Effect of intravenous almitrine on intubation or mortality in patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Severe hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia might result from hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, contributing to ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) mismatch. Because almitrine improves V/Q, it might reduce the risk for mechanical ventilation (MV) in such patients. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of almitrine on the need for MV at day 7. Methods: In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial involving 15 ICUs, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and experiencing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive 5 days of intravenous low-dose (2 µg.kg-1.min-1) almitrine or placebo. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation for MV or death within 7 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, number of ventilator-free days, number of days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357457. Findings: Between September 3, 2020 and September 25, 2021 181 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to almitrine (n=89) or placebo (n=92). 179 patients (excluding two who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age: 60·1 years; 34% women) and analyzed. On day 7, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients assigned to almitrine (36%) and in 37 patients assigned to placebo (41%), for a difference of -4·3% (95% confidence interval: -18·7% to 10·2%). Secondary outcomes (28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days at day 28, days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects) did not differ between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, low-dose almitrine failed in reducing the need for MV or death at day 7. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC COVID 2020) funded by the French Ministry of Health, Les Laboratoires Servier (Suresnes, France) providing the study drug free of charge.

Comparison of Patients Infected With Delta Versus Omicron COVID-19 Variants Presenting to Paris Emergency Departments : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: At the end of 2021, the B.1.1.529 SARS-CoV-2 variant (Omicron) wave superseded the B.1.617.2 variant (Delta) wave. OBJECTIVE: To compare baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta variant versus the Omicron variant in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Retrospective chart reviews. SETTING: 13 adult EDs in academic hospitals in the Paris area from 29 November 2021 to 10 January 2022. PATIENTS: Patients with a positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result for SARS-CoV-2 and variant identification. MEASUREMENTS: Main outcome measures were baseline clinical and biological characteristics at ED presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3728 patients had a positive RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period; 1716 patients who had a variant determination (818 Delta and 898 Omicron) were included. Median age was 58 years, and 49% were women. Patients infected with the Omicron variant were younger (54 vs. 62 years; difference, 8.0 years [95% CI, 4.6 to 11.4 years]), had a lower rate of obesity (8.0% vs. 12.5%; difference, 4.5 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 7.5 percentage points]), were more vaccinated (65% vs. 39% for 1 dose and 22% vs. 11% for 3 doses), had a lower rate of dyspnea (26% vs. 50%; difference, 23.6 percentage points [CI, 19.0 to 28.2 percentage points]), and had a higher rate of discharge home from the ED (59% vs. 37%; difference, 21.9 percentage points [-26.5 to -17.1 percentage points]). Compared with Delta, Omicron infection was independently associated with a lower risk for ICU admission (adjusted difference, 11.4 percentage points [CI, 8.4 to 14.4 percentage points]), mechanical ventilation (adjusted difference, 3.6 percentage points [CI, 1.7 to 5.6 percentage points]), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted difference, 4.2 percentage points [CI, 2.0 to 6.5 percentage points]). LIMITATION: Patients with COVID-19 illness and no SARS-CoV-2 variant determination in the ED were excluded. CONCLUSION: Compared with the Delta variant, infection with the Omicron variant in patients in the ED had different clinical and biological patterns and was associated with better in-hospital outcomes, including higher survival. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of 821 Older Patients With SARS-Cov-2 Infection Admitted to Acute Care Geriatric Wards.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information describing the characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized older patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHOD: We conducted a multicentric retrospective cohort study in 13 acute COVID-19 geriatric wards, from March 13 to April 15, 2020, in Paris area. All consecutive patients aged 70 years and older, with confirmed COVID-19, were enrolled. RESULTS: Of the 821 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 86 (7) years; 58% were female; 85% had ≥2 comorbidities; 29% lived in an institution; and the median [interquartile range] Activities of Daily Living scale (ADL) score was 4 [2-6]. The most common symptoms at COVID-19 onset were asthenia (63%), fever (55%), dyspnea (45%), dry cough (45%), and delirium (25%). The in-hospital mortality was 31% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27-33). On multivariate analysis, at COVID-19 onset, the probability of in-hospital mortality was increased with male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% CI 1.30-2.63), ADL score <4 (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.25-2.70), asthenia (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.08-2.32), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 (OR 2.63; 95% CI 1.64-4.22), and specific COVID-19 anomalies on chest computerized tomography (OR 2.60; 95% CI 1.07-6.46). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new information about older patients with COVID-19 who are hospitalized. A quick bedside evaluation at admission of sex, functional status, systolic arterial pressure, consciousness, respiratory rate, and asthenia can identify older patients at risk of unfavorable outcomes.

Biased and unbiased estimation of the average length of stay in intensive care units in the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The average length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU_ALOS) is a helpful parameter summarizing critical bed occupancy. During the outbreak of a novel virus, estimating early a reliable ICU_ALOS estimate of infected patients is critical to accurately parameterize models examining mitigation and preparedness scenarios. METHODS: Two estimation methods of ICU_ALOS were compared: the average LOS of already discharged patients at the date of estimation (DPE), and a standard parametric method used for analyzing time-to-event data which fits a given distribution to observed data and includes the censored stays of patients still treated in the ICU at the date of estimation (CPE). Methods were compared on a series of all COVID-19 consecutive cases (n = 59) admitted in an ICU devoted to such patients. At the last follow-up date, 99 days after the first admission, all patients but one had been discharged. A simulation study investigated the generalizability of the methods' patterns. CPE and DPE estimates were also compared to COVID-19 estimates reported to date. RESULTS: LOS ≥ 30 days concerned 14 out of the 59 patients (24%), including 8 of the 21 deaths observed. Two months after the first admission, 38 (64%) patients had been discharged, with corresponding DPE and CPE estimates of ICU_ALOS (95% CI) at 13.0 days (10.4-15.6) and 23.1 days (18.1-29.7), respectively. Series' true ICU_ALOS was greater than 21 days, well above reported estimates to date. CONCLUSIONS: Discharges of short stays are more likely observed earlier during the course of an outbreak. Cautious unbiased ICU_ALOS estimates suggest parameterizing a higher burden of ICU bed occupancy than that adopted to date in COVID-19 forecasting models. FUNDING: Support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81900097 to Dr. Zhou) and the Emergency Response Project of Hubei Science and Technology Department (2020FCA023 to Pr. Zhao).