients of age <65 y and ≥65 y, respectively. Assuming that the association between viral dynamics and mortality would remain similar to that observed in our population, this could translate into a reduction of mortality from 19 to 14% in patients of age ≥65 y with risk factors. Our results show that viral dynamics is associated with mortality in hospitalized patients. Strategies aiming to reduce viral load could have an effect on mortality rate in this population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Models, Theoretical , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral/analysis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Viral Load , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , France/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Kinetics , Male , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/genetics , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Survival Rate
19.
Med Mycol ; 59(1): 110-114, 2021 Jan 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066375

ABSTRACT

Occurrence of putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis was screened in 153 consecutive adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with respiratory samples addressed for mycological diagnosis during a 6-week period at the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was observed for 106 patients (69.3%). Nineteen of them (17.9%) with positive Aspergillus results were considered as having putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. These observations underline the risk of pulmonary aspergillosis in COVID-19 patients, even in patients not previously known to be immunosuppressed, advocating active search for Aspergillus infection and prompt antifungal treatment. Standardized surveillance protocols and updated definitions for ICU putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis are needed. LAY ABSTRACT: Adult ICU patients with respiratory samples addressed for mycological diagnosis were screened during the emergence of COVID-19 pandemic. Positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR was observed for 106 patients, nineteen of them (17.9%) having aspergillosis. This underlines the risk of aspergillosis in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Critical Illness , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged
20.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 166, 2020 Dec 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-969181

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Units (ICU) have sometimes been overwhelmed by the surge of COVID-19 patients. Extending ICU capacity can be limited by the lack of air and oxygen pressure sources available. Transport ventilators requiring only one O2 source may be used in such places. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performances of four transport ventilators and an ICU ventilator in simulated severe respiratory conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two pneumatic transport ventilators, (Oxylog 3000, Draeger; Osiris 3, Air Liquide Medical Systems), two turbine transport ventilators (Elisee 350, ResMed; Monnal T60, Air Liquide Medical Systems) and an ICU ventilator (Engström Carestation-GE Healthcare) were evaluated on a Michigan test lung. We tested each ventilator with different set volumes (Vtset = 350, 450, 550 ml) and compliances (20 or 50 ml/cmH2O) and a resistance of 15 cmH2O/l/s based on values described in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Volume error (percentage of Vtset) with P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and trigger delay during assist-control ventilation simulating spontaneous breathing activity with P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and 8 cmH2O were measured. RESULTS: Grouping all conditions, the volume error was 2.9 ± 2.2% for Engström Carestation; 3.6 ± 3.9% for Osiris 3; 2.5 ± 2.1% for Oxylog 3000; 5.4 ± 2.7% for Monnal T60 and 8.8 ± 4.8% for Elisee 350. Grouping all conditions (P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and 8 cmH2O), trigger delay was 50 ± 11 ms, 71 ± 8 ms, 132 ± 22 ms, 60 ± 12 and 67 ± 6 ms for Engström Carestation, Osiris 3, Oxylog 3000, Monnal T60 and Elisee 350, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In surge situations such as COVID-19 pandemic, transport ventilators may be used to accurately control delivered volumes in locations, where only oxygen pressure supply is available. Performances regarding triggering function are acceptable for three out of the four transport ventilators tested.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL