Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Frontiers in medicine ; 9, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1824570

ABSTRACT

Purpose The objective of the present study was to provide a detailed histopathological description of fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19), and compare the lesions in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients. Methods In this prospective study we included adult patients who died in hospital after presenting with confirmed COVID-19. Multiorgan biopsies were performed. Data generated with light microscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and RT-PCR assays were reviewed. Results 20 patients were enrolled in the study and the main pulmonary finding was alveolar damage, which was focal in 11 patients and diffuse in 8 patients. Chronic fibrotic and inflammatory lesions were observed in 18 cases, with acute inflammatory lesions in 12 cases. Diffuse lesions, collapsed alveoli and dystrophic pneumocytes were more frequent in the ICU group (62.5%, vs. 25%;63%, vs. 55%;87.5%, vs. 54%). Acute lesions (82%, vs. 37.5%;p = 0.07) with neutrophilic alveolitis (63.6% vs. 0%, respectively;p = 0.01) were observed more frequently in the non-ICU group. Viral RNA was detected in 12 lung biopsies (60%) up to 56 days after disease upset. TEM detected viral particles in the lung and kidney biopsy samples up to 27 days after disease upset. Furthermore, abundant networks of double-membrane vesicles (DMVs, a hallmark of viral replication) were observed in proximal tubular epithelial cells. Conclusion Lung injury was different in ICU and non-ICU patients. Extrapulmonary damage consisting in kidney and myocardial injury were more frequent in ICU patients. Our TEM experiments provided the first description of SARS-CoV-2-induced DMVs in kidney biopsy samples—a sign of intense viral replication in this organ.

2.
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.

3.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 12, 2022 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1608868

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the context of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the response to lung recruitment maneuvers (LRMs) varies considerably from one patient to another and so is difficult to predict. The aim of the study was to determine whether or not the recruitment-to-inflation (R/I) ratio could differentiate between patients according to the change in lung mechanics during the LRM. METHODS: We evaluated the changes in gas exchange and respiratory mechanics induced by a stepwise LRM at a constant driving pressure of 15 cmH2O during pressure-controlled ventilation. We assessed lung recruitability by measuring the R/I ratio. Patients were dichotomized with regard to the median R/I ratio. RESULTS: We included 30 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS and a median [interquartile range] R/I ratio of 0.62 [0.42-0.83]. After the LRM, patients with high recruitability (R/I ratio ≥ 0.62) presented an improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, due to significant increase in respiratory system compliance (33 [27-42] vs. 42 [35-60] mL/cmH2O; p < 0.001). In low recruitability patients (R/I < 0.62), the increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio was associated with a significant decrease in pulse pressure as a surrogate of cardiac output (70 [55-85] vs. 50 [51-67] mmHg; p = 0.01) but not with a significant change in respiratory system compliance (33 [24-47] vs. 35 [25-47] mL/cmH2O; p = 0.74). CONCLUSION: After the LRM, patients with high recruitability presented a significant increase in respiratory system compliance (indicating a gain in ventilated area), while those with low recruitability presented a decrease in pulse pressure suggesting a drop in cardiac output and therefore in intrapulmonary shunt.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Lung/physiopathology , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , SARS-CoV-2
4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-296420

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The objective of the present study was to provide a detailed histopathological description of fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19), and compare the lesions in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients.<br><br>Methods: In this prospective study we included adult patients who died in hospital after presenting with probable or confirmed COVID-19. Multiorgan biopsies were performed. Data generated with light microscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and RT-PCR assays were reviewed.Results20 patients were enrolled in the study and the main pulmonary finding was alveolar damage, which was focal in 11 patients and diffuse in 8 patients. Chronic fibrotic and inflammatory lesions were observed in 18 cases, with acute inflammatory lesions in 12 cases. Diffuse lesions, collapsed alveoli and dystrophic pneumocytes were more frequent in the ICU group (62.5%, vs. 25%;63%, vs. 55%;87.5%, vs. 54%). Acute lesions (82%, vs. 37.5%;p=0.07) with neutrophilic alveolitis (63.6% vs. 0%, respectively;p=0.01) were observed more frequently in the non-ICU group. Viral RNA was detected in 12 lung biopsies (60%) up to 56 days after disease upset. TEM detected viral particles in the lung and kidney biopsy samples up to 27 days after disease upset. Furthermore, abundant networks of double-membrane vesicles (DMVs, a hallmark of viral replication) were observed in proximal tubular epithelial cells.<br><br>Conclusion: Lung injury was different in ICU and non-ICU patients. Extrapulmonary damage was also involved. Our TEM experiments provided the first description of SARS-CoV-2-induced DMVs in kidney biopsy samples – a sign of intense viral replication in this organ.<br><br>Funding Information: This research did not receive any specific funding from agencies or organizations in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.<br><br>Declaration of Interests: The authors report no disclosures of relevance to the manuscript.<br><br>Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the French Ministry of Health. Informed consent was obtained from all patient families.

5.
J Crit Care ; 64: 141-143, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1193376

ABSTRACT

Airway closure is a physiological phenomenon in which the distal airways are obstructed when the airway pressure drops below the airway opening pressure. We assessed this phenomenon in 27 patients with coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. Twelve (44%) patients had an airway opening pressure above 5 cmH2O. The median airway opening pressure was 8 cmH2O (interquartile range, 7-10), with a maximum value of 17 cmH2O. Three patients had a baseline positive end-expiratory pressure lower than the airway opening pressure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Airway Obstruction/prevention & control , Critical Care , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Mechanics
6.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e044497, 2021 01 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1013055

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Accurate triage is an important first step to effectively manage the clinical treatment of severe cases in a pandemic outbreak. In the current COVID-19 global pandemic, there is a lack of reliable clinical tools to assist clinicians to perform accurate triage. Host response biomarkers have recently shown promise in risk stratification of disease progression; however, the role of these biomarkers in predicting disease progression in patients with COVID-19 is unknown. Here, we present a protocol outlining a prospective validation study to evaluate the biomarkers' performance in predicting clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective validation study assesses patients infected with COVID-19, in whom blood samples are prospectively collected. Recruited patients include a range of infection severity from asymptomatic to critically ill patients, recruited from the community, outpatient clinics, emergency departments and hospitals. Study samples consist of peripheral blood samples collected into RNA-preserving (PAXgene/Tempus) tubes on patient presentation or immediately on study enrolment. Real-time PCR (RT-PCR) will be performed on total RNA extracted from collected blood samples using primers specific to host response gene expression biomarkers that have been previously identified in studies of respiratory viral infections. The RT-PCR data will be analysed to assess the diagnostic performance of individual biomarkers in predicting COVID-19-related outcomes, such as viral pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome or bacterial pneumonia. Biomarker performance will be evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research protocol aims to study the host response gene expression biomarkers in severe respiratory viral infections with a pandemic potential (COVID-19). It has been approved by the local ethics committee with approval number 2020/ETH00886. The results of this project will be disseminated in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers/metabolism , COVID-19/metabolism , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Triage/methods , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Time Factors
8.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 87(3): 1547-1553, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-658398

ABSTRACT

It is not known whether the adverse events (AEs) associated with the administration of lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of COVID-19 are concentration-dependent. In a retrospective study of 65 patients treated with LPV/r and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for severe forms of COVID-19 (median age: 67; males: 41 [63.1%]), 33 (50.8%) displayed a grade ≥2 increase in plasma levels of hepatobiliary markers, lipase and/or triglycerides. A causal relationship between LPV/r and the AE was suspected in 9 of the 65 patients (13.8%). At 400 mg b.i.d., the plasma trough concentrations of LPV/r were high and showed marked interindividual variability (median [interquartile range]: 16,600 [11,430-20,842] ng/ml for lopinavir and 501 [247-891] ng/ml for ritonavir). The trough lopinavir concentration was negatively correlated with body mass index, while the trough ritonavir concentration was positively correlated with age and negatively correlated with prothrombin activity. However, the occurrence of abnormal laboratory values was not associated with higher trough plasma concentrations of LPV/r. Further studies will be needed to determine the value of TDM in LPV/r-treated patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Anti-Retroviral Agents/adverse effects , Anti-Retroviral Agents/blood , COVID-19/blood , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Lopinavir/blood , Ritonavir/adverse effects , Ritonavir/blood , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aging/metabolism , Anti-Retroviral Agents/therapeutic use , Body Mass Index , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Prothrombin/analysis , Retrospective Studies , Ritonavir/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL