Tixagevimab-cilgavimab (AZD7442) for the treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (preprint)

Background Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (AZD7442) are two monoclonal antibodies developed by AstraZeneca for the pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. Its effectiveness and safety in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was not known at the outset of this trial. Methods DisCoVeRy is a phase 3, adaptive, multicentre, randomized, controlled trial conducted in 63 sites in Europe. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or tixagevimab-cilgavimab in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Several clinical, virological, immunological and safety endpoints were also assessed. Findings Due to slow enrolment, recruitment was stopped on July 1st, 2022. The antigen positive modified intention-to-treat population (mITT) was composed of 173 participants randomized to tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n=91) or placebo (n=82), 91.9% (159/173) with supplementary oxygen, and 47.4% (82/173) previously vaccinated at inclusion. There was no significant difference in the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale at day 15 between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95%CI [0.54-1.61]; p=0.81) nor in any clinical, virological or safety secondary endpoints. In the global mITT (n=226), neutralization antibody titers were significantly higher in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group/patients compared to placebo at day 3 (Least-square mean differences (LSMD) 1.44, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [1.20-1.68]; p < 10-23) and day 8 (LSMD 0.91, 95%CI [0.64-1.18]; p < 10-8) and it was most important for patients infected with a pre-omicron variant, both at day 3 (LSMD 1.94, 95% CI [1.67-2.20], p < 10-25) and day 8 (LSMD 1.17, 95% CI [0.87-1.47], p < 10-9), with a significant interaction (p < 10-7 and p=0.01 at days 3 and 8, respectively). Interpretation There were no significant differences between tixagevimab-cilgavimab and placebo in clinical endpoints, however the trial lacked power compared to prespecified calculations. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab was well tolerated, with low rates of treatment related events.

Management of patients with Long Covid: A qualitative study exploring the roles of nurses in healthcare pathways (preprint)

Aim Investigate the various roles played by nurses in the care of patients afflicted with Long COVID. Background Effectively managing Long Covid requires a multidisciplinary approach - a healthcare pathway that necessitates collaboration among various members of the medical profession to monitor the patient. Among these professions, nursing plays a crucial role. This article compiles information on how nurses are involved in the care of patients afflicted with Long Covid: What roles do they play in enhancing the care of these patients? Are these roles distinct from those they perform in other chronic conditions? Methods We conducted a qualitative study among healthcare professionals in France and enrolled eighteen participants in our study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with professionals working across various care sectors in France, including private practice, hospitals, schools, and research. A thematic content analysis was performed, and emerging themes were subsequently discussed until the most significant categories were identified. This study was conducted in accordance with the COREQ checklist. Results Nurses play a wide range of roles within their practices, depending on their practice settings. For instance, a nurse practitioner may work in a range of settings such as hospital outpatient clinics, private group practices, inpatient units, or urgent care units. Depending on their work environment, nurses' roles within healthcare pathways may encompass screening and guidance, clinical patient monitoring, providing relational support, patient education, collaborative care and coordination as well as involvement in research. Conclusion The predominant role identified in our study involves coordinating the management of the Long Covid syndrome. The next step would be the implementation of a city-hospital Long Covid healthcare pathway. Implication for the Nursing & Health Policy Perspectives Nursing work is difficult to specify, as it includes numerous recognised and unrecognised aspects. The results of this study highlight a new essential role which is that of coordinating the health pathways of patients suffering from Long Covid.

Intentions to get vaccinated against Monkeypox in Healthcare workers in France and Belgium correlates with attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination (preprint)

Abstract text Background Front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) could be at-risk for Monkeypox infections. Vaccine hesitancy also affects HCWs and has an impact on their own attitudes toward vaccination. In the context of the exhaustion due to COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to evaluate intentions to get vaccinated against Monkeypox in HCWs in France and Belgium. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study (snowball sampling) using a self-administered online questionnaire to evaluate intentions to get vaccinated against Monkeypox in HCWs if a recommendation for HCWs vaccination was made. We compared demographics characteristics, vaccine readiness, eagerness for COVID-19 vaccine, and confidence in HCW with Chi-square tests, student-t and performed a binary regression. Results Amon the 397 respondents, if a specific recommendation was made for HCWs vaccination against Monkeypox was made, 55.4 % will probably get the vaccine, while 79 % would accept the vaccine if recommended to the general population. COVID-19 vaccine eagerness and having concerns about Monkeypox epidemics were associated with favorable attitude toward Monkeypox vaccination in HCWs with respective adjusted odds ratio and 95 % Confidence Interval 2.5 (1.03-6.1), 2.6 (1.3-5.3). Forty-four HCWs (11 %) self-identified as at-risk for Monkeypox infections. Conclusion Acceptance of Monkeypox vaccination in HCWs is probably moderate, HCWs are probably complacent and did not perceive the risk of Monkeypox infections in the context of professional exposure.

Immunogenicity and Safety of Beta Adjuvanted Recombinant Booster Vaccine (preprint)

Background. Variant-adaptated vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as boosters are needed to increase a broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants. New adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccines as heterologous boosters could maximize the response. Methods. In this randomized, single-blinded, multicenter trial, adults who had received two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) 3 to7 months before were randomly assigned to receive a boost of BNT162b2, Sanofi/GSK SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV D614 (monovalent parental formulation) or SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV B.1.351 vaccine (monovalent Beta formulation). The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects with a [≥] 10-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers for the Wuhan (D614) and B.1.351 (Beta) SARS-CoV-2 viral strains between day 0 and day 15. Findings. The percentages of participants whose neutralizing antibody titers against the Wuhan (D614) SARS-CoV-2 strain increased by a factor [≥]10 between day 0 and day 15 was 55.3% (95% CI 43.4-66.7) in MV D614 group (n=76), 76.1% (64.5-85.4) in MV B.1.351 (Beta) group (n=71) and 63.2% (51.3-73.9) in BNT162b2 group (n=76). These percentages were 44.7% (33.3-56.6), 84.5% (74.0-92.0) and 51.3% (39.6-63.0) for the B.1.351 (Beta) viral strain, respectively. Higher neutralizing antibodies rates against Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants were also elicited after Sanofi/GSK MV Beta vaccine compared to the other vaccines. Comparable reactogenicity profile was observed with the three vaccines. Interpretation. Heterologous boosting with the Sanofi/GSK Beta formulation vaccine resulted in a higher neutralizing antibody response against Beta variant but also the original strain and Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants, compared with mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine or the Sanofi/GSK MVD614 formulation. New vaccines containing Beta spike protein may represent an interesting strategy for broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants.

Remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: final results from the DisCoVeRy randomised, controlled, open-label trial (preprint)

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen and/or ventilator support. Following prior publication of preliminary results, here we present the final results after completion of data monitoring. Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care (SoC) alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir and IFN-beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzyme, severe chronic kidney disease, any contra-indication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before randomization, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breast-feeding. Here, we report results for remdesivir + SoC versus SoC alone. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg infusion on day 1, followed by once daily 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. Treatment assignation was performed via web-based block 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 843 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=423; remdesivir, n=420). At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was as follow in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities: 62/420 (14.8%) and 72/423 (17.0%); Not hospitalized, limitation on activities: 126/420 (30%) and 135/423 (31.9%); Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen: 56/420 (13.3%) and 31/423 (7.3%); Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen: 75/420 (17.9%) and 65/423 (15.4%); Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices: 16/420 (3.8%) and 16/423 (3.8%); Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO: 64/420 (15.2%) and 80/423 (18.9%); Death: 21/420 (5%) and 24/423 (5.7%). The difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant (OR for remdesivir, 1.02, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.70, P=0.93). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups (remdesivir, n=147/410, 35.9%, versus control, n=138/423, 32.6%, p=0.29). Interpretation: Remdesivir use for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15. Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), AGMT gGmbH, FEDER "European Regional Development Fund", Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Remdesivir was provided free of charge by Gilead.

An open-label randomized, controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 – Final results from the DisCoVeRy trial (preprint)

Objectives We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. While preliminary results were previously published, we present here the final results, following completion of the data monitoring. Methods We conducted a phase 3 multi-centre open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), add-on trial to Solidarity ( NCT04315948 , EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens, pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, which were stopped prematurely. Results The intention-to-treat population included 593 participants (lopinavir/ritonavir, n=147; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a, n=147; hydroxychloroquine, n=150; control, n=149), among whom 421 (71.0%) were male, the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71) and 214 (36.1%) had a severe disease. The day 15 clinical status was not improved with investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.25, P=0.36); lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.05, P=0.08); hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.94 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, P=0.76). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of Serious Adverse Events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. Conclusion In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine did not improve the clinical status at day 15, nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Public opinion on a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in France: a cross sectional survey (preprint)

Objectives Reaching the last pockets of unvaccinated people is challenging, and has led to consider COVID-19 mandatory vaccination. Our aim was to assess attitudes toward COVID-19 mandatory vaccination in France before the announcement and factors associated with opposition to this type of policy. Methods Between the 10th and the 23rd of May 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among a representative sample of the French population aged 18 and over and a specific sample of the French Senior Population over 65. Results Among 3,056 respondents, 1,314 (43.0 %) were in favor of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, 1,281 (41.9 %) were opposed to such a policy, and 461 (15.1 %) were undecided. Among opponents to COVID-19 mandatory vaccination for the general population, 385 (30.05 %) were in favor of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs). In multivariate analysis, age groups 18-24 years, and 25-34 years were significantly more opposed than the reference group (>75 years old) with respective adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 4.67 (1.73-12.61) and 3.74 (1.57-8.93). No intention of getting COVID-19 vaccine was strongly associated with opposition to mandatory vaccination with aOR 10.67 (95 % CI 6.41-17.76). In comparison with partisans of the center, partisans of the far left and green parties were more likely to be opposed to COVID-19 mandatory vaccine with respective aOR (95 % CI) 1;89 (1.06-3.38) and 2.08 (1.14-3.81). Conclusion Attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination are split in the French general population, and the debate might become politicized.

Quantifying Healthcare Worker's Preferences Around COVID-19 Vaccination: A Single-Profile DCE Study in France (preprint)

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination. Analysing their vaccination preferences is crucial to understand suboptimal uptake and identify levers to increase acceptance among those hesitating.Methods: We administered an online single-profile discrete choice experiment among a snowballing sample of French HCWs, recruited December 2020 through January 2021. Respondents in three random blocks chose between accepting or rejecting COVID-19 vaccination across eight hypothetical scenarios. Vaccine eagerness was derived from decision certainty.Results: Among 4346 participants, 61·1% made uniform decisions, including 17·2% always refusing vaccination across all scenarios (serial non-demanders). Among 1691 respondents making variable decisions, a strong negative impact on acceptance was observed with 50% vaccine efficacy (compared to 90% efficacy: odds ratio 0·05, 95%-CI 0.04-0.06), and the mention of a positive benefit-risk balance (compared to absence of severe and frequent side effects: OR 0·40, 0·34-0·46. The highest positive impact was the prospect of safely meeting older people and contributing to epidemic control (compared to no indirect protection: OR 4·10, 3·49-4·82 and 2·87, 2·34-3·50, respectively. Predicted acceptance was 93·8% for optimized communication on mRNA vaccines and 16·0% for vector-based vaccines recommended to ≥55-year-old persons. Vaccine eagerness among serial non-demanders slightly but significantly increased with the prospect of safely meeting older people and epidemic control; and reduced with lower vaccine efficacy.Discussion: Vaccine promotion towards HCWs who hesitate or refuse vaccination, should avoid the notion of benefit-risk balance, while indirect protection effects with individual utility can lever acceptance. Vaccines with limited efficacy will unlikely achieve high uptake.Funding: This study was conducted with financial support from French Public Health Agency (SantéPublique France).Declaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: The study protocol was approved by the IRB of CHU St Etienne (N° IRBN1092021/CHUSTE ) and the database was registered by EHESP French School of Public Health according to the GRDP regulation. Because the data collection was observational, collected no sensitive and only self-declared biomedical information, no informed consent was required. Participants visiting the study website saw the complete study information and agreed to study participation before starting the questionnaire. Study participation was anonymous without any risk of indirect identification.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy): A Randomised, Controlled, Open-Label Trial (preprint)

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 Gilead 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.

Live virus neutralization testing in convalescent and vaccinated subjects against 19A, 20B, 20I/501Y.V1 and 20H/501.V2 isolates of SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 mutations appeared recently and can lead to conformational changes in the spike protein and probably induce modifications in antigenicity. In this study, we wanted to assess the neutralizing capacity of antibodies to prevent cell infection, using a live virus neutralisation test. Methods: Sera samples were collected from different populations: two-dose vaccinated COVID-19-naive healthcare workers (HCWs; Pfizer-BioNTech BNT161b2), 6-months post mild COVID-19 HCWs, and critical COVID-19 patients. We tested various clades such as 19A (initial one), 20B (B.1.1.241 lineage), 20I/501Y.V1 (B.1.1.7 lineage), and 20H/501Y.V2 (B.1.351 lineage). Results: No significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralisation ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralising antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralisation capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups. Conclusion: Neutralisation capacity was slightly reduced for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. No neutralisation escape could be feared concerning the two variants of concern in both populations. The reduced neutralising response observed towards the 20H/501Y.V2 in comparison with the 19A and 20I/501Y.V1 isolates in fully immunized subjects with the BNT162b2 vaccine is a striking finding of the study.

Antiviral drugs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 - the DisCoVeRy trial (preprint)

Background: Lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-beta-1a and hydroxychloroquine efficacy for COVID-19 have been evaluated, but detailed evaluation is lacking. Objective: To determine the efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir for improving the clinical, virological outcomes in COVID-19 inpatients. Design: Open-label, randomized, adaptive, controlled trial. Setting: Multi-center trial with patients from France. Participants: 583 COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support Intervention: Standard of care (SoC, control), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg lopinavir and 100 mg ritonavir every 12h for 14 days), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-beta-1a (44 micrograms of subcutaneous IFN-beta-1a on days 1, 3, and 6), SoC plus hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice on day 1 then 400 mg once daily for 9 days) or SoC plus remdesivir (200 mg intravenously on day 1 then 100 mg once-daily for hospitalization duration or 10 days). Measurements: The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens and safety analyses. Results: Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) for the WHO 7-point ordinal scale were not in favor of investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, aOR 0.83, 95%CI, 0.55 to 1.26, P=0.39; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-beta-1a versus control, aOR 0.69, 95%CI, 0.45 to 1.04, P=0.08; hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93, 95%CI, 0.62 to 1.41, P=0.75. No significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract was evidenced. Lopinavir/ritonavir-containing treatments were significantly associated with more SAE. Limitations: Not a placebo-controlled, no anti-inflammatory agents tested. Conclusion: No improvement of the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract specimens by studied drugs. This comforts the recent Solidarity findings. Registration: NCT04315948. Funding: PHRC 2020, Dim OneHealth, REACTing

Evaluation of in vitro activity of copper gluconate against SARS-CoV-2 using confocal microscopy-based high content screening (preprint)

ContextSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that emerged late in 2019 is the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). There is an urgent need to develop curative and preventive therapeutics to limit the current pandemic and to prevent the re-emergence of Covid-19. This study aimed to assess the in vitro activity of copper gluconate against SRAS-CoV-2. MethodsVero E6 cells were treated with copper gluconate 18 hours before infection. Cells were infected with a recombinant GFP expressing SARS-CoV-2. Infected cells were maintained in fresh medium containing copper gluconate for an additional 48-hour period. The infection level was measured by the confocal microscopy-based high content screening method. The cell viability in presence of copper gluconate was assessed by XTT assay. ResultsThe viability of Vero E6 cells treated with copper gluconate up to 200 M was found to be similar to that of untreated cells, but it dropped below 40% with 400 M of this agent. The infection rate was 23.8%, 18.9%, 20.6%, 6.9%, 5.3%,5.2% in cells treated with 0, 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 M of copper gluconate respectively. As compared to untreated cells, the number of infected cells was reduced by 71%, 77%, and 78% with 25, 50, and 100 M of copper gluconate respectively (p < 0.05). ConclusionCopper gluconate was found to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection in Vero E6 cells. Furthers studies are needed to determine whether copper homeostasis could play a role in SARS-CoV-2 infection. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=76 SRC="FIGDIR/small/422548v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (26K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1f99949org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1bebae6org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@e05e37org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@49a3b2_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

A longitudinal study of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients shows high correlation between neutralizing antibodies and COVID-19 severity (preprint)

Understanding the immune responses elicited by SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical in terms of protection from re-infection and, thus, for public health policy and for vaccine development against the COVID-19. Here, using either live SARS-CoV-2 particles or retroviruses pseudotyped with the SARS-CoV-2 S viral surface protein (Spike), we studied the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response in serum specimens from a cohort of 140 SARS-CoV-2 qPCR-confirmed patients, including patient with mild symptoms but also more severe form including those that require intensive care. We show that nAb titers were strongly correlated with disease severity and with anti-Spike IgG levels. Indeed, patients from intensive care units exhibited high nAb titers, whereas patients with milder disease symptoms displayed heterogenous nAb titers and asymptomatic or exclusive outpatient care patients had no or poor nAb levels. We found that the nAb activity in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients displayed a relatively rapid decline after recovery, as compared to individuals infected with alternative coronaviruses. We show the absence of cross-neutralization between endemic coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2, indicating that previous infection by human coronaviruses may not generate protective nAb against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, we found that the D614G mutation in the Spike protein, which has recently been identified as the major variant now found in Europe, does not allow neutralization escape. Altogether, our results contribute to the understanding of the immune correlate of SARS-CoV-2 induced disease and claim for a rapid evaluation of the role of the humoral response in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2.

Intention to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial and to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France during the pandemic (preprint)

BackgroundThe world is facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Development of vaccine is challenging. AimTo determine the proportion of people who intend to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in France or to participate in a vaccine clinical trial. MethodsWe conducted an anonymous on-line survey from the 26th of March to the 20th of April 2020. Primary endpoints were the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if a vaccine was available or participate in a vaccine clinical trial. ResultsThree thousand two hundred and fifty nine individuals answered the survey; women accounted for 67.4 % of the responders, 670 (20.6 %) were under 30 years of age, 1,502 (46.1 %) between 30-49 years, 803 (24.6 %) between 50-64 years, 271 (8.3%) between 65-80 years, 13 (0.4%) over 80 years of age. According to their statements, 2.512 participants (77.6%, 95 % CI 76.2-79 %) will certainly or probably agree to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Older age, male gender, fear about COVID-19, being healthcare workers and individual perceived risk were associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance Vaccine hesitancy was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. One thousand and five hundred and fifty responders (47.6 % 95 % CI 45.9-49.3 %) will certainly or probably agree to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. Conclusions and RelevanceNearly 75 % and 48 % of the survey responders were likely to accept vaccination or participation in a clinical trial against COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy will be the major barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake.