Relationship between Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and IFN-λ3 Levels in the Administration of Oxygen following COVID-19 Vaccination.

Although the effectiveness of vaccination at preventing hospitalization and severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been reported in numerous studies, the detailed mechanism of innate immunity occurring in host cells by breakthrough infection is unclear. One hundred forty-six patients were included in this study. To determine the effects of vaccination and past infection on innate immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection, we analyzed the relationship between anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and biomarkers associated with the deterioration of COVID-19 (IFN-λ3, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, procalcitonin, and D-dimer). Anti-S Abs were classified into two groups according to titer: high titer (≥250 U/ml) and low titer (<250 U/ml). A negative correlation was observed between anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and IFN-λ3 levels (r = -0.437, p < 0.001). A low titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs showed a significant association with oxygen demand in patients, excluding aspiration pneumonia. Finally, in a multivariate analysis, a low titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs was an independent risk factor for oxygen demand, even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, aspiration pneumonia, and IFN-λ3 levels. In summary, measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and IFN-λ3 may have clinical significance for patients with COVID-19. To predict the oxygen demand of patients with COVID-19 after hospitalization, it is important to evaluate the computed tomography findings to determine whether the pneumonia is the result of COVID-19 or aspiration pneumonia.

Remdesivir and three other drugs for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results of the WHO Solidarity randomised trial and updated meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The Solidarity trial among COVID-19 inpatients has previously reported interim mortality analyses for four repurposed antiviral drugs. Lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon (IFN)-ß1a were discontinued for futility but randomisation to remdesivir continued. Here, we report the final results of Solidarity and meta-analyses of mortality in all relevant trials to date. METHODS: Solidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-ß1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82-1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89-1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76-0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46-1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76-0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77-1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75-0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both). FUNDING: WHO.

Oxygen-Saturation Targets for Critically Ill Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo₂) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo₂ target was used. (Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; PILOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03537937.).

Cost-effectiveness and sustainability of improved hospital oxygen systems in Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION: Improving hospital oxygen systems can improve quality of care and reduce mortality for children, but we lack data on cost-effectiveness or sustainability. This study evaluated medium-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the Nigeria Oxygen Implementation programme. METHODS: Prospective follow-up of a stepped-wedge trial involving 12 secondary-level hospitals. Cross-sectional facility assessment, clinical audit (January-March 2021), summary admission data (January 2018-December 2020), programme cost data. INTERVENTION: pulse oximetry introduction followed by solar-powered oxygen system installation with clinical and technical training and support. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: (i) proportion of children screened with pulse oximetry; (ii) proportion of hypoxaemic (SpO2 <90%) children who received oxygen. Comparison across three time periods: preintervention (2014-2015), intervention (2016-2017) and follow-up (2018-2020) using mixed-effects logistic regression. Calculated cost-effectiveness of the intervention on child pneumonia mortality using programme costs, recorded deaths and estimated counterfactual deaths using effectiveness estimates from our effectiveness study. Reported cost-effectiveness over the original 2-year intervention period (2016-2017) and extrapolated over 5 years (2016-2020). RESULTS: Pulse oximetry coverage for neonates and children remained high during follow-up (83% and 81%) compared with full oxygen system period (94% and 92%) and preintervention (3.9% and 2.9%). Oxygen coverage for hypoxaemic neonates/children was similarly high (94%/88%) compared with full oxygen system period (90%/82%). Functional oxygen sources were present in 11/12 (92%) paediatric areas and all (8/8) neonatal areas; three-quarters (15/20) of wards had a functional oximeter. Of 32 concentrators deployed, 23/32 (72%) passed technical testing and usage was high (median 10 797 hours). Estimated 5-year cost-effectiveness US$86 per patient treated, $2694-4382 per life saved and $82-125 per disability-adjusted life year-averted. We identified practical issues for hospitals and Ministries of Health wishing to adapt and scale up pulse oximetry and oxygen. CONCLUSION: Hospital-level improvements to oxygen and pulse oximetry systems in Nigerian hospitals have been sustained over the medium-term and are a highly cost-effective child pneumonia intervention.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19.  A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting.  We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals  Remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence).   We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence).  None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline.  Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

The application of a surgical face mask over different oxygen delivery devices; a crossover study of measured end-tidal oxygen concentrations.

BACKGROUND: The application of a surgical face mask over oxygen delivery devices is now a widespread recommendation in the setting of the Coronavirus disease pandemic. This addition is designed to reduce droplet spread, but this also changes the nature of these devices, and may alter the amount of oxygen delivered to a patient. This research investigated how placing a surgical face mask over both a simple plastic mask ("Hudson mask") and nasal cannula altered the concentration of available oxygen measured at the nares. METHODS: We measured the inspired and end-tidal oxygen concentrations of five healthy non-smoking volunteers. Oxygen was delivered via nasal cannula and also a simple plastic face mask, at flow rates of 2, 4, 6 and 8 l per minute, with and without an overlying surgical face mask. RESULTS: Adding a surgical mask over nasal cannula caused an appreciable rise in the end-tidal oxygen concentrations at all the measured oxygen flow rates 2, 4, 6, 8 L/minute. With the Hudson mask, there was a rise in oxygen concentration at 4 and 6 L/minute. For example, at a flow rate of 4 l/min via nasal cannula, available oxygen concentration increased from 24 to 36%, and via the Hudson mask the concentration rose from 27 to 38%. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a surgical face mask over both nasal cannula and a Hudson mask resulted in an increased available oxygen concentration. This may be valuable where more advanced oxygen devices are not available, or alternatively providing adequate supplemental oxygen at lower flow rates and thus making critical savings in oxygen usage.

Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure by covid-19: A retrospective study of the feasibility, safety and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are the main forms of treatment for acute respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect, safety, and applicability of the NIV and HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we monitored the effect of NIV and HFNC on the SpO2 and respiratory rate before, during, and after treatment, length of stay, rates of endotracheal intubation, and mortality in patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19. Additionally, data regarding RT-PCR from physiotherapists who were directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19. RESULTS: 62.2 % of patients were treated with HFNC. ROX index increased during and after NIV and HFNC treatment (P < 0.05). SpO2 increased during NIV treatment (P < 0.05), but was not maintained after treatment (P = 0.17). In addition, there was no difference in the respiratory rate during or after the NIV (P = 0.95) or HFNC (P = 0.60) treatment. The mortality rate was 35.7 % for NIV vs 21.4 % for HFNC (P = 0.45), while the total endotracheal intubation rate was 57.1 % for NIV vs 69.6 % for HFNC (P = 0.49). Two adverse events occurred during treatment with NIV and eight occurred during treatment with HFNC. There was no difference in the physiotherapists who tested positive for SARS-COV-2 directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 ones (P = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The application of NIV and HFNC in the critical care unit is feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. In addition, there was no increase in the infection of physiotherapists with SARS-CoV-2.

Mechanisms of the Effects of Short-Term Inhalations of Xe and O2 Gas Mixture in the Rehabilitation of Post-COVID Ventilation Failure.

The article presents a theoretical rationale and a clinical case of relief of post-COVID ventilation failure by inhalation of Xe and O2 gas mixture. Pneumonitis of coronavirus etiology transforms saturated phospholipids of surfactant into a solid-ordered phase, which disrupts surface tension, alveolar pneumatization, and alveolar-capillary gas exchange. Using molecular modeling (B3LYP/lanl2dz; GAUSSIAN09), we demonstrated that Xe atom due to the van der Waals dispersion interaction increases the distance between the phospholipid acyl chains providing a phase transition from the solid-ordered to liquid phase and restored the surface-active monolayer surfactant film. A clinical case confirmed that short-term inhalations of the Xe and O2 gas mixture relieved manifestations of ventilation insufficiency and increased SpO2 and pneumatization of the terminal parts of the lungs.

Impact of exposure time in awake prone positioning on clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (ARF), awake prone positioning (AW-PP) reduces the need for intubation in patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, the effects of different exposure times on clinical outcomes remain unclear. We evaluated the effect of AW-PP on the risk of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19-related ARF treated with HFNO and analyzed the effects of different exposure times to AW-PP. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study in six ICUs of 6 centers in Argentine consecutively included patients > 18 years of age with confirmed COVID-19-related ARF requiring HFNO from June 2020 to January 2021. In the primary analysis, the main exposure was awake prone positioning for at least 6 h/day, compared to non-prone positioning (NON-PP). In the sensitivity analysis, exposure was based on the number of hours receiving AW-PP. Inverse probability weighting-propensity score (IPW-PS) was used to adjust the conditional probability of treatment assignment. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI); and the secondary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 580 patients were screened and 335 were included; 187 (56%) tolerated AW-PP for [median (p25-75)] 12 (9-16) h/day and 148 (44%) served as controls. The IPW-propensity analysis showed standardized differences < 0.1 in all the variables assessed. After adjusting for other confounders, the OR (95% CI) for ETI in the AW-PP group was 0.36 (0.2-0.7), with a progressive reduction in OR as the exposure to AW-PP increased. The adjusted OR (95% CI) for hospital mortality in the AW-PP group ≥ 6 h/day was 0.47 (0.19-1.31). The exposure to prone positioning ≥ 8 h/d resulted in a further reduction in OR [0.37 (0.17-0.8)]. CONCLUSION: In the study population, AW-PP for ≥ 6 h/day reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation, and exposure ≥ 8 h/d reduced the risk of hospital mortality.

Feasibility of CPAP application and variables related to worsening of respiratory failure in pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: Experience of a tertiary care centre.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been successfully applied to patients with COVID-19 to prevent endotracheal intubation. However, experience of CPAP application in pregnant women with acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is scarce. This study aimed to describe the natural history and outcome of ARF in a cohort of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, focusing on the feasibility of helmet CPAP (h-CPAP) application and the variables related to ARF worsening. A retrospective, observational study enrolling 41 consecutive pregnant women hospitalised for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a tertiary care center between March 2020 and March 2021. h-CPAP was applied if arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) was inferior to 200 and/or patients had respiratory distress despite adequate oxygen supplementation. Characteristics of patients requiring h-CPAP vs those in room air or oxygen only were compared. Twenty-seven (66%) patients showed hypoxemic ARF requiring oxygen supplementation and h-CPAP was needed in 10 cases (24%). PaO2/FiO2 was significantly improved during h-CPAP application. The device was well-tolerated in all cases with no adverse events. Higher serum C reactive protein and more extensive (≥3 lobes) involvement at chest X-ray upon admission were observed in the h-CPAP group. Assessment of temporal distribution of cases showed a substantially increased rate of CPAP requirement during the third pandemic wave (January-March 2021). In conclusion, h-CPAP was feasible, safe, well-tolerated and improved oxygenation in pregnant women with moderate-to-severe ARF due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Moderate-to-severe ARF was more frequently observed during the third pandemic wave.

Fatigue in post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV2 (PASC) treated with oxygen-ozone autohemotherapy - preliminary results on 100 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV2 infection (PASC) are a novel terminology used to describe post-COVID persistent symptoms, mimicking somehow the previously described chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). In this manuscript, we evaluated a therapeutical approach to address PASC-derived fatigue in a cohort of past-COVID-19 positive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A number of 100 patients, previously diagnosed as COVID-19 positive subjects and meeting our eligibility criteria, was diagnosed having PASC-related fatigue. They were recruited in the study and treated with oxygen-ozone autohemotherapy (O2-O3-AHT), according to the SIOOT protocol. Patients' response to O2-O3-AHT and changes in fatigue were measured with the 7-scoring Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), according to previously published protocols. RESULTS: Statistics assessed that the effects of O2-O3-AHT on fatigue reduced PASC symptoms by 67%, as a mean, in all the investigated cohort of patients (H = 148.4786 p < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Patients following O2-O3-AHT therapy, quite completely recovered for PASC-associated fatigue, a quote amounting to about two fifths (around 40%) of the whole cohort undergoing ozone treatment and despite most of patients were female subjects, the effect was not influenced by sex distribution (H = 0.7353, p = 0.39117). CONCLUSIONS: Ozone therapy is able to recover normal functionality and to relief pain and discomfort in the form of PASC-associated fatigue in at least 67% of patients suffering from post-COVID sequelae, aside from sex and age distribution.

Remdesivir plus standard of care versus standard of care alone for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): a phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. METHODS: DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (62 [15%] vs 79 [19%]); (7) death (21 [5%] vs 24 [6%]). The difference between treatment groups was not significant (odds ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·77-1·25]; p=0·85). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups (remdesivir, 135 [33%] of 406 vs control, 130 [31%] of 418; p=0·48). Three deaths (acute respiratory distress syndrome, bacterial infection, and hepatorenal syndrome) were considered related to remdesivir by the investigators, but only one by the sponsor's safety team (hepatorenal syndrome). INTERPRETATION: No clinical benefit was observed from the use of remdesivir in patients who were admitted to hospital for COVID-19, were symptomatic for more than 7 days, and required oxygen support. FUNDING: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, Domaine d'intérêt majeur One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Austrian Group Medical Tumor, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Treatment of moderate to severe respiratory COVID-19: a cost-utility analysis.

Despite COVID-19's significant morbidity and mortality, considering cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment strategies for hospitalized patients remains critical to support healthcare resource decisions within budgetary constraints. As such, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of using remdesivir and dexamethasone for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model. A decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in only moderate and only severe infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system. Supportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98 with 0.7155 quality adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. Using dexamethasone for all patients was the most-cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $980.84/QALY; all remdesivir strategies were more costly and less effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed dexamethasone for all patients was most cost-effective in 98.3% of scenarios. Dexamethasone for moderate-severe COVID-19 infections was the most cost-effective strategy and would have minimal budget impact. Based on current data, remdesivir is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for COVID-19.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes for pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19 disease at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital, Benin City, Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION: the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems around the world. This study was designed to describe the socio-demographic characteristics of pregnant women with COVID-19 infection, the common clinical features at presentation and the pregnancy outcome at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital, Edo State, Nigeria. METHODS: a cross-sectional analytical study of all confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection from April to September 2020. RESULTS: out of 69 suspected cases that were tested, 19 (28.4%) were confirmed with COVID-19 infection. The common presenting complaints were fever (68.4 %), cough (57.9 %), sore throat (31.6%), malaise (42.1%), loss of taste (26.3%), anosmia (21.1%), and difficulty with breathing (10.6%). In terms of treatment outcome, 57.9% delivered while 36.8% recovered with pregnancy on-going, and 1 (5.3%) maternal death. Of the 11 women who delivered, 45.4% had vaginal deliveries and 54.6 % had Caesarean section. The mean birth weight was 3.1kg and most of the neonates (81.8%) had normal Apgar scores at birth. There was 1 perinatal death from prematurity, birth asphyxia, and intrauterine growth restriction. The commonest diagnosed co-morbidity of pregnancy was preeclampsia and it was significantly associated with severe COVID-19 disease requiring oxygen supplementation (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in pregnancy are similar to those described in the non-pregnant population. It did not seem to worsen the maternal or foetal pregnancy outcome. The occurrence of preeclampsia is significantly associated with severe COVID-19 infection requiring respiratory support.

Paediatric headbox as aerosol and droplet barrier.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is frequently used in hospitals, producing droplets and aerosols that could transmit SARS-CoV-2. AIM: To determine if a headbox could reduce droplet and aerosol transmission from patients requiring HFNO. METHODS: The size and dispersion of propylene glycol (model for patient-derived infectious particles) was measured using a spectrometer and an infant mannequin receiving 10-50 L/min of HFNO using (1) no headbox, (2) open headbox, (3) headbox-blanket or (4) headbox with a high-efficiency particulate (HEP) filter covering the neck opening. RESULTS: All headbox set-ups reduced the dispersal of droplets and aerosols compared with no headbox. The headbox-blanket system increased aerosol dispersal compared with the open headbox. The fraction of aerosols retained in the headbox for HFNO of 10 and 50 L/min was, respectively, as follows: (1) open headbox: 82.4% and 42.2%; (2) headbox-blanket: 56.8% and 39.5%; (3) headbox-HEP filter: 99.9% and 99.9%. CONCLUSION: A HEP-filter modified headbox may serve as an effective droplet and aerosol barrier adjunct for the protection of staff caring for children receiving HFNO.

Development and Validation of a Multivariable Predictive Model for Mortality of COVID-19 Patients Demanding High Oxygen Flow at Admission to ICU: AIDA Score.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification is an important aspect of COVID-19 management, especially in patients admitted to ICU as it can provide more useful consumption of health resources, as well as prioritize critical care services in situations of overwhelming number of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multivariable predictive model for mortality was developed using data solely from a derivation cohort of 160 COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe ARDS admitted to ICU. The regression coefficients from the final multivariate model of the derivation study were used to assign points for the risk model, consisted of all significant variables from the multivariate analysis and age as a known risk factor for COVID-19 patient mortality. The newly developed AIDA score was arrived at by assigning 5 points for serum albumin and 1 point for IL-6, D dimer, and age. The score was further validated on a cohort of 304 patients admitted to ICU due to the severe form of COVID-19. RESULTS: The study population included 160 COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU in the derivation and 304 in the validation cohort. The mean patient age was 66.7 years (range, 20-93 years), with 68.1% men and 31.9% women. Most patients (76.8%) had comorbidities with hypertension (67.7%), diabetes (31.7), and coronary artery disease (19.3) as the most frequent. A total of 316 patients (68.3%) were treated with mechanical ventilation. Ninety-six (60.0%) in the derivation cohort and 221 (72.7%) patients in the validation cohort had a lethal outcome. The population was divided into the following risk categories for mortality based on the risk model score: low risk (score 0-1) and at-risk (score > 1). In addition, patients were considered at high risk with a risk score > 2. By applying the risk model to the validation cohort (n = 304), the positive predictive value was 78.8% (95% CI 75.5% to 81.8%); the negative predictive value was 46.6% (95% CI 37.3% to 56.2%); the sensitivity was 82.4% (95% CI 76.7% to 87.1%), and the specificity was 41.0% (95% CI 30.3% to 52.3%). The C statistic was 0.863 (95% CI 0.805-0.921) and 0.665 (95% CI 0.598-0.732) in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively, indicating a high discriminative value of the proposed score. CONCLUSION: In the present study, AIDA score showed a valuable significance in estimating the mortality risk in patients with the severe form of COVID-19 disease at admission to ICU. Further external validation on a larger group of patients is needed to provide more insights into the utility of this score in everyday practice.

Imatinib in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·76-1·20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0·51 [0·27-0·95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0·52 (95% CI 0·26-1·05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1·07 (0·63-1·80; p=0·81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0·0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. FUNDING: Amsterdam Medical Center Foundation, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek/ZonMW, and the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative 2.

Efficacy and safety of Lianhuaqingwen for mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: : Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging and rapidly evolving disease, with no recommended effective anti-coronavirus treatments. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been widely used to treat COVID-19 in China, and the most used one is Lianhuaqingwen (LH). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of LH combined with usual treatment vs usual treatment alone in treating mild or moderate COVID-19 by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: : We systematically searched the Medline (OVID), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 4 Chinese databases from inception to July 2020 to include the RCTs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of LH in combination with usual treatment vs usual treatment for mild or moderate COVID-19. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: : A total of 5 RCTs with 824 individuals with mild or moderate COVID 19 were included. Compared with the usual treatment alone, LH in combination with usual treatment significantly improved the overall clinical efficacy (RR = 2.39, 95% CI 1.61-3.55), increased the rate of recovery of chest computed tomographic manifestations (RR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.08-3.01), reduced the rate of conversion to severe cases (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.74), shorten the duration of fever (MD = -1.00, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.84). Moreover, LH in combination with usual treatment did not increase the occurrence of the adverse event compared to usual treatment alone. CONCLUSION: : Our meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that LH in combination with usual treatment may improve the clinical efficacy in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 without increasing adverse events. However, given the limitations and poor quality of included trials in this study, further large-sample RCTs or high-quality real-world studies are needed to confirm our conclusions.