Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
EBioMedicine ; 76: 103817, 2022 Jan 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1632870

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Kidney damage in COVID-19 patients has been of special concern. The association of acute kidney injury (AKI) with post-acute kidney function among COVID-19 survivors was not sufficiently elucidated. METHODS: An ambidirectional cohort study was conducted with enrollment of COVID-19 survivors discharged from hospital between Jan 7, and May 29, 2020. Study participants were invited to follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months after symptom onset. The primary outcome was percentage of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreased from acute phase (between symptom onset and hospital discharge) to follow-up, and secondary outcome was reduced renal function at follow-up. FINDINGS: In total, 1,734 study participants were included in this study. Median follow-up duration was 342.0 days (IQR, 223.0-358.0) after symptom onset. After multivariable adjustment, percentage of eGFR decreased from acute phase to follow-up was 8.30% (95% CI, 5.99-10.61) higher among AKI participants than those without AKI at acute phase. Participants with AKI had an odds ratio (OR) of 4.60 (95% CI, 2.10-10.08) for reduced renal function at follow-up. The percentage of eGFR decreased for participants with AKI stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 was 6.02% (95% CI, 3.48-8.57), 15.99% (95% CI, 10.77-21.22), and 17.79% (95% CI, 9.14-26.43) higher compared with those without AKI, respectively. INTERPRETATION: AKI at acute phase of COVID-19 was closely related to the longitudinal decline and post-acute status of kidney function at nearly one-year after symptom onset. Earlier and more intense follow-up strategies on kidney function management could be beneficial to COVID-19 survivors. FUNDING: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS 2020-I2M-CoV19-005, 2018-I2M-1-003, and 2020-I2M-2-013); National Natural Science Foundation of China (82041011); National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC1200102); Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis (2020ZX09201001).

2.
Respirology ; 26(8): 745-767, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1301542

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is ongoing and many drugs have been studied in clinical trials. From a pathophysiological perspective, anti-viral drugs may be more effective in the early stage while immunomodulators may be more effective in severe patients in later stages of infection. While drugs such as lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have proved to be ineffective in randomized controlled trials, corticosteroids, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib have been reported to benefit certain groups of patients with COVID-19. In this review, we will present the key clinical evidence and progress in promising COVID-19 therapeutics, as well as summarize the experience and lessons learned from the development of the current therapeutics.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans
3.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e901-e913, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249298

ABSTRACT

There have been arguments on whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) treatment alters the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) susceptibility and disease severity. We identified a total of 102 eligible studies for systematic review, in which 49 studies adjusting for confounders were included in the meta-analysis. We found no association between prior ACEI/ARB use and risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the general population (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], .94-1.05). The risk of mortality (aOR, .87; 95% CI, .66-1.04) and severe outcomes (aOR, .95; 95% CI, .73-1.24) were also unchanged among COVID-19 patients taking ACEIs/ARBs. These findings remained consistent in subgroup analyses stratified by populations, drug exposures, and other secondary outcomes. This systematic review provides evidence-based support to current medical guidelines and position statements that ACEIs/ARBs should not be discontinued. Additionally, there has been no evidence for initiating ACEI/ARB regimen as prevention or treatment of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hypertension , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
4.
The Lancet ; 397(10270):220-232, 2021.
Article in English | APA PsycInfo | ID: covidwho-1164655

ABSTRACT

Presents a study which aims to examine consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital for 6-months. This ambidirectional cohort study was done at Jin Yin-tan Hospital, the first designated hospital for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, Hubei, China. Clinical data for acute phase were retrieved from electronic medical records, including demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, laboratory test results;and treatment. The disease severity was characterized by the highest seven-category scale during the hospital stay. Data were managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools in order to minimize missing inputs and allow for real-time data validation and quality control. Follow-up consultations were done in the outpatient clinic of Jin Yin-tan Hospital. All participants were interviewed face-to-face by trained physicians and asked to complete a series of questionnaires. For the symptom questionnaire, participants were asked to report newly occurring and persistent symptoms, or any symptoms worse than before COVID-19 development. A total of 2469 patients with COVID-19 were discharged from Jin Yin-tan Hospital between Jan 7, and May 29, 2020, and the follow-up study was done from June 16, 2020, to Sept 3, 2020. This is the largest cohort study with the longest follow-up duration assessing the health consequences of adult patients discharged from hospital recovering from COVID-19. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

5.
Lancet ; 397(10270): 220-232, 2021 01 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065678

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The long-term health consequences of COVID-19 remain largely unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the long-term health consequences of patients with COVID-19 who have been discharged from hospital and investigate the associated risk factors, in particular disease severity. METHODS: We did an ambidirectional cohort study of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who had been discharged from Jin Yin-tan Hospital (Wuhan, China) between Jan 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. Patients who died before follow-up, patients for whom follow-up would be difficult because of psychotic disorders, dementia, or re-admission to hospital, those who were unable to move freely due to concomitant osteoarthropathy or immobile before or after discharge due to diseases such as stroke or pulmonary embolism, those who declined to participate, those who could not be contacted, and those living outside of Wuhan or in nursing or welfare homes were all excluded. All patients were interviewed with a series of questionnaires for evaluation of symptoms and health-related quality of life, underwent physical examinations and a 6-min walking test, and received blood tests. A stratified sampling procedure was used to sample patients according to their highest seven-category scale during their hospital stay as 3, 4, and 5-6, to receive pulmonary function test, high resolution CT of the chest, and ultrasonography. Enrolled patients who had participated in the Lopinavir Trial for Suppression of SARS-CoV-2 in China received severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody tests. Multivariable adjusted linear or logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between disease severity and long-term health consequences. FINDINGS: In total, 1733 of 2469 discharged patients with COVID-19 were enrolled after 736 were excluded. Patients had a median age of 57·0 (IQR 47·0-65·0) years and 897 (52%) were men. The follow-up study was done from June 16, to Sept 3, 2020, and the median follow-up time after symptom onset was 186·0 (175·0-199·0) days. Fatigue or muscle weakness (63%, 1038 of 1655) and sleep difficulties (26%, 437 of 1655) were the most common symptoms. Anxiety or depression was reported among 23% (367 of 1617) of patients. The proportions of median 6-min walking distance less than the lower limit of the normal range were 24% for those at severity scale 3, 22% for severity scale 4, and 29% for severity scale 5-6. The corresponding proportions of patients with diffusion impairment were 22% for severity scale 3, 29% for scale 4, and 56% for scale 5-6, and median CT scores were 3·0 (IQR 2·0-5·0) for severity scale 3, 4·0 (3·0-5·0) for scale 4, and 5·0 (4·0-6·0) for scale 5-6. After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) 1·61 (95% CI 0·80-3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85-11·48) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66-1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·77 (1·05-2·97) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·74 (0·58-0·96) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·69 (1·46-4·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. Of 94 patients with blood antibodies tested at follow-up, the seropositivity (96·2% vs 58·5%) and median titres (19·0 vs 10·0) of the neutralising antibodies were significantly lower compared with at the acute phase. 107 of 822 participants without acute kidney injury and with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 or more at acute phase had eGFR less than 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 at follow-up. INTERPRETATION: At 6 months after acute infection, COVID-19 survivors were mainly troubled with fatigue or muscle weakness, sleep difficulties, and anxiety or depression. Patients who were more severely ill during their hospital stay had more severe impaired pulmonary diffusion capacities and abnormal chest imaging manifestations, and are the main target population for intervention of long-term recovery. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, and Peking Union Medical College Foundation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Quality of Life , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/statistics & numerical data , China/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Fatigue/epidemiology , Fatigue/etiology , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Muscle Weakness/epidemiology , Muscle Weakness/etiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Lancet ; 395(10236): 1569-1578, 2020 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-824547

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. INTERPRETATION: In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies. FUNDING: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Negative Results , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(1): 112-117, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-802088

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Use of corticosteroids is common in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019, but clinical effectiveness is controversial. We aimed to investigate the association of corticosteroids therapy with clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this single-centre, retrospective cohort study, adult patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 and dead or discharged between 29 December 2019 and 15 February 2020 were studied; 1:1 propensity score matchings were performed between patients with or without corticosteroid treatment. A multivariable COX proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between corticosteroid treatment and in-hospital mortality by taking corticosteroids as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: Among 646 patients, the in-hospital death rate was higher in 158 patients with corticosteroid administration (72/158, 45.6% vs. 56/488, 11.5%, p < 0.0001). After propensity score matching analysis, no significant differences were observed in in-hospital death between patients with and without corticosteroid treatment (47/124, 37.9% vs. 47/124, 37.9%, p 1.000). When patients received corticosteroids before they required nasal high-flow oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, the in-hospital death rate was lower than that in patients who were not administered corticosteroids (17/86, 19.8% vs. 26/86, 30.2%, log rank p 0.0102), whereas the time from admission to clinical improvement was longer (13 (IQR 10-17) days vs. 10 (IQR 8-13) days; p < 0.001). Using the Cox proportional hazards regression model accounting for time varying exposures in matched pairs, corticosteroid therapy was not associated with mortality difference (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93-1.03, p 0.4694). DISCUSSION: Corticosteroids use in COVID-19 patients may not be associated with in-hospital mortality.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Aged , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/pathology , China , Critical Illness , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitals , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Proportional Hazards Models , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
9.
Front Med ; 14(5): 601-612, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-632554

ABSTRACT

The possible effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 disease severity have generated considerable debate. We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, who had definite clinical outcome (dead or discharged) by February 15, 2020. Patients on anti-hypertensive treatment with or without ACEI/ARB were compared on their clinical characteristics and outcomes. The medical records from 702 patients were screened. Among the 101 patients with a history of hypertension and taking at least one anti-hypertensive medication, 40 patients were receiving ACEI/ARB as part of their regimen, and 61 patients were on antihypertensive medication other than ACEI/ARB. We observed no statistically significant differences in percentages of in-hospital mortality (28% vs. 34%, P = 0.46), ICU admission (20% vs. 28%, P = 0.37) or invasive mechanical ventilation (18% vs. 26%, P = 0.31) between patients with or without ACEI/ARB treatment. Further multivariable adjustment of age and gender did not provide evidence for a significant association between ACEI/ARB treatment and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Our findings confirm the lack of an association between chronic receipt of renin-angiotensin system antagonists and severe outcomes of COVID-19. Patients should continue previous anti-hypertensive therapy until further evidence is available.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Hypertension/drug therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Betacoronavirus/physiology , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
10.
Lancet Digit Health ; 2(6): e275-e276, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-260299
11.
N Engl J Med ; 382(19): 1787-1799, 2020 05 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-9371

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Acuity , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Proportional Hazards Models , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Ritonavir/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Time-to-Treatment , Treatment Failure , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...