6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The long-term health consequences of COVID-19 remain largely unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the long-term health consequences of patients with COVID-19 who have been discharged from hospital and investigate the associated risk factors, in particular disease severity. METHODS: We did an ambidirectional cohort study of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who had been discharged from Jin Yin-tan Hospital (Wuhan, China) between Jan 7 and May 29, 2020. Patients who died before follow-up; patients for whom follow-up would be difficult because of psychotic disorders, dementia, or readmission to hospital; those who were unable to move freely due to concomitant osteoarthropathy or immobile before or after discharge due to diseases such as stroke or pulmonary embolism; those who declined to participate; those who could not be contacted; and those living outside of Wuhan or in nursing or welfare homes were all excluded. All patients were interviewed with a series of questionnaires for evaluation of symptoms and health-related quality of life, underwent physical examinations and a 6-min walking test, and received blood tests. A stratified sampling procedure was used to sample patients according to their highest seven-category scale during their hospital stay as 3, 4, and 5-6, to receive pulmonary function test, high resolution CT of the chest, and ultrasonography. Enrolled patients who had participated in the Lopinavir Trial for Suppression of SARS-CoV-2 in China received SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Multivariable adjusted linear or logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between disease severity and long-term health consequences. FINDINGS: In total, 1733 of 2469 discharged patients with COVID-19 were enrolled after 736 were excluded. Patients had a median age of 57·0 years (IQR 47·0-65·0) and 897 (52%) were male and 836 (48%) were female. The follow-up study was done from June 16 to Sept 3, 2020, and the median follow-up time after symptom onset was 186·0 days (175·0-199·0). Fatigue or muscle weakness (52%, 855 of 1654) and sleep difficulties (26%, 437 of 1655) were the most common symptoms. Anxiety or depression was reported among 23% (367 of 1616) of patients. The proportions of 6-min walking distance less than the lower limit of the normal range were 17% for those at severity scale 3, 13% for severity scale 4, and 28% for severity scale 5-6. The corresponding proportions of patients with diffusion impairment were 22% for severity scale 3, 29% for scale 4, and 56% for scale 5-6, and median CT scores were 3·0 (IQR 2·0-5·0) for severity scale 3, 4·0 (3·0-5·0) for scale 4, and 5·0 (4·0-6·0) for scale 5-6. After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) of 1·61 (95% CI 0·80-3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85-11·48) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66-1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·76 (1·05-2·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·87 (0·68-1·11) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·75 (1·61-4·69) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. Of 94 patients with blood antibodies tested at follow-up, the seropositivity (96·2% vs 58·5%) and median titres (19·0 vs 10·0) of the neutralising antibodies were significantly lower compared with at the acute phase. 107 of 822 participants without acute kidney injury and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 or more at acute phase had eGFR less than 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 at follow-up. INTERPRETATION: At 6 months after acute infection, COVID-19 survivors were mainly troubled with fatigue or muscle weakness, sleep difficulties, and anxiety or depression. Patients who were more severely ill during their hospital stay had more severe impaired pulmonary diffusion capacities and abnormal chest imaging manifestations, and are the main target population for intervention of long-term recovery. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, and Peking Union Medical College Foundation.

The Efficacy and Safety of Janus Kinase Inhibitors for Patients With COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cytokine storm observed in patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to poor clinical outcomes and increased mortality. Janus kinases (JAKs) are important mediators in the cytokine storm. Therefore, we conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature investigating efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Databases were searched up to December 1, 2021 for interventional and observational studies comparing JAK inhibitor treatment with concurrent control in patients with COVID-19. Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated by pooled risk ratio (RR). RESULTS: Of 3,170 records retrieved, 15 studies were eligible and 13 were evaluated in the meta-analysis (n = 3,977). Based on data from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), baricitinib treatment significantly decreased mortality by day 28 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.51-0.80) without increasing the incidence of adverse outcomes. In subgroup analysis, patients who required supplemental oxygen (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) or high-flow oxygen/non-invasive ventilation (RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.42-0.85) at baseline benefited most. Pooled analysis of all eligible studies for JAK inhibitors (baricitinib, ruxolitinib, tofacitinib, and nezulcitinib) demonstrated a significant decrease in mortality (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78) with no increase in the risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib probably decreases mortality in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19, especially for patients who required supplemental oxygen or high-flow oxygen/non-invasive ventilation at baseline. The efficacy and safety of other JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, tofacitinib, and nezulcitinib, await more evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021261414, identifier: CRD42021261414.

Association of acute kidney injury with 1-year outcome of kidney function in hospital survivors with COVID-19: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Kidney damage in COVID-19 patients has been of special concern. The association of acute kidney injury (AKI) with post-acute kidney function among COVID-19 survivors was not sufficiently elucidated. METHODS: An ambidirectional cohort study was conducted with enrollment of COVID-19 survivors discharged from hospital between Jan 7, and May 29, 2020. Study participants were invited to follow-up visits at 6 and 12 months after symptom onset. The primary outcome was percentage of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreased from acute phase (between symptom onset and hospital discharge) to follow-up, and secondary outcome was reduced renal function at follow-up. FINDINGS: In total, 1,734 study participants were included in this study. Median follow-up duration was 342.0 days (IQR, 223.0-358.0) after symptom onset. After multivariable adjustment, percentage of eGFR decreased from acute phase to follow-up was 8.30% (95% CI, 5.99-10.61) higher among AKI participants than those without AKI at acute phase. Participants with AKI had an odds ratio (OR) of 4.60 (95% CI, 2.10-10.08) for reduced renal function at follow-up. The percentage of eGFR decreased for participants with AKI stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 was 6.02% (95% CI, 3.48-8.57), 15.99% (95% CI, 10.77-21.22), and 17.79% (95% CI, 9.14-26.43) higher compared with those without AKI, respectively. INTERPRETATION: AKI at acute phase of COVID-19 was closely related to the longitudinal decline and post-acute status of kidney function at nearly one-year after symptom onset. Earlier and more intense follow-up strategies on kidney function management could be beneficial to COVID-19 survivors. FUNDING: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS 2020-I2M-CoV19-005, 2018-I2M-1-003, and 2020-I2M-2-013); National Natural Science Foundation of China (82041011); National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC1200102); Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis (2020ZX09201001).

Contemporary narrative review of treatment options for COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is ongoing and many drugs have been studied in clinical trials. From a pathophysiological perspective, anti-viral drugs may be more effective in the early stage while immunomodulators may be more effective in severe patients in later stages of infection. While drugs such as lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have proved to be ineffective in randomized controlled trials, corticosteroids, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib have been reported to benefit certain groups of patients with COVID-19. In this review, we will present the key clinical evidence and progress in promising COVID-19 therapeutics, as well as summarize the experience and lessons learned from the development of the current therapeutics.

The Effect of Prior Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Treatment on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Susceptibility and Outcome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

There have been arguments on whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) treatment alters the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) susceptibility and disease severity. We identified a total of 102 eligible studies for systematic review, in which 49 studies adjusting for confounders were included in the meta-analysis. We found no association between prior ACEI/ARB use and risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the general population (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], .94-1.05). The risk of mortality (aOR, .87; 95% CI, .66-1.04) and severe outcomes (aOR, .95; 95% CI, .73-1.24) were also unchanged among COVID-19 patients taking ACEIs/ARBs. These findings remained consistent in subgroup analyses stratified by populations, drug exposures, and other secondary outcomes. This systematic review provides evidence-based support to current medical guidelines and position statements that ACEIs/ARBs should not be discontinued. Additionally, there has been no evidence for initiating ACEI/ARB regimen as prevention or treatment of COVID-19.

6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The long-term health consequences of COVID-19 remain largely unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the long-term health consequences of patients with COVID-19 who have been discharged from hospital and investigate the associated risk factors, in particular disease severity. METHODS: We did an ambidirectional cohort study of patients with confirmed COVID-19 who had been discharged from Jin Yin-tan Hospital (Wuhan, China) between Jan 7, 2020, and May 29, 2020. Patients who died before follow-up, patients for whom follow-up would be difficult because of psychotic disorders, dementia, or re-admission to hospital, those who were unable to move freely due to concomitant osteoarthropathy or immobile before or after discharge due to diseases such as stroke or pulmonary embolism, those who declined to participate, those who could not be contacted, and those living outside of Wuhan or in nursing or welfare homes were all excluded. All patients were interviewed with a series of questionnaires for evaluation of symptoms and health-related quality of life, underwent physical examinations and a 6-min walking test, and received blood tests. A stratified sampling procedure was used to sample patients according to their highest seven-category scale during their hospital stay as 3, 4, and 5-6, to receive pulmonary function test, high resolution CT of the chest, and ultrasonography. Enrolled patients who had participated in the Lopinavir Trial for Suppression of SARS-CoV-2 in China received severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody tests. Multivariable adjusted linear or logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between disease severity and long-term health consequences. FINDINGS: In total, 1733 of 2469 discharged patients with COVID-19 were enrolled after 736 were excluded. Patients had a median age of 57·0 (IQR 47·0-65·0) years and 897 (52%) were men. The follow-up study was done from June 16, to Sept 3, 2020, and the median follow-up time after symptom onset was 186·0 (175·0-199·0) days. Fatigue or muscle weakness (63%, 1038 of 1655) and sleep difficulties (26%, 437 of 1655) were the most common symptoms. Anxiety or depression was reported among 23% (367 of 1617) of patients. The proportions of median 6-min walking distance less than the lower limit of the normal range were 24% for those at severity scale 3, 22% for severity scale 4, and 29% for severity scale 5-6. The corresponding proportions of patients with diffusion impairment were 22% for severity scale 3, 29% for scale 4, and 56% for scale 5-6, and median CT scores were 3·0 (IQR 2·0-5·0) for severity scale 3, 4·0 (3·0-5·0) for scale 4, and 5·0 (4·0-6·0) for scale 5-6. After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) 1·61 (95% CI 0·80-3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85-11·48) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66-1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·77 (1·05-2·97) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·74 (0·58-0·96) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·69 (1·46-4·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. Of 94 patients with blood antibodies tested at follow-up, the seropositivity (96·2% vs 58·5%) and median titres (19·0 vs 10·0) of the neutralising antibodies were significantly lower compared with at the acute phase. 107 of 822 participants without acute kidney injury and with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 or more at acute phase had eGFR less than 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 at follow-up. INTERPRETATION: At 6 months after acute infection, COVID-19 survivors were mainly troubled with fatigue or muscle weakness, sleep difficulties, and anxiety or depression. Patients who were more severely ill during their hospital stay had more severe impaired pulmonary diffusion capacities and abnormal chest imaging manifestations, and are the main target population for intervention of long-term recovery. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, National Key Research and Development Program of China, Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, and Peking Union Medical College Foundation.

Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: No specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early. INTERPRETATION: In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies. FUNDING: Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Low-to-moderate dose corticosteroids treatment in hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Use of corticosteroids is common in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019, but clinical effectiveness is controversial. We aimed to investigate the association of corticosteroids therapy with clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this single-centre, retrospective cohort study, adult patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 and dead or discharged between 29 December 2019 and 15 February 2020 were studied; 1:1 propensity score matchings were performed between patients with or without corticosteroid treatment. A multivariable COX proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association between corticosteroid treatment and in-hospital mortality by taking corticosteroids as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: Among 646 patients, the in-hospital death rate was higher in 158 patients with corticosteroid administration (72/158, 45.6% vs. 56/488, 11.5%, p < 0.0001). After propensity score matching analysis, no significant differences were observed in in-hospital death between patients with and without corticosteroid treatment (47/124, 37.9% vs. 47/124, 37.9%, p 1.000). When patients received corticosteroids before they required nasal high-flow oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, the in-hospital death rate was lower than that in patients who were not administered corticosteroids (17/86, 19.8% vs. 26/86, 30.2%, log rank p 0.0102), whereas the time from admission to clinical improvement was longer (13 (IQR 10-17) days vs. 10 (IQR 8-13) days; p < 0.001). Using the Cox proportional hazards regression model accounting for time varying exposures in matched pairs, corticosteroid therapy was not associated with mortality difference (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93-1.03, p 0.4694). DISCUSSION: Corticosteroids use in COVID-19 patients may not be associated with in-hospital mortality.

Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in context of COVID-19 outbreak: a retrospective analysis.

The possible effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 disease severity have generated considerable debate. We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, who had definite clinical outcome (dead or discharged) by February 15, 2020. Patients on anti-hypertensive treatment with or without ACEI/ARB were compared on their clinical characteristics and outcomes. The medical records from 702 patients were screened. Among the 101 patients with a history of hypertension and taking at least one anti-hypertensive medication, 40 patients were receiving ACEI/ARB as part of their regimen, and 61 patients were on antihypertensive medication other than ACEI/ARB. We observed no statistically significant differences in percentages of in-hospital mortality (28% vs. 34%, P = 0.46), ICU admission (20% vs. 28%, P = 0.37) or invasive mechanical ventilation (18% vs. 26%, P = 0.31) between patients with or without ACEI/ARB treatment. Further multivariable adjustment of age and gender did not provide evidence for a significant association between ACEI/ARB treatment and severe COVID-19 outcomes. Our findings confirm the lack of an association between chronic receipt of renin-angiotensin system antagonists and severe outcomes of COVID-19. Patients should continue previous anti-hypertensive therapy until further evidence is available.

A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao2) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.80). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, -5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19, no benefit was observed with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment beyond standard care. Future trials in patients with severe illness may help to confirm or exclude the possibility of a treatment benefit. (Funded by Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development and others; Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR2000029308.).