Effect of tocilizumab, sarilumab, and baricitinib on mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) established the mortality reduction by tocilizumab (Actemra), baricitinib (Olumiant), and sarilumab (Kevzara) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, uncertainty remains about which treatment performs best in patients receiving corticosteroids. OBJECTIVES: To estimate probabilities of noninferiority between baricitinib and sarilumab compared to tocilizumab in patients treated with corticosteroids. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and MedRxiv. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible RCTs assigning hospitalized adults with COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids to tocilizumab or baricitinib or sarilumab versus standard of care or placebo (control). METHODS: Reviewers independently abstracted published data and assessed study quality with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. Unpublished data, if required, were requested from authors of included studies. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality at 28 days. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven RCTs with 13 549 patients were included. Overall, the risk of bias was low. Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses were used to aggregate results of each treatment versus control. The average odds ratio for mortality was 0.78 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.65, 0.94) for tocilizumab; 0.78 (95% CrI: 0.56, 1.03) for baricitinib; and 0.91 (95% CrI: 0.60, 1.40) for sarilumab. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) ranged from moderate to low. Bayesian meta-regressions with multiple priors were used to estimate probabilities of noninferiority (margin of 13% greater effect by tocilizumab). Compared to tocilizumab, there were ≤94% and 90% probabilities of noninferiority with baricitinib and sarilumab, respectively. RESULTS: All but two studies included data with only indirect evidence for the comparison of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids, there are high probabilities that both baricitinib and sarilumab are associated with similar mortality reductions in comparison to tocilizumab.

The Effect of Heparin Full-Dose Anticoagulation on Survival of Hospitalized, Non-critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-analysis of High Quality Studies.

BACKGROUND: International COVID-19 guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for non-critically ill inpatients to prevent thrombotic complications. It is still debated whether full-dose thromboprophylaxis reduces all-cause mortality. The main aim of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of full-dose heparin-based thromboprophylaxis on survival in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic review was performed across Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRxiv.org from inception to November 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin-based anticoagulation to prophylactic or intermediate dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. RESULTS: We identified 6 multicenter RCTs involving 3297 patients from 13 countries across 4 continents. The rate of all-cause mortality was 6.2% (103/1662) in the full-dose group vs 7.7% (126/1635) in the prophylactic or intermediate dose group (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59-0.98; P = 0.037). The probabilities of any mortality difference and of NNT ≤ 100 were estimated at 98.2% and 84.5%, respectively. The risk of bias was low for all included RCTs and the strength of the evidence was "moderate." CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis of high-quality multicenter RCTs suggests that full-dose anticoagulation with heparin or low molecular weight heparin reduces all-cause mortality in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022348993.

Structural basis for substrate selection by the SARS-CoV-2 replicase.

The SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase coordinates viral RNA synthesis as part of an assembly known as the replication-transcription complex (RTC)1. Accordingly, the RTC is a target for clinically approved antiviral nucleoside analogues, including remdesivir2. Faithful synthesis of viral RNAs by the RTC requires recognition of the correct nucleotide triphosphate (NTP) for incorporation into the nascent RNA. To be effective inhibitors, antiviral nucleoside analogues must compete with the natural NTPs for incorporation. How the SARS-CoV-2 RTC discriminates between the natural NTPs, and how antiviral nucleoside analogues compete, has not been discerned in detail. Here, we use cryogenic-electron microscopy to visualize the RTC bound to each of the natural NTPs in states poised for incorporation. Furthermore, we investigate the RTC with the active metabolite of remdesivir, remdesivir triphosphate (RDV-TP), highlighting the structural basis for the selective incorporation of RDV-TP over its natural counterpart adenosine triphosphate3,4. Our results explain the suite of interactions required for NTP recognition, informing the rational design of antivirals. Our analysis also yields insights into nucleotide recognition by the nsp12 NiRAN (nidovirus RdRp-associated nucleotidyltransferase), an enigmatic catalytic domain essential for viral propagation5. The NiRAN selectively binds guanosine triphosphate, strengthening proposals for the role of this domain in the formation of the 5' RNA cap6.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiovascular Testing in Asia : The IAEA INCAPS-COVID Study

Background The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly affected management of cardiovascular disease around the world. The effect of the pandemic on volume of cardiovascular diagnostic procedures is not known. Objectives This study sought to evaluate the effects of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular diagnostic procedures and safety practices in Asia. Methods The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey to assess changes in cardiovascular procedure volume and safety practices caused by COVID-19. Testing volumes were reported for March 2020 and April 2020 and were compared to those from March 2019. Data from 180 centers across 33 Asian countries were grouped into 4 subregions for comparison. Results Procedure volumes decreased by 47% from March 2019 to March 2020, showing recovery from March 2020 to April 2020 in Eastern Asia, particularly in China. The majority of centers cancelled outpatient activities and increased time per study. Practice changes included implementing physical distancing and restricting visitors. Although COVID testing was not commonly performed, it was conducted in one-third of facilities in Eastern Asia. The most severe reductions in procedure volumes were observed in lower-income countries, where volumes decreased 81% from March 2019 to April 2020. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic in Asia caused significant reductions in cardiovascular diagnostic procedures, particularly in low-income countries. Further studies on effects of COVID-19 on cardiovascular outcomes and changes in care delivery are warranted. Central Illustration

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. RESULTS: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

Cross-neutralization and viral fitness of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages (preprint)

The rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages mandates a better un-derstanding of viral replication and cross-neutralization among these sublineages. Here we used K18-hACE2 mice and primary human airway cultures to examine the viral fit-ness and antigenic relationship among Omicron sublineages. In both K18-hACE2 mice and human airway cultures, Omicron sublineages exhibited a replication order of BA.5 [≥] BA.2 [≥] BA.2.12.1 > BA.1; no difference in body weight loss was observed among differ-ent sublineage-infected mice. The BA.1-, BA.2-, BA.2.12.1-, and BA.5-infected mice de-veloped distinguisable cross-neutralizations against Omicron sublineages, but exhibited little neutralization against the index virus (i.e., USA-WA1/2020) or the Delta variant. Surprisingly, the BA.5-infected mice developed higher neutralization activity against heterologous BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 than that against homologous BA.5; serum neutralizing titers did not always correlate with viral replication levels in infected animals. Our results reveal distinct antigenic cartography of Omicron sublineages and support the bivalent vaccine approach.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial

Background: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer’s perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. Results: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413;95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021;95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost −$108 [95% CI −$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was −3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI −8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was −7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI −10.6% to −3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was −5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI −10.0% to −1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio;we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. Interpretation: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. Study registration: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690

TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION IN COVID-19 - USING TECHNOLOGY FOR IMPROVED OUTCOMES

Background In 2020 Highland Hospice faced the challenge of continuing the rehabilitation service delivered by our inpatient physiotherapist and occupational therapist. The service was originally delivered by admission to the unit for a five-day (Respiratory) or 10-day (Neurological) stay with intensive multi-disciplinary team rehabilitation. The team adapted the delivery of this service due to COVID-19 restrictions using the Zoom platform (licensed version). Aim To continue to provide ongoing rehabilitation for palliative care patients during COVID-19. Methods Referrals were received as usual from respiratory/ neuro nurses or consultant. Screening was carried out in a weekly meeting with the allied health professionals and doctors. Appropriate patients were contacted by telephone to schedule an initial assessment before setting up a Zoom call or home visit to set up technology. Patients were seen in person (if hearing or technology was an issue), or virtually for 6- 12 weeks. Results Of the eleven patients to date there were challenges for some but all participated and benefited. A survey was sent to participants. Three people responded. All three respondents said their goals were clear after the first session.•The respondents either mostly agreed/or agreed that their symptoms were better controlled.•Activity levels had increased.•Ability to cope was better.•Knowledge of helpful techniques was better and,•Quality of life was better after attending the service for the 6- 12 week period. Feedback from participants includes: 'The service was friendly and positive';'It helped me immensely';'a friend had been in respiratory crisis and I was able to help her while she waited for the ambulance - that felt good'. Conclusion Despite challenges, a virtual approach for palliative rehabilitation provided beneficial outcomes for patients who would not have been able to attend in person. This method will likely form a part of our services going forward.

The Temporal Association of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in adaptations to pediatric resuscitation systems of care. The objective of this study was to determine the temporal association between the pandemic and pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) process of care metrics, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) quality, and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective analysis of a dataset comprising observations of IHCA outcomes pre pandemic (March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020) versus pandemic (March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021). SETTING: Data source was the ICU-RESUScitation Project ("ICU-RESUS;" NCT028374497), a prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized interventional trial. PATIENTS: Children (≤ 18 yr) who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation while admitted to the ICU and were enrolled in ICU-RESUS. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 429 IHCAs meeting inclusion criteria, occurrence during the pandemic period was associated with higher frequency of hypotension as the immediate cause of arrest. Cardiac arrest physiology, cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality metrics, and postarrest physiologic and quality of care metrics were similar between the two periods. Survival with favorable neurologic outcome (Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category score 1-3 or unchanged from baseline) occurred in 102 of 195 subjects (52%) during the pandemic compared with 140 of 234 (60%) pre pandemic ( p = 0.12). Among survivors, occurrence of IHCA during the pandemic period was associated with a greater increase in Functional Status Scale (FSS) (i.e., worsening) from baseline (1 [0-3] vs 0 [0-2]; p = 0.01). After adjustment for confounders, IHCA survival during the pandemic period was associated with a greater increase in FSS from baseline (+1.19 [95% CI, 0.35-2.04] FSS points; p = 0.006) and higher odds of a new FSS-defined morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.03-3.46]; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Using the ICU-RESUS dataset, we found that relative to the year prior, pediatric IHCA during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with greater worsening of functional status and higher odds of new functional morbidity among survivors.

PALLIATIVE AND END OF LIFE CARE EXPERIENCES OF PEOPLE OF AFRICAN AND CARIBBEAN DESCENT (PEACE) DURING COVID-19

Background and Aims People of African and Caribbean descent experienced the highest mortality rates during the pandemic, yet often have the poorest access to palliative care. This study aims to identify how palliative care services can better meet the needs of people of African and Caribbean descent, by exploring patients' (by proxy), families' and health, social care and community workers' experiences of end-of-life-care during the pandemic. Methods Bereaved relatives, and professionals were recruited using social media, community networks and direct advertising to over 100 organisations. Semi-structured interviews explored experiences of end-of-life-care using a topic guide, developed with patient and public involvement partners. Participants' suggestions for care improvement were foregrounded throughout. The theoretical framework combined Critical Race Theory and Saurman's model of access. Thematic analysis was used. Results Over 40 participants were recruited. Results indicate that people of African and Caribbean descent are poorly served by current services. Interviewees identified distinct differences between the culture of care, and that of the patent. Participants reported institutional racism. Processes were insensitive to diversity in family and community support structures in different cultures. Themes describing end of life care services included: Unavailable: spiritual support, paid carers, specialist care, visitation and choice Inadequate: advertisement of services, cultural diversity and the appreciation of the importance of extended families Unacceptable: communication surrounding death and bereavement (upstream/proactive early discussions would improve engagement) and mental health and bereavement support. Conclusions People of African and Caribbean descent are often termed a 'hard to reach' group. Yet our study suggests that current configuration mean it is services that are hard to reach. Prioritisation of person-centred, culturally competent spiritual, psychological and social interventions remains an aspiration for palliative care. A focus on cultural sensitivity and communication may be a good start to enhance palliative and end of life care for all.

Design and rationale of GUARDD-US: A pragmatic, randomized trial of genetic testing for APOL1 and pharmacogenomic predictors of antihypertensive efficacy in patients with hypertension.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: APOL1 risk alleles are associated with increased cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk. It is unknown whether knowledge of APOL1 risk status motivates patients and providers to attain recommended blood pressure (BP) targets to reduce cardiovascular disease. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 6650 individuals with African ancestry and hypertension from 13 health systems. INTERVENTION: APOL1 genotyping with clinical decision support (CDS) results are returned to participants and providers immediately (intervention) or at 6 months (control). A subset of participants are re-randomized to pharmacogenomic testing for relevant antihypertensive medications (pharmacogenomic sub-study). CDS alerts encourage appropriate CKD screening and antihypertensive agent use. OUTCOMES: Blood pressure and surveys are assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome is change in systolic BP from enrollment to 3 months in individuals with two APOL1 risk alleles. Secondary outcomes include new diagnoses of CKD, systolic blood pressure at 6 months, diastolic BP, and survey results. The pharmacogenomic sub-study will evaluate the relationship of pharmacogenomic genotype and change in systolic BP between baseline and 3 months. RESULTS: To date, the trial has enrolled 3423 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of patient and provider knowledge of APOL1 genotype on systolic blood pressure has not been well-studied. GUARDD-US addresses whether blood pressure improves when patients and providers have this information. GUARDD-US provides a CDS framework for primary care and specialty clinics to incorporate APOL1 genetic risk and pharmacogenomic prescribing in the electronic health record. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04191824.

More than a 'Hundred Days War': Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in a patient with ANCA-associated vasculitis.

BACKGROUND: Few reports exist on the characteristics and outcomes of persistent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in immunocompromised hosts. METHODS: A 49-year-old patient with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and a renal transplant experienced multiple hospitalizations for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and relapses between October 2020 and February 2021. Careful chart review of medical history, hospitalizations, and microbiological testing including SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values, therapies, and imaging was undertaken. SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing was performed in five viral samples to distinguish persistent infection from re-infection with a different strain. RESULTS: Sequencing confirmed that all samples tested were from the same viral lineage, indicating a long-term, persistent infection rather than re-infection with a new strain. The patient ultimately stabilized after two courses of remdesivir plus dexamethasone, replacement intravenous immunoglobulin, and bamlanivimab. Rituximab maintenance therapy for vasculitis remains on hold. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 may persist for several months in immunocompromised hosts and may go unrecognized as an ongoing active infection. More studies are needed to determine how to optimize COVID-19 treatment in this vulnerable population.

HISTORIQUE: Il existe peu de rapports sur les caractéristiques et les issues de l'infection par le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS-CoV-2) chez les hôtes immunodéprimés. MÉTHODOLOGIE: UNE PATIENTE de 49 ans receveuse d'une transplantation rénale atteinte d'une granulomatose avec polyangéite a été hospitalisée à de multiples reprises à cause d'une pneumonie à maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) et de récidives entre octobre 2020 et février 2021. Les chercheurs ont exécuté une analyse attentive du dossier pour connaître l'histoire médicale de la patiente, les hospitalisations et les tests microbiologiques effectués, y compris les valeurs seuils du cycle du SRAS-CoV-2, les traitements et les techniques d'imagerie. Ils ont procédé au séquençage du génome du SRAS-CoV-2 dans cinq prélèvements viraux pour distinguer l'infection persistante de la réinfection par une souche différente. RÉSULTATS : Le séquençage a confirmé que tous les prélèvements effectués provenaient de la même lignée virale, ce qui détermine une infection persistante prolongée plutôt qu'une réinfection par une nouvelle souche. L'état de la patiente a fini par se stabiliser après deux traitements au remdésivir combiné à de la dexaméthasone, une thérapie de substitution par immunoglobuline intraveineuse et du bamlanivimab. Un traitement d'entretien de la vasculite au rituximab demeure en suspens. CONCLUSIONS: Le SRAS-CoV-2 peut persister plusieurs mois chez les hôtes immunodéprimés, et un état d'infection active continue peut passer inaperçu. Plus d'études devront être réalisées pour déterminer le moyen d'optimiser le traitement de la COVID-19 dans cette population vulnérable.

Renin-Angiotensin System Pathway Therapeutics Associated With Improved Outcomes in Males Hospitalized With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to sex and to report sex-related differences in renin-angiotensin system (RAS) components. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study comparing the effects of ARB or ACE inhibitors versus no ARBs or ACE inhibitors in males versus females. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 downregulates ACE-2, potentially increasing angiotensin II (a pro-inflammatory vasoconstrictor). Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may explain sex-based differences in responses to ARBs because the ACE2 gene is on the X chromosome. We recorded baseline characteristics, comorbidities, prehospital ARBs or ACE inhibitor treatment, use of organ support and mortality, and measured RAS components at admission and days 2, 4, 7, and 14 in a subgroup ( n = 46), recorded d -dimer ( n = 967), comparing males with females. SETTING: ARBs CORONA I is a multicenter Canadian observational cohort of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19. This analysis includes patients admitted to 10 large urban hospitals across the four most populated provinces. PATIENTS: One-thousand six-hundred eighty-six patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 (February 2020 to March 2021) for acute COVID-19 illness were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Males on ARBs before admission had decreased use of ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.52; p = 0.007) and vasopressors (aOR = 0.55; p = 0.011) compared with males not on ARBs or ACE inhibitors. No significant effects were observed in females for these outcomes. The test for interaction was significant for use of ventilation ( p = 0.006) and vasopressors ( p = 0.044) indicating significantly different responses to ARBs according to sex. Males had significantly higher plasma ACE-1 at baseline and angiotensin II at day 7 and 14 than females. CONCLUSIONS: ARBs use was associated with less ventilation and vasopressors in males but not females. Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may contribute to sex-based differences in outcomes and responses to ARBs in COVID-19.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements. DATA SOURCES: Beginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials; all languages. PARTICIPANTS: All hospitalized adults with COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: Remdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: We used the ROB-2 criteria. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important. RESULTS: We identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5-1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88-1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.

Worldwide Disparities in Recovery of Cardiac Testing 1 Year Into COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which health care systems have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic to provide necessary cardiac diagnostic services is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the pandemic on cardiac testing practices, volumes and types of diagnostic services, and perceived psychological stress to health care providers worldwide. METHODS: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey assessing alterations from baseline in cardiovascular diagnostic care at the pandemic's onset and 1 year later. Multivariable regression was used to determine factors associated with procedure volume recovery. RESULTS: Surveys were submitted from 669 centers in 107 countries. Worldwide reduction in cardiac procedure volumes of 64% from March 2019 to April 2020 recovered by April 2021 in high- and upper middle-income countries (recovery rates of 108% and 99%) but remained depressed in lower middle- and low-income countries (46% and 30% recovery). Although stress testing was used 12% less frequently in 2021 than in 2019, coronary computed tomographic angiography was used 14% more, a trend also seen for other advanced cardiac imaging modalities (positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance; 22%-25% increases). Pandemic-related psychological stress was estimated to have affected nearly 40% of staff, impacting patient care at 78% of sites. In multivariable regression, only lower-income status and physicians' psychological stress were significant in predicting recovery of cardiac testing. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac diagnostic testing has yet to recover to prepandemic levels in lower-income countries. Worldwide, the decrease in standard stress testing is offset by greater use of advanced cardiac imaging modalities. Pandemic-related psychological stress among providers is widespread and associated with poor recovery of cardiac testing.