Sridhar V Basavaraju, Monica E Patton, Kacie Grimm, Mohammed Ata Ur Rasheed, Sandra Lester, Lisa Mills, Megan Stumpf, Brandi Freeman, Azaibi Tamin, Jennifer Harcourt, Jarad Schiffer, Vera Semenova, Han Li, Bailey Alston, Muyiwa Ategbole, Shanna Bolcen, Darbi Boulay, Peter Browning, Li Cronin, Ebenezer David, Rita Desai, Monica Epperson, Yamini Gorantla, Tao Jia, Panagiotis Maniatis, Kimberly Moss, Kristina Ortiz, So Hee Park, Palak Patel, Yunlong Qin, Evelene Steward-Clark, Heather Tatum, Andrew Vogan, Briana Zellner, Jan Drobeniuc, Matthew R P Sapiano, Fiona Havers, Carrie Reed, Susan Gerber, Natalie J Thornburg, Susan L Stramer
Serologic Testing of US Blood Donations to Identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-Reactive Antibodies: December 2019-January 2020.
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jun 15;72(12):e1004-e1009. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1785.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, with subsequent worldwide spread. The first US cases were identified in January 2020.
METHODS: To determine if SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies were present in sera prior to the first identified case in the United States on 19 January 2020, residual archived samples from 7389 routine blood donations collected by the American Red Cross from 13 December 2019 to 17 January 2020 from donors resident in 9 states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin) were tested at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Specimens reactive by pan-immunoglobulin (pan-Ig) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) against the full spike protein were tested by IgG and IgM ELISAs, microneutralization test, Ortho total Ig S1 ELISA, and receptor-binding domain/ACE2 blocking activity assay.
RESULTS: Of the 7389 samples, 106 were reactive by pan-Ig. Of these 106 specimens, 90 were available for further testing. Eighty-four of 90 had neutralizing activity, 1 had S1 binding activity, and 1 had receptor-binding domain/ACE2 blocking activity >50%, suggesting the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies. Donations with reactivity occurred in all 9 states.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to 19 January 2020.
Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2020.
Giuseppina La Rosa, Pamela Mancini, Giusy Bonanno Ferraro, Carolina Veneri, Marcello Iaconelli, Lucia Bonadonna, Luca Lucentini, Elisabetta Suffredini
SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating in northern Italy since December 2019: Evidence from environmental monitoring.
Sci Total Environ. 2021 Jan 1;750:141711. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141711. Epub 2020 Aug 15.
Abstract/Text
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the coronavirus disease COVID-19, a public health emergency worldwide, and Italy is among the most severely affected countries. The first autochthonous Italian case of COVID-19 was documented on February 21, 2020. We investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Italy earlier than that date, by analysing 40 composite influent wastewater samples collected - in the framework of other wastewater-based epidemiology projects - between October 2019 and February 2020 from five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in three cities and regions in northern Italy (Milan/Lombardy, Turin/Piedmont and Bologna/Emilia Romagna). Twenty-four additional samples collected in the same WWTPs between September 2018 and June 2019 (i.e. long before the onset of the epidemic) were included as 'blank' samples. Viral concentration was performed according to the standard World Health Organization procedure for poliovirus sewage surveillance, with modifications. Molecular analysis was undertaken with both nested RT-PCR and real-rime RT-PCR assays. A total of 15 positive samples were confirmed by both methods. The earliest dates back to 18 December 2019 in Milan and Turin and 29 January 2020 in Bologna. Virus concentration in the samples ranged from below the limit of detection (LOD) to 5.6 × 104 genome copies (g.c.)/L, and most of the samples (23 out of 26) were below the limit of quantification of PCR. Our results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 was already circulating in northern Italy at the end of 2019. Moreover, it was circulating in different geographic regions simultaneously, which changes our previous understanding of the geographical circulation of the virus in Italy. Our study highlights the importance of environmental surveillance as an early warning system, to monitor the levels of virus circulating in the population and identify outbreaks even before cases are notified to the healthcare system.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Sudhir Kumar, Qiqing Tao, Steven Weaver, Maxwell Sanderford, Marcos A Caraballo-Ortiz, Sudip Sharma, Sergei L K Pond, Sayaka Miura
An Evolutionary Portrait of the Progenitor SARS-CoV-2 and Its Dominant Offshoots in COVID-19 Pandemic.
Mol Biol Evol. 2021 Jul 29;38(8):3046-3059. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab118.
Abstract/Text
Global sequencing of genomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has continued to reveal new genetic variants that are the key to unraveling its early evolutionary history and tracking its global spread over time. Here we present the heretofore cryptic mutational history and spatiotemporal dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 from an analysis of thousands of high-quality genomes. We report the likely most recent common ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, reconstructed through a novel application and advancement of computational methods initially developed to infer the mutational history of tumor cells in a patient. This progenitor genome differs from genomes of the first coronaviruses sampled in China by three variants, implying that none of the earliest patients represent the index case or gave rise to all the human infections. However, multiple coronavirus infections in China and the United States harbored the progenitor genetic fingerprint in January 2020 and later, suggesting that the progenitor was spreading worldwide months before and after the first reported cases of COVID-19 in China. Mutations of the progenitor and its offshoots have produced many dominant coronavirus strains that have spread episodically over time. Fingerprinting based on common mutations reveals that the same coronavirus lineage has dominated North America for most of the pandemic in 2020. There have been multiple replacements of predominant coronavirus strains in Europe and Asia as well as continued presence of multiple high-frequency strains in Asia and North America. We have developed a continually updating dashboard of global evolution and spatiotemporal trends of SARS-CoV-2 spread (http://sars2evo.datamonkey.org/).
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.
Taketomo Maruki, Noriko Iwamoto, Kohei Kanda, Nobumasa Okumura, Gen Yamada, Masahiro Ishikane, Mugen Ujiie, Masumichi Saito, Tsuguto Fujimoto, Tsutomu Kageyama, Tomoya Saito, Shinji Saito, Tadaki Suzuki, Norio Ohmagari
Two Cases of Breakthrough Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infections Caused by the Omicron Variant (B.1.1.529 Lineage) in International Travelers to Japan.
Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Aug 24;75(1):e354-e356. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab1072.
Abstract/Text
In November 2021, the World Health Organization designated a new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant of concern, Omicron (PANGO lineage B.1.1.529). We report on the first 2 cases of breakthrough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Omicron in Japan among international travelers returning from the country with undetected infection. The spread of infection by Omicron were considered.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Stephen A Lauer, Kyra H Grantz, Qifang Bi, Forrest K Jones, Qulu Zheng, Hannah R Meredith, Andrew S Azman, Nicholas G Reich, Justin Lessler
The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application.
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 10;. doi: 10.7326/M20-0504. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
Abstract/Text
Background: A novel human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in China in December 2019. There is limited support for many of its key epidemiologic features, including the incubation period for clinical disease (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]), which has important implications for surveillance and control activities.
Objective: To estimate the length of the incubation period of COVID-19 and describe its public health implications.
Design: Pooled analysis of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between 4 January 2020 and 24 February 2020.
Setting: News reports and press releases from 50 provinces, regions, and countries outside Wuhan, Hubei province, China.
Participants: Persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection outside Hubei province, China.
Measurements: Patient demographic characteristics and dates and times of possible exposure, symptom onset, fever onset, and hospitalization.
Results: There were 181 confirmed cases with identifiable exposure and symptom onset windows to estimate the incubation period of COVID-19. The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10 000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine.
Limitation: Publicly reported cases may overrepresent severe cases, the incubation period for which may differ from that of mild cases.
Conclusion: This work provides additional evidence for a median incubation period for COVID-19 of approximately 5 days, similar to SARS. Our results support current proposals for the length of quarantine or active monitoring of persons potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2, although longer monitoring periods might be justified in extreme cases.
Primary Funding Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
Xi He, Eric H Y Lau, Peng Wu, Xilong Deng, Jian Wang, Xinxin Hao, Yiu Chung Lau, Jessica Y Wong, Yujuan Guan, Xinghua Tan, Xiaoneng Mo, Yanqing Chen, Baolin Liao, Weilie Chen, Fengyu Hu, Qing Zhang, Mingqiu Zhong, Yanrong Wu, Lingzhai Zhao, Fuchun Zhang, Benjamin J Cowling, Fang Li, Gabriel M Leung
Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19.
Nat Med. 2020 Apr 15;. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0869-5. Epub 2020 Apr 15.
Abstract/Text
We report temporal patterns of viral shedding in 94 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and modeled COVID-19 infectiousness profiles from a separate sample of 77 infector-infectee transmission pairs. We observed the highest viral load in throat swabs at the time of symptom onset, and inferred that infectiousness peaked on or before symptom onset. We estimated that 44% (95% confidence interval, 25-69%) of secondary cases were infected during the index cases' presymptomatic stage, in settings with substantial household clustering, active case finding and quarantine outside the home. Disease control measures should be adjusted to account for probable substantial presymptomatic transmission.
Roman Wölfel, Victor M Corman, Wolfgang Guggemos, Michael Seilmaier, Sabine Zange, Marcel A Müller, Daniela Niemeyer, Terry C Jones, Patrick Vollmar, Camilla Rothe, Michael Hoelscher, Tobias Bleicker, Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider, Rosina Ehmann, Katrin Zwirglmaier, Christian Drosten, Clemens Wendtner
Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019.
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x. Epub 2020 Apr 1.
Abstract/Text
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute infection of the respiratory tract that emerged in late 20191,2. Initial outbreaks in China involved 13.8% of cases with severe courses, and 6.1% of cases with critical courses3. This severe presentation may result from the virus using a virus receptor that is expressed predominantly in the lung2,4; the same receptor tropism is thought to have determined the pathogenicity-but also aided in the control-of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 20035. However, there are reports of cases of COVID-19 in which the patient shows mild upper respiratory tract symptoms, which suggests the potential for pre- or oligosymptomatic transmission6-8. There is an urgent need for information on virus replication, immunity and infectivity in specific sites of the body. Here we report a detailed virological analysis of nine cases of COVID-19 that provides proof of active virus replication in tissues of the upper respiratory tract. Pharyngeal virus shedding was very high during the first week of symptoms, with a peak at 7.11 × 108 RNA copies per throat swab on day 4. Infectious virus was readily isolated from samples derived from the throat or lung, but not from stool samples-in spite of high concentrations of virus RNA. Blood and urine samples never yielded virus. Active replication in the throat was confirmed by the presence of viral replicative RNA intermediates in the throat samples. We consistently detected sequence-distinct virus populations in throat and lung samples from one patient, proving independent replication. The shedding of viral RNA from sputum outlasted the end of symptoms. Seroconversion occurred after 7 days in 50% of patients (and by day 14 in all patients), but was not followed by a rapid decline in viral load. COVID-19 can present as a mild illness of the upper respiratory tract. The confirmation of active virus replication in the upper respiratory tract has implications for the containment of COVID-19.
Neeltje van Doremalen, Trenton Bushmaker, Dylan H Morris, Myndi G Holbrook, Amandine Gamble, Brandi N Williamson, Azaibi Tamin, Jennifer L Harcourt, Natalie J Thornburg, Susan I Gerber, James O Lloyd-Smith, Emmie de Wit, Vincent J Munster
Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-1567. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973. Epub 2020 Mar 17.
Abstract/Text
Jane Y Tong, Amanda Wong, Daniel Zhu, Judd H Fastenberg, Tristan Tham
The Prevalence of Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Jul;163(1):3-11. doi: 10.1177/0194599820926473. Epub 2020 May 5.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To determine the pooled global prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in patients with the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19).
DATA SOURCES: Literature searches of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were conducted on April 19, 2020, to include articles written in English that reported the prevalence of olfactory or gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients.
REVIEW METHODS: Search strategies developed for each database contained keywords such as anosmia, dysgeusia, and COVID-19. Resulting articles were imported into a systematic review software and underwent screening. Data from articles that met inclusion criteria were extracted and analyzed. Meta-analysis using pooled prevalence estimates in a random-effects model were calculated.
RESULTS: Ten studies were analyzed for olfactory dysfunction (n = 1627), demonstrating 52.73% (95% CI, 29.64%-75.23%) prevalence among patients with COVID-19. Nine studies were analyzed for gustatory dysfunction (n = 1390), demonstrating 43.93% (95% CI, 20.46%-68.95%) prevalence. Subgroup analyses were conducted for studies evaluating olfactory dysfunction using nonvalidated and validated instruments and demonstrated 36.64% (95% CI, 18.31%-57.24%) and 86.60% (95% CI, 72.95%-95.95%) prevalence, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Olfactory and gustatory dysfunction are common symptoms in patients with COVID-19 and may represent early symptoms in the clinical course of infection. Increased awareness of this fact may encourage earlier diagnosis and treatment, as well as heighten vigilance for viral transmission. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to report on the prevalence of these symptoms in COVID-19 patients.
Christopher S von Bartheld, Molly M Hagen, Rafal Butowt
Prevalence of Chemosensory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Reveals Significant Ethnic Differences.
ACS Chem Neurosci. 2020 Sep 17;. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00460. Epub 2020 Sep 17.
Abstract/Text
A significant proportion of people who test positive for COVID-19 have chemosensory deficits. However, the reported prevalence of these deficits in smell and taste varies widely, and the reason for the differences between studies is unclear. We determined the pooled prevalence of such chemosensory deficits in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the COVID-19 portfolio of the National Institutes of Health for studies that reported the prevalence of smell or taste deficits or both in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. One-hundred-four studies reporting on 38 198 patients qualified and were subjected to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Estimated random prevalence of olfactory dysfunction was 43.0%, that of taste dysfunction was 44.6%, and that of overall chemosensory dysfunction was 47.4%. We examined the effects of age, gender, disease severity, and ethnicity on chemosensory dysfunction. Prevalence of smell or taste dysfunction or both decreased with older age, male gender, and disease severity. Ethnicity was highly significant: Caucasians had a three times higher prevalence of chemosensory dysfunctions (54.8%) than Asians (17.7%). The finding of geographic differences points to two causes that are not mutually exclusive. A virus mutation (D614G) may cause differing infectivity, while at the host level genetic, ethnicity-specific variants of the virus-binding entry proteins may facilitate virus entry in the olfactory epithelium and taste buds. Both explanations have major implications for infectivity, diagnosis, and management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Joshua M Levy
Treatment Recommendations for Persistent Smell and Taste Dysfunction Following COVID-19-The Coming Deluge.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Jul 2;. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2020.1378. Epub 2020 Jul 2.
Abstract/Text
Zunyou Wu, Jennifer M McGoogan
Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
JAMA. 2020 Feb 24;. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
Abstract/Text
Ramon Lorenzo-Redondo, Egon A Ozer, Judd F Hultquist
Covid-19: is omicron less lethal than delta?
BMJ. 2022 Aug 2;378:o1806. doi: 10.1136/bmj.o1806. Epub 2022 Aug 2.
Abstract/Text
Dawei Wang, Bo Hu, Chang Hu, Fangfang Zhu, Xing Liu, Jing Zhang, Binbin Wang, Hui Xiang, Zhenshun Cheng, Yong Xiong, Yan Zhao, Yirong Li, Xinghuan Wang, Zhiyong Peng
Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China.
JAMA. 2020 Feb 7;. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1585. Epub 2020 Feb 7.
Abstract/Text
Importance: In December 2019, novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)-infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, China. The number of cases has increased rapidly but information on the clinical characteristics of affected patients is limited.
Objective: To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of NCIP.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, single-center case series of the 138 consecutive hospitalized patients with confirmed NCIP at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in Wuhan, China, from January 1 to January 28, 2020; final date of follow-up was February 3, 2020.
Exposures: Documented NCIP.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiological, and treatment data were collected and analyzed. Outcomes of critically ill patients and noncritically ill patients were compared. Presumed hospital-related transmission was suspected if a cluster of health professionals or hospitalized patients in the same wards became infected and a possible source of infection could be tracked.
Results: Of 138 hospitalized patients with NCIP, the median age was 56 years (interquartile range, 42-68; range, 22-92 years) and 75 (54.3%) were men. Hospital-associated transmission was suspected as the presumed mechanism of infection for affected health professionals (40 [29%]) and hospitalized patients (17 [12.3%]). Common symptoms included fever (136 [98.6%]), fatigue (96 [69.6%]), and dry cough (82 [59.4%]). Lymphopenia (lymphocyte count, 0.8 × 109/L [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.6-1.1]) occurred in 97 patients (70.3%), prolonged prothrombin time (13.0 seconds [IQR, 12.3-13.7]) in 80 patients (58%), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (261 U/L [IQR, 182-403]) in 55 patients (39.9%). Chest computed tomographic scans showed bilateral patchy shadows or ground glass opacity in the lungs of all patients. Most patients received antiviral therapy (oseltamivir, 124 [89.9%]), and many received antibacterial therapy (moxifloxacin, 89 [64.4%]; ceftriaxone, 34 [24.6%]; azithromycin, 25 [18.1%]) and glucocorticoid therapy (62 [44.9%]). Thirty-six patients (26.1%) were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) because of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (22 [61.1%]), arrhythmia (16 [44.4%]), and shock (11 [30.6%]). The median time from first symptom to dyspnea was 5.0 days, to hospital admission was 7.0 days, and to ARDS was 8.0 days. Patients treated in the ICU (n = 36), compared with patients not treated in the ICU (n = 102), were older (median age, 66 years vs 51 years), were more likely to have underlying comorbidities (26 [72.2%] vs 38 [37.3%]), and were more likely to have dyspnea (23 [63.9%] vs 20 [19.6%]), and anorexia (24 [66.7%] vs 31 [30.4%]). Of the 36 cases in the ICU, 4 (11.1%) received high-flow oxygen therapy, 15 (41.7%) received noninvasive ventilation, and 17 (47.2%) received invasive ventilation (4 were switched to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). As of February 3, 47 patients (34.1%) were discharged and 6 died (overall mortality, 4.3%), but the remaining patients are still hospitalized. Among those discharged alive (n = 47), the median hospital stay was 10 days (IQR, 7.0-14.0).
Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center case series of 138 hospitalized patients with confirmed NCIP in Wuhan, China, presumed hospital-related transmission of 2019-nCoV was suspected in 41% of patients, 26% of patients received ICU care, and mortality was 4.3%.
Cristina Menni, Ana M Valdes, Lorenzo Polidori, Michela Antonelli, Satya Penamakuri, Ana Nogal, Panayiotis Louca, Anna May, Jane C Figueiredo, Christina Hu, Erika Molteni, Liane Canas, Marc F Österdahl, Marc Modat, Carole H Sudre, Ben Fox, Alexander Hammers, Jonathan Wolf, Joan Capdevila, Andrew T Chan, Sean P David, Claire J Steves, Sebastien Ourselin, Tim D Spector
Symptom prevalence, duration, and risk of hospital admission in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during periods of omicron and delta variant dominance: a prospective observational study from the ZOE COVID Study.
Lancet. 2022 Apr 23;399(10335):1618-1624. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00327-0. Epub 2022 Apr 7.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, omicron, appears to be less severe than delta. We aim to quantify the differences in symptom prevalence, risk of hospital admission, and symptom duration among the vaccinated population.
METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal observational study, we collected data from participants who were self-reporting test results and symptoms in the ZOE COVID app (previously known as the COVID Symptoms Study App). Eligible participants were aged 16-99 years, based in the UK, with a body-mass index between 15 and 55 kg/m2, had received at least two doses of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, were symptomatic, and logged a positive symptomatic PCR or lateral flow result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The primary outcome was the likelihood of developing a given symptom (of the 32 monitored in the app) or hospital admission within 7 days before or after the positive test in participants infected during omicron prevalence compared with those infected during delta prevalence.
FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2021, and Jan 17, 2022, we identified 63 002 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and reported symptoms in the ZOE app. These patients were matched 1:1 for age, sex, and vaccination dose, across two periods (June 1 to Nov 27, 2021, delta prevalent at >70%; n=4990, and Dec 20, 2021, to Jan 17, 2022, omicron prevalent at >70%; n=4990). Loss of smell was less common in participants infected during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (16·7% vs 52·7%, odds ratio [OR] 0·17; 95% CI 0·16-0·19, p<0·001). Sore throat was more common during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (70·5% vs 60·8%, 1·55; 1·43-1·69, p<0·001). There was a lower rate of hospital admission during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (1·9% vs 2·6%, OR 0·75; 95% CI 0·57-0·98, p=0·03).
INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of symptoms that characterise an omicron infection differs from those of the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant, apparently with less involvement of the lower respiratory tract and reduced probability of hospital admission. Our data indicate a shorter period of illness and potentially of infectiousness which should impact work-health policies and public health advice.
FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, ZOE, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Medical Research Council.
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
CDC：People with Certain Medical Conditions. Updated Sept. 11, 2020. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html
Xiaobo Yang, Yuan Yu, Jiqian Xu, Huaqing Shu, Jia'an Xia, Hong Liu, Yongran Wu, Lu Zhang, Zhui Yu, Minghao Fang, Ting Yu, Yaxin Wang, Shangwen Pan, Xiaojing Zou, Shiying Yuan, You Shang
Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study.
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Feb 24;. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: An ongoing outbreak of pneumonia associated with the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started in December, 2019, in Wuhan, China. Information about critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is scarce. We aimed to describe the clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.
METHODS: In this single-centered, retrospective, observational study, we enrolled 52 critically ill adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Wuhan Jin Yin-tan hospital (Wuhan, China) between late December, 2019, and Jan 26, 2020. Demographic data, symptoms, laboratory values, comorbidities, treatments, and clinical outcomes were all collected. Data were compared between survivors and non-survivors. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, as of Feb 9, 2020. Secondary outcomes included incidence of SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation.
FINDINGS: Of 710 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 52 critically ill adult patients were included. The mean age of the 52 patients was 59·7 (SD 13·3) years, 35 (67%) were men, 21 (40%) had chronic illness, 51 (98%) had fever. 32 (61·5%) patients had died at 28 days, and the median duration from admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) to death was 7 (IQR 3-11) days for non-survivors. Compared with survivors, non-survivors were older (64·6 years [11·2] vs 51·9 years [12·9]), more likely to develop ARDS (26 [81%] patients vs 9 [45%] patients), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (30 [94%] patients vs 7 [35%] patients), either invasively or non-invasively. Most patients had organ function damage, including 35 (67%) with ARDS, 15 (29%) with acute kidney injury, 12 (23%) with cardiac injury, 15 (29%) with liver dysfunction, and one (2%) with pneumothorax. 37 (71%) patients required mechanical ventilation. Hospital-acquired infection occurred in seven (13·5%) patients.
INTERPRETATION: The mortality of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is considerable. The survival time of the non-survivors is likely to be within 1-2 weeks after ICU admission. Older patients (>65 years) with comorbidities and ARDS are at increased risk of death. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia poses great strain on critical care resources in hospitals, especially if they are not adequately staffed or resourced.
FUNDING: None.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Ryan P Barbaro, Graeme MacLaren, Philip S Boonstra, Theodore J Iwashyna, Arthur S Slutsky, Eddy Fan, Robert H Bartlett, Joseph E Tonna, Robert Hyslop, Jeffrey J Fanning, Peter T Rycus, Steve J Hyer, Marc M Anders, Cara L Agerstrand, Katarzyna Hryniewicz, Rodrigo Diaz, Roberto Lorusso, Alain Combes, Daniel Brodie, Extracorporeal Life Support Organization
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19: an international cohort study of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry.
Lancet. 2020 Oct 10;396(10257):1071-1078. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32008-0. Epub 2020 Sep 25.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Multiple major health organisations recommend the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, initial reports of ECMO use in patients with COVID-19 described very high mortality and there have been no large, international cohort studies of ECMO for COVID-19 reported to date.
METHODS: We used data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry to characterise the epidemiology, hospital course, and outcomes of patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed COVID-19 who had ECMO support initiated between Jan 16 and May 1, 2020, at 213 hospitals in 36 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital death in a time-to-event analysis assessed at 90 days after ECMO initiation. We applied a multivariable Cox model to examine whether patient and hospital factors were associated with in-hospital mortality.
FINDINGS: Data for 1035 patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO support were included in this study. Of these, 67 (6%) remained hospitalised, 311 (30%) were discharged home or to an acute rehabilitation centre, 101 (10%) were discharged to a long-term acute care centre or unspecified location, 176 (17%) were discharged to another hospital, and 380 (37%) died. The estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 37·4% (95% CI 34·4-40·4). Mortality was 39% (380 of 968) in patients with a final disposition of death or hospital discharge. The use of ECMO for circulatory support was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1·89, 95% CI 1·20-2·97). In the subset of patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory (venovenous) ECMO and characterised as having acute respiratory distress syndrome, the estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 38·0% (95% CI 34·6-41·5).
INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO, both estimated mortality 90 days after ECMO and mortality in those with a final disposition of death or discharge were less than 40%. These data from 213 hospitals worldwide provide a generalisable estimate of ECMO mortality in the setting of COVID-19.
FUNDING: None.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Matthieu Schmidt, David Hajage, Guillaume Lebreton, Antoine Monsel, Guillaume Voiriot, David Levy, Elodie Baron, Alexandra Beurton, Juliette Chommeloux, Paris Meng, Safaa Nemlaghi, Pierre Bay, Pascal Leprince, Alexandre Demoule, Bertrand Guidet, Jean Michel Constantin, Muriel Fartoukh, Martin Dres, Alain Combes, Groupe de Recherche Clinique en REanimation et Soins intensifs du Patient en Insuffisance Respiratoire aiguE (GRC-RESPIRE) Sorbonne Université, Paris-Sorbonne ECMO-COVID investigators
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Nov;8(11):1121-1131. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30328-3. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can have symptoms that rapidly evolve to profound hypoxaemia and death. The efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe ARDS in the context of COVID-19 is unclear. We aimed to establish the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with respiratory failure and COVID-19 treated with ECMO.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was done in the Paris-Sorbonne University Hospital Network, comprising five intensive care units (ICUs) and included patients who received ECMO for COVID-19 associated ARDS. Patient demographics and daily pre-ECMO and on-ECMO data and outcomes were collected. Possible outcomes over time were categorised into four different states (states 1-4): on ECMO, in the ICU and weaned off ECMO, alive and out of ICU, or death. Daily probabilities of occupation in each state and of transitions between these states until day 90 post-ECMO onset were estimated with use of a multi-state Cox model stratified for each possible transition. Follow-up was right-censored on July 10, 2020.
FINDINGS: From March 8 to May 2, 2020, 492 patients with COVID-19 were treated in our ICUs. Complete day-60 follow-up was available for 83 patients (median age 49 [IQR 41-56] years and 61 [73%] men) who received ECMO. Pre-ECMO, 78 (94%) patients had been prone-positioned; their median driving pressure was 18 (IQR 16-21) cm H2O and PaO2/FiO2 was 60 (54-68) mm Hg. At 60 days post-ECMO initiation, the estimated probabilities of occupation in each state were 6% (95% CI 3-14) for state 1, 18% (11-28) for state 2, 45% (35-56) for state 3, and 31% (22-42) for state 4. 35 (42%) patients had major bleeding and four (5%) had a haemorrhagic stroke. 30 patients died.
INTERPRETATION: The estimated 60-day survival of ECMO-rescued patients with COVID-19 was similar to that of studies published in the past 2 years on ECMO for severe ARDS. If another COVID-19 outbreak occurs, ECMO should be considered for patients developing refractory respiratory failure despite optimised care.
FUNDING: None.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Ryan P Barbaro, Folafoluwa O Odetola, Kelley M Kidwell, Matthew L Paden, Robert H Bartlett, Matthew M Davis, Gail M Annich
Association of hospital-level volume of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cases and mortality. Analysis of the extracorporeal life support organization registry.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Apr 15;191(8):894-901. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201409-1634OC.
Abstract/Text
RATIONALE: Recent pediatric studies suggest a survival benefit exists for higher-volume extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) centers.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if higher annual ECMO patient volume is associated with lower case-mix-adjusted hospital mortality rate.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed an international registry of ECMO support from 1989 to 2013. Patients were separated into three age groups: neonatal (0-28 d), pediatric (29 d to <18 yr), and adult (≥18 yr). The measure of hospital ECMO volume was age group-specific and adjusted for patient-level case-mix and hospital-level variance using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression modeling. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. A subgroup analysis was conducted for 2008-2013.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From 1989 to 2013, a total of 290 centers provided ECMO support to 56,222 patients (30,909 neonates, 14,725 children, and 10,588 adults). Annual ECMO mortality rates varied widely across ECMO centers: the interquartile range was 18-50% for neonates, 25-66% for pediatrics, and 33-92% for adults. For 1989-2013, higher age group-specific ECMO volume was associated with lower odds of ECMO mortality for neonates and adults but not for pediatric cases. In 2008-2013, the volume-outcome association remained statistically significant only among adults. Patients receiving ECMO at hospitals with more than 30 adult annual ECMO cases had significantly lower odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.80) compared with adults receiving ECMO at hospitals with less than six annual cases.
CONCLUSIONS: In this international, case-mix-adjusted analysis, higher annual hospital ECMO volume was associated with lower mortality in 1989-2013 for neonates and adults; the association among adults persisted in 2008-2013.
Chaomin Wu, Xiaoyan Chen, Yanping Cai, Jia'an Xia, Xing Zhou, Sha Xu, Hanping Huang, Li Zhang, Xia Zhou, Chunling Du, Yuye Zhang, Juan Song, Sijiao Wang, Yencheng Chao, Zeyong Yang, Jie Xu, Xin Zhou, Dechang Chen, Weining Xiong, Lei Xu, Feng Zhou, Jinjun Jiang, Chunxue Bai, Junhua Zheng, Yuanlin Song
Risk Factors Associated With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Death in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China.
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 13;. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0994. Epub 2020 Mar 13.
Abstract/Text
Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease that was first reported in Wuhan, China, and has subsequently spread worldwide. Risk factors for the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia have not yet been well delineated.
Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or died.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 201 patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital in China between December 25, 2019, and January 26, 2020. The final date of follow-up was February 13, 2020.
Exposures: Confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The development of ARDS and death. Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, laboratory, management, treatment, and outcome data were also collected and analyzed.
Results: Of 201 patients, the median age was 51 years (interquartile range, 43-60 years), and 128 (63.7%) patients were men. Eighty-four patients (41.8%) developed ARDS, and of those 84 patients, 44 (52.4%) died. In those who developed ARDS, compared with those who did not, more patients presented with dyspnea (50 of 84 [59.5%] patients and 30 of 117 [25.6%] patients, respectively [difference, 33.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-48.1%]) and had comorbidities such as hypertension (23 of 84 [27.4%] patients and 16 of 117 [13.7%] patients, respectively [difference, 13.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-26.1%]) and diabetes (16 of 84 [19.0%] patients and 6 of 117 [5.1%] patients, respectively [difference, 13.9%; 95% CI, 3.6%-24.2%]). In bivariate Cox regression analysis, risk factors associated with the development of ARDS and progression from ARDS to death included older age (hazard ratio [HR], 3.26; 95% CI 2.08-5.11; and HR, 6.17; 95% CI, 3.26-11.67, respectively), neutrophilia (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.19; and HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17, respectively), and organ and coagulation dysfunction (eg, higher lactate dehydrogenase [HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.44-1.79; and HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.52, respectively] and D-dimer [HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; and HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04, respectively]). High fever (≥39 °C) was associated with higher likelihood of ARDS development (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.11-2.84) and lower likelihood of death (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.82). Among patients with ARDS, treatment with methylprednisolone decreased the risk of death (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.72).
Conclusions and Relevance: Older age was associated with greater risk of development of ARDS and death likely owing to less rigorous immune response. Although high fever was associated with the development of ARDS, it was also associated with better outcomes among patients with ARDS. Moreover, treatment with methylprednisolone may be beneficial for patients who develop ARDS.
Saskia Middeldorp, Michiel Coppens, Thijs F van Haaps, Merijn Foppen, Alexander P Vlaar, Marcella C A Müller, Catherine C S Bouman, Ludo F M Beenen, Ruud S Kootte, Jarom Heijmans, Loek P Smits, Peter I Bonta, Nick van Es
Incidence of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Aug;18(8):1995-2002. doi: 10.1111/jth.14888. Epub 2020 Jul 27.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to systemic coagulation activation and thrombotic complications.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
METHODS: Single-center cohort study of 198 hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (38%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). At time of data collection, 16 (8%) were still hospitalized and 19% had died. During a median follow-up of 7 days (IQR, 3-13), 39 patients (20%) were diagnosed with VTE of whom 25 (13%) had symptomatic VTE, despite routine thrombosis prophylaxis. The cumulative incidences of VTE at 7, 14 and 21 days were 16% (95% CI, 10-22), 33% (95% CI, 23-43) and 42% (95% CI 30-54) respectively. For symptomatic VTE, these were 10% (95% CI, 5.8-16), 21% (95% CI, 14-30) and 25% (95% CI 16-36). VTE appeared to be associated with death (adjusted HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.02-5.5). The cumulative incidence of VTE was higher in the ICU (26% (95% CI, 17-37), 47% (95% CI, 34-58), and 59% (95% CI, 42-72) at 7, 14 and 21 days) than on the wards (any VTE and symptomatic VTE 5.8% (95% CI, 1.4-15), 9.2% (95% CI, 2.6-21), and 9.2% (2.6-21) at 7, 14, and 21 days).
CONCLUSIONS: The observed risk for VTE in COVID-19 is high, particularly in ICU patients, which should lead to a high level of clinical suspicion and low threshold for diagnostic imaging for DVT or PE. Future research should focus on optimal diagnostic and prophylactic strategies to prevent VTE and potentially improve survival.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.
F A Klok, M J H A Kruip, N J M van der Meer, M S Arbous, D Gommers, K M Kant, F H J Kaptein, J van Paassen, M A M Stals, M V Huisman, H Endeman
Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis.
Thromb Res. 2020 Jul;191:148-150. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.041. Epub 2020 Apr 30.
Abstract/Text
INTRODUCTION: We recently reported a high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) of three Dutch hospitals. In answering questions raised regarding our study, we updated our database and repeated all analyses.
METHODS: We re-evaluated the incidence of the composite outcome of symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep-vein thrombosis, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction and/or systemic arterial embolism in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICUs of 2 Dutch university hospitals and 1 Dutch teaching hospital from ICU admission to death, ICU discharge or April 22nd 2020, whichever came first.
RESULTS: We studied the same 184 ICU patients as reported on previously, of whom a total of 41 died (22%) and 78 were discharged alive (43%). The median follow-up duration increased from 7 to 14 days. All patients received pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of the composite outcome, adjusted for competing risk of death, was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41-57%). The majority of thrombotic events were PE (65/75; 87%). In the competing risk model, chronic anticoagulation therapy at admission was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.29, 95%CI 0.091-0.92). Patients diagnosed with thrombotic complications were at higher risk of all-cause death (HR 5.4; 95%CI 2.4-12). Use of therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with all-cause death (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.35-1.8).
CONCLUSION: In this updated analysis, we confirm the very high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf
Lirong Zou, Feng Ruan, Mingxing Huang, Lijun Liang, Huitao Huang, Zhongsi Hong, Jianxiang Yu, Min Kang, Yingchao Song, Jinyu Xia, Qianfang Guo, Tie Song, Jianfeng He, Hui-Ling Yen, Malik Peiris, Jie Wu
SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-1179. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2001737. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
Abstract/Text
Wenling Wang, Yanli Xu, Ruqin Gao, Roujian Lu, Kai Han, Guizhen Wu, Wenjie Tan
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens.
JAMA. 2020 Mar 11;. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3786. Epub 2020 Mar 11.
Abstract/Text
Yang Pan, Daitao Zhang, Peng Yang, Leo L M Poon, Quanyi Wang
Viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):411-412. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30113-4. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
Abstract/Text
E Pasomsub, S P Watcharananan, K Boonyawat, P Janchompoo, G Wongtabtim, W Suksuwan, S Sungkanuparph, A Phuphuakrat
Saliva sample as a non-invasive specimen for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019: a cross-sectional study.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 May 15;. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.001. Epub 2020 May 15.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES: Amid the increasing number of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, there is a need for a quick and easy method to obtain a non-invasive sample for the detection of this novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to investigate the potential use of saliva samples as a non-invasive tool for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
METHODS: From 27 March to 4 April 2020, we prospectively collected saliva samples and a standard nasopharyngeal and throat swab in persons seeking care at an acute respiratory infection clinic in a university hospital during the outbreak of COVID-19. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed, and the results of the two specimens were compared.
RESULTS: Two-hundred pairs of samples were collected. Sixty-nine (34.5%) individuals were male, and the median (interquartile) age was 36 (28-48) years. Using nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR as the reference standard, the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosed by nasopharyngeal and throat swab RT-PCR was 9.5%. The sensitivity and specificity of the saliva sample RT-PCR were 84.2% (95% CI 60.4%-96.6%), and 98.9% (95% CI 96.1%-99.9%), respectively. An analysis of the agreement between the two specimens demonstrated 97.5% observed agreement (κ coefficient 0.851, 95% CI 0.723-0.979; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Saliva might be an alternative specimen for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The collection is non-invasive, and non-aerosol generating. This method could facilitate the diagnosis of the disease, given the simplicity of specimen collection and good diagnostic performance.
Copyright © 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Eloise Williams, Katherine Bond, Bowen Zhang, Mark Putland, Deborah A Williamson
Saliva as a Noninvasive Specimen for Detection of SARS-CoV-2.
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8). doi: 10.1128/JCM.00776-20. Epub 2020 Jul 23.
Abstract/Text
Chaolin Huang, Yeming Wang, Xingwang Li, Lili Ren, Jianping Zhao, Yi Hu, Li Zhang, Guohui Fan, Jiuyang Xu, Xiaoying Gu, Zhenshun Cheng, Ting Yu, Jiaan Xia, Yuan Wei, Wenjuan Wu, Xuelei Xie, Wen Yin, Hui Li, Min Liu, Yan Xiao, Hong Gao, Li Guo, Jungang Xie, Guangfa Wang, Rongmeng Jiang, Zhancheng Gao, Qi Jin, Jianwei Wang, Bin Cao
Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China.
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5. Epub 2020 Jan 24.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, was caused by a novel betacoronavirus, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). We report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and treatment and clinical outcomes of these patients.
METHODS: All patients with suspected 2019-nCoV were admitted to a designated hospital in Wuhan. We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing. Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. Researchers also directly communicated with patients or their families to ascertain epidemiological and symptom data. Outcomes were also compared between patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those who had not.
FINDINGS: By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0-58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0-13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα.
INTERPRETATION: The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies.
FUNDING: Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Nanshan Chen, Min Zhou, Xuan Dong, Jieming Qu, Fengyun Gong, Yang Han, Yang Qiu, Jingli Wang, Ying Liu, Yuan Wei, Jia'an Xia, Ting Yu, Xinxin Zhang, Li Zhang
Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study.
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):507-513. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7. Epub 2020 Jan 30.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: In December, 2019, a pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) emerged in Wuhan, China. We aimed to further clarify the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 2019-nCoV pneumonia.
METHODS: In this retrospective, single-centre study, we included all confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020. Cases were confirmed by real-time RT-PCR and were analysed for epidemiological, demographic, clinical, and radiological features and laboratory data. Outcomes were followed up until Jan 25, 2020.
FINDINGS: Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market. The average age of the patients was 55·5 years (SD 13·1), including 67 men and 32 women. 2019-nCoV was detected in all patients by real-time RT-PCR. 50 (51%) patients had chronic diseases. Patients had clinical manifestations of fever (82 [83%] patients), cough (81 [82%] patients), shortness of breath (31 [31%] patients), muscle ache (11 [11%] patients), confusion (nine [9%] patients), headache (eight [8%] patients), sore throat (five [5%] patients), rhinorrhoea (four [4%] patients), chest pain (two [2%] patients), diarrhoea (two [2%] patients), and nausea and vomiting (one [1%] patient). According to imaging examination, 74 (75%) patients showed bilateral pneumonia, 14 (14%) patients showed multiple mottling and ground-glass opacity, and one (1%) patient had pneumothorax. 17 (17%) patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and, among them, 11 (11%) patients worsened in a short period of time and died of multiple organ failure.
INTERPRETATION: The 2019-nCoV infection was of clustering onset, is more likely to affect older males with comorbidities, and can result in severe and even fatal respiratory diseases such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. In general, characteristics of patients who died were in line with the MuLBSTA score, an early warning model for predicting mortality in viral pneumonia. Further investigation is needed to explore the applicability of the MuLBSTA score in predicting the risk of mortality in 2019-nCoV infection.
FUNDING: National Key R&D Program of China.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Heshui Shi, Xiaoyu Han, Nanchuan Jiang, Yukun Cao, Osamah Alwalid, Jin Gu, Yanqing Fan, Chuansheng Zheng
Radiological findings from 81 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):425-434. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30086-4. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: A cluster of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were successively reported in Wuhan, China. We aimed to describe the CT findings across different timepoints throughout the disease course.
METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (confirmed by next-generation sequencing or RT-PCR) who were admitted to one of two hospitals in Wuhan and who underwent serial chest CT scans were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were grouped on the basis of the interval between symptom onset and the first CT scan: group 1 (subclinical patients; scans done before symptom onset), group 2 (scans done ≤1 week after symptom onset), group 3 (>1 week to 2 weeks), and group 4 (>2 weeks to 3 weeks). Imaging features and their distribution were analysed and compared across the four groups.
FINDINGS: 81 patients admitted to hospital between Dec 20, 2019, and Jan 23, 2020, were retrospectively enrolled. The cohort included 42 (52%) men and 39 (48%) women, and the mean age was 49·5 years (SD 11·0). The mean number of involved lung segments was 10·5 (SD 6·4) overall, 2·8 (3·3) in group 1, 11·1 (5·4) in group 2, 13·0 (5·7) in group 3, and 12·1 (5·9) in group 4. The predominant pattern of abnormality observed was bilateral (64 [79%] patients), peripheral (44 [54%]), ill-defined (66 [81%]), and ground-glass opacification (53 [65%]), mainly involving the right lower lobes (225 [27%] of 849 affected segments). In group 1 (n=15), the predominant pattern was unilateral (nine [60%]) and multifocal (eight [53%]) ground-glass opacities (14 [93%]). Lesions quickly evolved to bilateral (19 [90%]), diffuse (11 [52%]) ground-glass opacity predominance (17 [81%]) in group 2 (n=21). Thereafter, the prevalence of ground-glass opacities continued to decrease (17 [57%] of 30 patients in group 3, and five [33%] of 15 in group 4), and consolidation and mixed patterns became more frequent (12 [40%] in group 3, eight [53%] in group 4).
INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 pneumonia manifests with chest CT imaging abnormalities, even in asymptomatic patients, with rapid evolution from focal unilateral to diffuse bilateral ground-glass opacities that progressed to or co-existed with consolidations within 1-3 weeks. Combining assessment of imaging features with clinical and laboratory findings could facilitate early diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia.
FUNDING: None.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Xingzhi Xie, Zheng Zhong, Wei Zhao, Chao Zheng, Fei Wang, Jun Liu
Chest CT for Typical 2019-nCoV Pneumonia: Relationship to Negative RT-PCR Testing.
Radiology. 2020 Feb 12;:200343. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200343. Epub 2020 Feb 12.
Abstract/Text
Some patients with positive chest CT findings may present with negative results of real time reverse-transcription-polymerase chain- reaction (RT-PCR) for 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In this report, we present chest CT findings from five patients with 2019-nCoV infection who had initial negative RT-PCR results. All five patients had typical imaging findings, including ground-glass opacity (GGO) (5 patients) and/or mixed GGO and mixed consolidation (2 patients). After isolation for presumed 2019-nCoV pneumonia, all patients were eventually confirmed with 2019-nCoV infection by repeated swab tests. A combination of repeated swab tests and CT scanning may be helpful when for individuals with high clinical suspicion of nCoV infection but negative RT-PCR screening.
Tao Ai, Zhenlu Yang, Hongyan Hou, Chenao Zhan, Chong Chen, Wenzhi Lv, Qian Tao, Ziyong Sun, Liming Xia
Correlation of Chest CT and RT-PCR Testing in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: A Report of 1014 Cases.
Radiology. 2020 Feb 26;:200642. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200642. Epub 2020 Feb 26.
Abstract/Text
Background Chest CT is used for diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), as an important complement to the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. Purpose To investigate the diagnostic value and consistency of chest CT as compared with comparison to RT-PCR assay in COVID-19. Methods From January 6 to February 6, 2020, 1014 patients in Wuhan, China who underwent both chest CT and RT-PCR tests were included. With RT-PCR as reference standard, the performance of chest CT in diagnosing COVID-19 was assessed. Besides, for patients with multiple RT-PCR assays, the dynamic conversion of RT-PCR results (negative to positive, positive to negative, respectively) was analyzed as compared with serial chest CT scans for those with time-interval of 4 days or more. Results Of 1014 patients, 59% (601/1014) had positive RT-PCR results, and 88% (888/1014) had positive chest CT scans. The sensitivity of chest CT in suggesting COVID-19 was 97% (95%CI, 95-98%, 580/601 patients) based on positive RT-PCR results. In patients with negative RT-PCR results, 75% (308/413) had positive chest CT findings; of 308, 48% were considered as highly likely cases, with 33% as probable cases. By analysis of serial RT-PCR assays and CT scans, the mean interval time between the initial negative to positive RT-PCR results was 5.1 ± 1.5 days; the initial positive to subsequent negative RT-PCR result was 6.9 ± 2.3 days). 60% to 93% of cases had initial positive CT consistent with COVID-19 prior (or parallel) to the initial positive RT-PCR results. 42% (24/57) cases showed improvement in follow-up chest CT scans before the RT-PCR results turning negative. Conclusion Chest CT has a high sensitivity for diagnosis of COVID-19. Chest CT may be considered as a primary tool for the current COVID-19 detection in epidemic areas.
Harrison X Bai, Ben Hsieh, Zeng Xiong, Kasey Halsey, Ji Whae Choi, Thi My Linh Tran, Ian Pan, Lin-Bo Shi, Dong-Cui Wang, Ji Mei, Xiao-Long Jiang, Qiu-Hua Zeng, Thomas K Egglin, Ping-Feng Hu, Saurabh Agarwal, Fangfang Xie, Sha Li, Terrance Healey, Michael K Atalay, Wei-Hua Liao
Performance of radiologists in differentiating COVID-19 from viral pneumonia on chest CT.
Radiology. 2020 Mar 10;:200823. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200823. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
Abstract/Text
Background Despite its high sensitivity in diagnosing COVID-19 in a screening population, chest CT appearances of COVID 19 pneumonia are thought to be non-specific. Purpose To assess the performance of United States (U.S.) and Chinese radiologists in differentiating COVID-19 from viral pneumonia on chest CT. Methods A total of 219 patients with both positive COVID-19 by RT-PCR and abnormal chest CT findings were retrospectively identified from 7 Chinese hospitals in Hunan Providence, China from January 6 to February 20, 2020. A total of 205 patients with positive Respiratory Pathogen Panel for viral pneumonia and CT findings consistent with or highly suspicious for pneumonia by original radiology interpretation within 7 days of each other were identified from Rhode Island Hospital in Providence, RI. Three Chinese radiologists blindly reviewed all chest CTs (n=424) to differentiate COVID-19 from viral pneumonia. A sample of 58 age-matched cases was randomly selected and evaluated by 4 U.S. radiologists in a similar fashion. Different CT features were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results For all chest CTs, three Chinese radiologists correctly differentiated COVID-19 from non-COVID-19 pneumonia 83% (350/424), 80% (338/424), and 60% (255/424) of the time, respectively. The seven radiologists had sensitivities of 80%, 67%, 97%, 93%, 83%, 73% and 70% and specificities of 100%, 93%, 7%, 100%, 93%, 93%, 100%. Compared to non-COVID-19 pneumonia, COVID-19 pneumonia was more likely to have a peripheral distribution (80% vs. 57%, p<0.001), ground-glass opacity (91% vs. 68%, p<0.001), fine reticular opacity (56% vs. 22%, p<0.001), and vascular thickening (59% vs. 22%, p<0.001), but less likely to have a central+peripheral distribution (14.% vs. 35%, p<0.001), pleural effusion (4.1 vs. 39%, p<0.001) and lymphadenopathy (2.7% vs. 10.2%, p<0.001). Conclusion Radiologists in China and the United States distinguished COVID-19 from viral pneumonia on chest CT with high specificity but moderate sensitivity. A translation of this abstract in Farsi is available in the supplement. - ترجمه چکیده این مقاله به فارسی، در ضمیمه موجود است.
Soon Ho Yoon, Jong Hyuk Lee, Baek-Nam Kim
Chest CT Findings in Hospitalized Patients with SARSCoV-2: Delta versus Omicron Variants.
Radiology. 2022 Nov;305(2):E66. doi: 10.1148/radiol.229022.
Abstract/Text
David Kim, James Quinn, Benjamin Pinsky, Nigam H Shah, Ian Brown
Rates of Co-infection Between SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Pathogens.
JAMA. 2020 Apr 15;. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6266. Epub 2020 Apr 15.
Abstract/Text
Daniel A Solomon, Amy C Sherman, Sanjat Kanjilal
Influenza in the COVID-19 Era.
JAMA. 2020 Aug 14;. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.14661. Epub 2020 Aug 14.
Abstract/Text
James M Sanders, Marguerite L Monogue, Tomasz Z Jodlowski, James B Cutrell
Pharmacologic Treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review.
JAMA. 2020 Apr 13;. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6019. Epub 2020 Apr 13.
Abstract/Text
Importance: The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents an unprecedented challenge to identify effective drugs for prevention and treatment. Given the rapid pace of scientific discovery and clinical data generated by the large number of people rapidly infected by SARS-CoV-2, clinicians need accurate evidence regarding effective medical treatments for this infection.
Observations: No proven effective therapies for this virus currently exist. The rapidly expanding knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 virology provides a significant number of potential drug targets. The most promising therapy is remdesivir. Remdesivir has potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, but it is not US Food and Drug Administration approved and currently is being tested in ongoing randomized trials. Oseltamivir has not been shown to have efficacy, and corticosteroids are currently not recommended. Current clinical evidence does not support stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with COVID-19.
Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 pandemic represents the greatest global public health crisis of this generation and, potentially, since the pandemic influenza outbreak of 1918. The speed and volume of clinical trials launched to investigate potential therapies for COVID-19 highlight both the need and capability to produce high-quality evidence even in the middle of a pandemic. No therapies have been shown effective to date.
Manli Wang, Ruiyuan Cao, Leike Zhang, Xinglou Yang, Jia Liu, Mingyue Xu, Zhengli Shi, Zhihong Hu, Wu Zhong, Gengfu Xiao
Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro.
Cell Res. 2020 Mar;30(3):269-271. doi: 10.1038/s41422-020-0282-0. Epub 2020 Feb 4.
Abstract/Text
Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial, The Lancet Journal, April 29, 2020. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext
WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Hongchao Pan, Richard Peto, Ana-Maria Henao-Restrepo, Marie-Pierre Preziosi, Vasee Sathiyamoorthy, Quarraisha Abdool Karim, Marissa M Alejandria, César Hernández García, Marie-Paule Kieny, Reza Malekzadeh, Srinivas Murthy, K Srinath Reddy, Mirta Roses Periago, Pierre Abi Hanna, Florence Ader, Abdullah M Al-Bader, Almonther Alhasawi, Emma Allum, Athari Alotaibi, Carlos A Alvarez-Moreno, Sheila Appadoo, Abdullah Asiri, Pål Aukrust, Andreas Barratt-Due, Samir Bellani, Mattia Branca, Heike B C Cappel-Porter, Nery Cerrato, Ting S Chow, Najada Como, Joe Eustace, Patricia J García, Sheela Godbole, Eduardo Gotuzzo, Laimonas Griskevicius, Rasha Hamra, Mariam Hassan, Mohamed Hassany, David Hutton, Irmansyah Irmansyah, Ligita Jancoriene, Jana Kirwan, Suresh Kumar, Peter Lennon, Gustavo Lopardo, Patrick Lydon, Nicola Magrini, Teresa Maguire, Suzana Manevska, Oriol Manuel, Sibylle McGinty, Marco T Medina, María L Mesa Rubio, Maria C Miranda-Montoya, Jeremy Nel, Estevao P Nunes, Markus Perola, Antonio Portolés, Menaldi R Rasmin, Aun Raza, Helen Rees, Paula P S Reges, Chris A Rogers, Kolawole Salami, Marina I Salvadori, Narvina Sinani, Jonathan A C Sterne, Milena Stevanovikj, Evelina Tacconelli, Kari A O Tikkinen, Sven Trelle, Hala Zaid, John-Arne Røttingen, Soumya Swaminathan
Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 - Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results.
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 11;384(6):497-511. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2023184. Epub 2020 Dec 2.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).
METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry.
RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration.
CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
John H Beigel, Kay M Tomashek, Lori E Dodd, Aneesh K Mehta, Barry S Zingman, Andre C Kalil, Elizabeth Hohmann, Helen Y Chu, Annie Luetkemeyer, Susan Kline, Diego Lopez de Castilla, Robert W Finberg, Kerry Dierberg, Victor Tapson, Lanny Hsieh, Thomas F Patterson, Roger Paredes, Daniel A Sweeney, William R Short, Giota Touloumi, David Chien Lye, Norio Ohmagari, Myoung-Don Oh, Guillermo M Ruiz-Palacios, Thomas Benfield, Gerd Fätkenheuer, Mark G Kortepeter, Robert L Atmar, C Buddy Creech, Jens Lundgren, Abdel G Babiker, Sarah Pett, James D Neaton, Timothy H Burgess, Tyler Bonnett, Michelle Green, Mat Makowski, Anu Osinusi, Seema Nayak, H Clifford Lane, ACTT-1 Study Group Members
Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Preliminary Report.
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 22;. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764. Epub 2020 May 22.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), none have yet been shown to be efficacious.
METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only.
RESULTS: A total of 1063 patients underwent randomization. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early unblinding of the results on the basis of findings from an analysis that showed shortened time to recovery in the remdesivir group. Preliminary results from the 1059 patients (538 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo) with data available after randomization indicated that those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 12), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 19) in those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04). Serious adverse events were reported for 114 of the 541 patients in the remdesivir group who underwent randomization (21.1%) and 141 of the 522 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization (27.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACCT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Christoph D Spinner, Robert L Gottlieb, Gerard J Criner, José Ramón Arribas López, Anna Maria Cattelan, Alex Soriano Viladomiu, Onyema Ogbuagu, Prashant Malhotra, Kathleen M Mullane, Antonella Castagna, Louis Yi Ann Chai, Meta Roestenberg, Owen Tak Yin Tsang, Enos Bernasconi, Paul Le Turnier, Shan-Chwen Chang, Devi SenGupta, Robert H Hyland, Anu O Osinusi, Huyen Cao, Christiana Blair, Hongyuan Wang, Anuj Gaggar, Diana M Brainard, Mark J McPhail, Sanjay Bhagani, Mi Young Ahn, Arun J Sanyal, Gregory Huhn, Francisco M Marty, GS-US-540-5774 Investigators
Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA. 2020 Sep 15;324(11):1048-1057. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.16349.
Abstract/Text
Importance: Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown.
Objective: To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020.
Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group.
Results: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care.
Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.
Brian T Garibaldi, Kunbo Wang, Matthew L Robinson, Joshua Betz, G Caleb Alexander, Kathleen M Andersen, Corey S Joseph, Hemalkumar B Mehta, Kimberly Korwek, Kenneth E Sands, Arielle M Fisher, Robert C Bollinger, Yanxun Xu
Real-World Effectiveness Of Remdesivir In Adults Hospitalized With Covid-19: A Retrospective, Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Study.
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Dec 15;. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab1035. Epub 2021 Dec 15.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2.
METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the US from February 23, 2020 through February 11, 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic COVID-19 were included. Remdesivir recipients were matched to controls using time-dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was time to improvement with a secondary outcome of time to death.
RESULTS: Of 96,859 COVID-19 patients, 42,473 (43.9%) received at least one remdesivir dose. The median age of remdesivir recipients was 65 years, 23,701 (55.8%) were male and 22,819 (53.7%) were non-white. Matches were found for 18,328 patients (43.2%). Remdesivir recipients were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.22]). Remdesivir patients on no oxygen (aHR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22-1.38) or low-flow oxygen (aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.19-1.27) were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days. There was no significant impact on the likelihood of mortality overall (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.08). Remdesivir recipients on low-flow oxygen were significantly less likely to die than controls (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.92; 28-day mortality 8.4% [865 deaths] for remdesivir patients, 12.5% [1,334 deaths] for controls).
CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on no or low-flow oxygen. Routine initiation of remdesivir in more severely ill patients is unlikely to be beneficial.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Jason D Goldman, David C B Lye, David S Hui, Kristen M Marks, Raffaele Bruno, Rocio Montejano, Christoph D Spinner, Massimo Galli, Mi-Young Ahn, Ronald G Nahass, Yao-Shen Chen, Devi SenGupta, Robert H Hyland, Anu O Osinusi, Huyen Cao, Christiana Blair, Xuelian Wei, Anuj Gaggar, Diana M Brainard, William J Towner, Jose Muñoz, Kathleen M Mullane, Francisco M Marty, Karen T Tashima, George Diaz, Aruna Subramanian, GS-US-540-5773 Investigators
Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 5;383(19):1827-1837. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301. Epub 2020 May 27.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, and radiologic evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous remdesivir for either 5 days or 10 days. All patients received 200 mg of remdesivir on day 1 and 100 mg once daily on subsequent days. The primary end point was clinical status on day 14, assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.
RESULTS: In total, 397 patients underwent randomization and began treatment (200 patients for 5 days and 197 for 10 days). The median duration of treatment was 5 days (interquartile range, 5 to 5) in the 5-day group and 9 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10) in the 10-day group. At baseline, patients randomly assigned to the 10-day group had significantly worse clinical status than those assigned to the 5-day group (P = 0.02). By day 14, a clinical improvement of 2 points or more on the ordinal scale occurred in 64% of patients in the 5-day group and in 54% in the 10-day group. After adjustment for baseline clinical status, patients in the 10-day group had a distribution in clinical status at day 14 that was similar to that among patients in the 5-day group (P = 0.14). The most common adverse events were nausea (9% of patients), worsening respiratory failure (8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase level (7%), and constipation (7%).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; GS-US-540-5773 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04292899.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Robert L Gottlieb, Carlos E Vaca, Roger Paredes, Jorge Mera, Brandon J Webb, Gilberto Perez, Godson Oguchi, Pablo Ryan, Bibi U Nielsen, Michael Brown, Ausberto Hidalgo, Yessica Sachdeva, Shilpi Mittal, Olayemi Osiyemi, Jacek Skarbinski, Kavita Juneja, Robert H Hyland, Anu Osinusi, Shuguang Chen, Gregory Camus, Mazin Abdelghany, Santosh Davies, Nicole Behenna-Renton, Frank Duff, Francisco M Marty, Morgan J Katz, Adit A Ginde, Samuel M Brown, Joshua T Schiffer, Joshua A Hill, GS-US-540-9012 (PINETREE) Investigators
Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatients.
N Engl J Med. 2022 Jan 27;386(4):305-315. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116846. Epub 2021 Dec 22.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19-related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28.
RESULTS: A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P = 0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19-related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12.).
Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Alain Amstutz, Benjamin Speich, France Mentré, Corina Silvia Rueegg, Drifa Belhadi, Lambert Assoumou, Charles Burdet, Srinivas Murthy, Lori Elizabeth Dodd, Yeming Wang, Kari A O Tikkinen, Florence Ader, Maya Hites, Maude Bouscambert, Mary Anne Trabaud, Mike Fralick, Todd C Lee, Ruxandra Pinto, Andreas Barratt-Due, Fridtjof Lund-Johansen, Fredrik Müller, Olli P O Nevalainen, Bin Cao, Tyler Bonnett, Alexandra Griessbach, Ala Taji Heravi, Christof Schönenberger, Perrine Janiaud, Laura Werlen, Soheila Aghlmandi, Stefan Schandelmaier, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Dominique Costagliola, Inge Christoffer Olsen, Matthias Briel
Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Lancet Respir Med. 2023 May;11(5):453-464. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00528-8. Epub 2023 Feb 21.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups.
METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134.
FINDINGS: Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (pinteraction=0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events.
INTERPRETATION: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated.
FUNDING: EU-RESPONSE.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Jason M Devgun, Rongmei Zhang, Jeffrey Brent, Paul Wax, Keith Burkhart, Alison Meyn, Sharan Campleman, Stephanie Abston, Kim Aldy, Toxicology Investigators Consortium FACT Study Group
Identification of Bradycardia Following Remdesivir Administration Through the US Food and Drug Administration American College of Medical Toxicology COVID-19 Toxic Pharmacovigilance Project.
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Feb 1;6(2):e2255815. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55815. Epub 2023 Feb 1.
Abstract/Text
IMPORTANCE: The rapid spread and mortality associated with COVID-19 emphasized a need for surveillance system development to identify adverse events (AEs) to emerging therapeutics. Bradycardia is a remdesivir infusion-associated AE listed in the US Food and Drug Administration-approved prescribing information.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the magnitude and duration of bradycardic events following remdesivir administration.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter cohort study of patients with recorded heart rate less than 60 beats per minute within 24 hours after administration of a remdesivir dose was conducted between November 23, 2020, and October 31, 2021. Participants included patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 15 medical centers across the US. Patients excluded had AEs unrelated to bradycardia, AEs in addition to bradycardia, or first onset of bradycardia after 5 remdesivir doses.
EXPOSURES: Remdesivir administration.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Linear mixed-effect models for the minimum HR before starting remdesivir and within 24 hours of each dose included doses as fixed effects. Baseline covariates were age (≥65 years vs <65 years), sex (male vs female), cardiovascular disease history (yes vs no), and concomitant use of bradycardia-associated medications. The interactions between variables and doses were considered fixed-effects covariates to adjust models.
RESULTS: A total of 188 patients were included in the primary analysis and 181 in the secondary analysis. The cohort included 108 men (57.4%); 75 individuals (39.9%) were non-Hispanic White and mean (SD) age was 61.3 (15.4) years. Minimum HR after doses 1 to 5 was lower than before remdesivir. Mean minimum HR was lowest after dose 4, decreasing by -15.2 beats per minute (95% CI, -17.4 to -13.1; P < .001) compared with before remdesivir administration. Mean (SD) minimum HR was 55.6 (10.2) beats per minute across all 5 doses. Of 181 patients included in time-to-event analysis, 91 had their first episode of bradycardia within 23.4 hours (95% CI, 20.1-31.5 hours) and 91 had their lowest HR within 60.7 hours (95% CI, 54.0-68.3 hours). Median time to first bradycardia after starting remdesivir was shorter for patients aged 65 years or older vs those younger than 65 years (18.7 hours; 95% CI, 16.8-23.7 hours vs 31.5 hours; 95% CI, 22.7-39.3 hours; P = .04). Median time to lowest HR was shorter for men vs women (54.2 hours; 95% CI, 47.3-62.0 hours vs 71.0 hours; 95% CI, 59.5-79.6 hours; P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study, bradycardia occurred during remdesivir infusion and persisted. Given the widespread use of remdesivir, practitioners should be aware of this safety signal.
Nelson Lee, K C Allen Chan, David S Hui, Enders K O Ng, Alan Wu, Rossa W K Chiu, Vincent W S Wong, Paul K S Chan, K T Wong, Eric Wong, C S Cockram, John S Tam, Joseph J Y Sung, Y M Dennis Lo
Effects of early corticosteroid treatment on plasma SARS-associated Coronavirus RNA concentrations in adult patients.
J Clin Virol. 2004 Dec;31(4):304-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2004.07.006.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The effect of corticosteroid treatment on the viral load of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) patients is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the plasma SARS-CoV RNA concentrations in ribavirin-treated patients who received early hydrocortisone therapy with those who received placebo.
STUDY DESIGN: Serial plasma SARS-CoV RNA concentrations measured in the setting of a prospective, randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy of "early" (<7 days of illness) hydrocortisone use in previously healthy SARS patients were analyzed. SARS-CoV RNA was quantified using a one-step real-time RT-PCR assay targeting the nucleocapsid gene.
RESULTS: Among 16 non-ICU cases, SARS-CoV RNA was detected in plasma since day 3-4 after fever onset; viral concentration peaked in the first week, which then rapidly declined in the second week of illness. On days 8, 12, 16, and 20, the cumulative proportion of patients with undetectable virus in plasma was 31%, 69%, 92%, and 100%, respectively. Plasma SARS-CoV RNA concentrations in the second and third week of illness were significantly higher in patients who received initial hydrocortisone treatment (n = 9), as compared to those who received placebo (n = 7)(AUC; Mann-Whitney, P = 0.023). The median time for SARS-CoV to become undetectable in plasma was 12 days (11-20 days) versus 8 days (8-15 days), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggested "early" corticosteroid treatment was associated with a higher subsequent plasma viral load.
RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Peter Horby, Wei Shen Lim, Jonathan R Emberson, Marion Mafham, Jennifer L Bell, Louise Linsell, Natalie Staplin, Christopher Brightling, Andrew Ustianowski, Einas Elmahi, Benjamin Prudon, Christopher Green, Timothy Felton, David Chadwick, Kanchan Rege, Christopher Fegan, Lucy C Chappell, Saul N Faust, Thomas Jaki, Katie Jeffery, Alan Montgomery, Kathryn Rowan, Edmund Juszczak, J Kenneth Baillie, Richard Haynes, Martin J Landray
Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 - Preliminary Report.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 17;. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021436. Epub 2020 Jul 17.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.
METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the preliminary results of this comparison.
RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.55).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group, Jonathan A C Sterne, Srinivas Murthy, Janet V Diaz, Arthur S Slutsky, Jesús Villar, Derek C Angus, Djillali Annane, Luciano Cesar Pontes Azevedo, Otavio Berwanger, Alexandre B Cavalcanti, Pierre-Francois Dequin, Bin Du, Jonathan Emberson, David Fisher, Bruno Giraudeau, Anthony C Gordon, Anders Granholm, Cameron Green, Richard Haynes, Nicholas Heming, Julian P T Higgins, Peter Horby, Peter Jüni, Martin J Landray, Amelie Le Gouge, Marie Leclerc, Wei Shen Lim, Flávia R Machado, Colin McArthur, Ferhat Meziani, Morten Hylander Møller, Anders Perner, Marie Warrer Petersen, Jelena Savovic, Bruno Tomazini, Viviane C Veiga, Steve Webb, John C Marshall
Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.
JAMA. 2020 Oct 6;324(13):1330-1341. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17023.
Abstract/Text
Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support.
Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios.
Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients).
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events.
Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo.
Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.
Rui Wang, et al. Meta-Analysis of Glucocorticoids for Covid-19 Patients Not Receiving Oxygen. NEJM Evidence, 2023;2(5).
RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Electronic address: recoverytrial@ndph.ox.ac.uk, RECOVERY Collaborative Group
Higher dose corticosteroids in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 who are hypoxic but not requiring ventilatory support (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.
Lancet. 2023 May 6;401(10387):1499-1507. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00510-X. Epub 2023 Apr 13.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Low-dose corticosteroids have been shown to reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen or ventilatory support (non-invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). We evaluated the use of a higher dose of corticosteroids in this patient group.
METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adult patients with clinical evidence of hypoxia (ie, receiving oxygen or with oxygen saturation <92% on room air) were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual care with higher dose corticosteroids (dexamethasone 20 mg once daily for 5 days followed by 10 mg dexamethasone once daily for 5 days or until discharge if sooner) or usual standard of care alone (which included dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for 10 days or until discharge if sooner). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality among all randomised participants. On May 11, 2022, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping recruitment of patients receiving no oxygen or simple oxygen only due to safety concerns. We report the results for these participants only. Recruitment of patients receiving ventilatory support is ongoing. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).
FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2021, and May 13, 2022, 1272 patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia receiving no oxygen (eight [1%]) or simple oxygen only (1264 [99%]) were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus higher dose corticosteroids (659 patients) versus usual care alone (613 patients, of whom 87% received low-dose corticosteroids during the follow-up period). Of those randomly assigned, 745 (59%) were in Asia, 512 (40%) in the UK, and 15 (1%) in Africa. 248 (19%) had diabetes and 769 (60%) were male. Overall, 123 (19%) of 659 patients allocated to higher dose corticosteroids versus 75 (12%) of 613 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·59 [95% CI 1·20-2·10]; p=0·0012). There was also an excess of pneumonia reported to be due to non-COVID infection (64 cases [10%] vs 37 cases [6%]; absolute difference 3·7% [95% CI 0·7-6·6]) and an increase in hyperglycaemia requiring increased insulin dose (142 [22%] vs 87 [14%]; absolute difference 7·4% [95% CI 3·2-11·5]).
INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised for COVID-19 with clinical hypoxia who required either no oxygen or simple oxygen only, higher dose corticosteroids significantly increased the risk of death compared with usual care, which included low-dose corticosteroids. The RECOVERY trial continues to assess the effects of higher dose corticosteroids in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who require non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health and Care Research, and Wellcome Trust.
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Andre C Kalil, Thomas F Patterson, Aneesh K Mehta, Kay M Tomashek, Cameron R Wolfe, Varduhi Ghazaryan, Vincent C Marconi, Guillermo M Ruiz-Palacios, Lanny Hsieh, Susan Kline, Victor Tapson, Nicole M Iovine, Mamta K Jain, Daniel A Sweeney, Hana M El Sahly, Angela R Branche, Justino Regalado Pineda, David C Lye, Uriel Sandkovsky, Anne F Luetkemeyer, Stuart H Cohen, Robert W Finberg, Patrick E H Jackson, Babafemi Taiwo, Catharine I Paules, Henry Arguinchona, Nathaniel Erdmann, Neera Ahuja, Maria Frank, Myoung-Don Oh, Eu-Suk Kim, Seow Y Tan, Richard A Mularski, Henrik Nielsen, Philip O Ponce, Barbara S Taylor, LuAnn Larson, Nadine G Rouphael, Youssef Saklawi, Valeria D Cantos, Emily R Ko, John J Engemann, Alpesh N Amin, Miki Watanabe, Joanne Billings, Marie-Carmelle Elie, Richard T Davey, Timothy H Burgess, Jennifer Ferreira, Michelle Green, Mat Makowski, Anabela Cardoso, Stephanie de Bono, Tyler Bonnett, Michael Proschan, Gregory A Deye, Walla Dempsey, Seema U Nayak, Lori E Dodd, John H Beigel, ACTT-2 Study Group Members
Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 4;384(9):795-807. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2031994. Epub 2020 Dec 11.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known.
METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15.
RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Vincent C Marconi, Athimalaipet V Ramanan, Stephanie de Bono, Cynthia E Kartman, Venkatesh Krishnan, Ran Liao, Maria Lucia B Piruzeli, Jason D Goldman, Jorge Alatorre-Alexander, Rita de Cassia Pellegrini, Vicente Estrada, Mousumi Som, Anabela Cardoso, Sujatro Chakladar, Brenda Crowe, Paulo Reis, Xin Zhang, David H Adams, E Wesley Ely, COV-BARRIER Study Group
Efficacy and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 (COV-BARRIER): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Dec;9(12):1407-1418. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00331-3. Epub 2021 Sep 1.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19.
METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027.
FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups.
INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19.
FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.
TRANSLATIONS: For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Andre Kramer, Carolin Prinz, Falk Fichtner, Anna-Lena Fischer, Volker Thieme, Felicitas Grundeis, Manuel Spagl, Christian Seeber, Vanessa Piechotta, Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Martin Golinski, Onnen Moerer, Caspar Stephani, Agata Mikolajewska, Stefan Kluge, Miriam Stegemann, Sven Laudi, Nicole Skoetz
Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 13;6(6):CD015209. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015209. Epub 2022 Jun 13.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).
Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
RECOVERY Collaborative Group
Baricitinib in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial and updated meta-analysis.
Lancet. 2022 Jul 30;400(10349):359-368. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01109-6.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the use of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1-2 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.
METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus baricitinib 4 mg once daily by mouth for 10 days or until discharge if sooner (baricitinib group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A meta-analysis was done, which included the results from the RECOVERY trial and all previous randomised controlled trials of baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936) and is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Feb 2 and Dec 29, 2021, from 10 852 enrolled, 8156 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus baricitinib versus usual care alone. At randomisation, 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids and 23% were receiving tocilizumab (with planned use within the next 24 h recorded for a further 9%). Overall, 514 (12%) of 4148 patients allocated to baricitinib versus 546 (14%) of 4008 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio 0·87; 95% CI 0·77-0·99; p=0·028). This 13% proportional reduction in mortality was somewhat smaller than that seen in a meta-analysis of eight previous trials of a JAK inhibitor (involving 3732 patients and 425 deaths), in which allocation to a JAK inhibitor was associated with a 43% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0·57; 95% CI 0·45-0·72). Including the results from RECOVERY in an updated meta-analysis of all nine completed trials (involving 11 888 randomly assigned patients and 1485 deaths) allocation to baricitinib or another JAK inhibitor was associated with a 20% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0·80; 95% CI 0·72-0·89; p<0·0001). In RECOVERY, there was no significant excess in death or infection due to non-COVID-19 causes and no significant excess of thrombosis, or other safety outcomes.
INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, baricitinib significantly reduced the risk of death but the size of benefit was somewhat smaller than that suggested by previous trials. The total randomised evidence to date suggests that JAK inhibitors (chiefly baricitinib) reduce mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 by about one-fifth.
FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
REMAP-CAP Investigators, Anthony C Gordon, Paul R Mouncey, Farah Al-Beidh, Kathryn M Rowan, Alistair D Nichol, Yaseen M Arabi, Djillali Annane, Abi Beane, Wilma van Bentum-Puijk, Lindsay R Berry, Zahra Bhimani, Marc J M Bonten, Charlotte A Bradbury, Frank M Brunkhorst, Adrian Buzgau, Allen C Cheng, Michelle A Detry, Eamon J Duffy, Lise J Estcourt, Mark Fitzgerald, Herman Goossens, Rashan Haniffa, Alisa M Higgins, Thomas E Hills, Christopher M Horvat, Francois Lamontagne, Patrick R Lawler, Helen L Leavis, Kelsey M Linstrum, Edward Litton, Elizabeth Lorenzi, John C Marshall, Florian B Mayr, Daniel F McAuley, Anna McGlothlin, Shay P McGuinness, Bryan J McVerry, Stephanie K Montgomery, Susan C Morpeth, Srinivas Murthy, Katrina Orr, Rachael L Parke, Jane C Parker, Asad E Patanwala, Ville Pettilä, Emma Rademaker, Marlene S Santos, Christina T Saunders, Christopher W Seymour, Manu Shankar-Hari, Wendy I Sligl, Alexis F Turgeon, Anne M Turner, Frank L van de Veerdonk, Ryan Zarychanski, Cameron Green, Roger J Lewis, Derek C Angus, Colin J McArthur, Scott Berry, Steve A Webb, Lennie P G Derde
Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 22;384(16):1491-1502. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100433. Epub 2021 Feb 25.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.
METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both.
RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists.
CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).
Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.
RECOVERY Collaborative Group
Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.
Lancet. 2021 May 1;397(10285):1637-1645. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00676-0.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation.
METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg-800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12-24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).
FINDINGS: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76-0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12-1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77-0·92; p<0·0001).
INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids.
FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.
Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group, Manu Shankar-Hari, Claire L Vale, Peter J Godolphin, David Fisher, Julian P T Higgins, Francesca Spiga, Jelena Savovic, Jayne Tierney, Gabriel Baron, Julie S Benbenishty, Lindsay R Berry, Niklas Broman, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti, Roos Colman, Stefanie L De Buyser, Lennie P G Derde, Pere Domingo, Sharifah Faridah Omar, Ana Fernandez-Cruz, Thijs Feuth, Felipe Garcia, Rosario Garcia-Vicuna, Isidoro Gonzalez-Alvaro, Anthony C Gordon, Richard Haynes, Olivier Hermine, Peter W Horby, Nora K Horick, Kuldeep Kumar, Bart N Lambrecht, Martin J Landray, Lorna Leal, David J Lederer, Elizabeth Lorenzi, Xavier Mariette, Nicolas Merchante, Nor Arisah Misnan, Shalini V Mohan, Michael C Nivens, Jarmo Oksi, Jose A Perez-Molina, Reuven Pizov, Raphael Porcher, Simone Postma, Reena Rajasuriar, Athimalaipet V Ramanan, Philippe Ravaud, Pankti D Reid, Abraham Rutgers, Aranzazu Sancho-Lopez, Todd B Seto, Sumathi Sivapalasingam, Arvinder Singh Soin, Natalie Staplin, John H Stone, Garth W Strohbehn, Jonas Sunden-Cullberg, Julian Torre-Cisneros, Larry W Tsai, Hubert van Hoogstraten, Tom van Meerten, Viviane Cordeiro Veiga, Peter E Westerweel, Srinivas Murthy, Janet V Diaz, John C Marshall, Jonathan A C Sterne
Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.
JAMA. 2021 Aug 10;326(6):499-518. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.11330.
Abstract/Text
IMPORTANCE: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.
DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.
STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.
RESULTS: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.
ACTIV-3/TICO LY-CoV555 Study Group, Jens D Lundgren, Birgit Grund, Christina E Barkauskas, Thomas L Holland, Robert L Gottlieb, Uriel Sandkovsky, Samuel M Brown, Kirk U Knowlton, Wesley H Self, D Clark Files, Mamta K Jain, Thomas Benfield, Michael E Bowdish, Bradley G Leshnower, Jason V Baker, Jens-Ulrik Jensen, Edward M Gardner, Adit A Ginde, Estelle S Harris, Isik S Johansen, Norman Markowitz, Michael A Matthay, Lars Østergaard, Christina C Chang, Victoria J Davey, Anna Goodman, Elizabeth S Higgs, Daniel D Murray, Thomas A Murray, Roger Paredes, Mahesh K B Parmar, Andrew N Phillips, Cavan Reilly, Shweta Sharma, Robin L Dewar, Marc Teitelbaum, Deborah Wentworth, Huyen Cao, Paul Klekotka, Abdel G Babiker, Annetine C Gelijns, Virginia L Kan, Mark N Polizzotto, B Taylor Thompson, H Clifford Lane, James D Neaton
A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 11;384(10):905-914. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2033130. Epub 2020 Dec 22.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.
METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5.
RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47).
CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
ACTIV-3/Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) Study Group
Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 May;22(5):622-635. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00751-9. Epub 2021 Dec 23.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.
METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.
FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.
INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.
FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Daichi Yamasoba, Yusuke Kosugi, Izumi Kimura, Shigeru Fujita, Keiya Uriu, Jumpei Ito, Kei Sato, Genotype to Phenotype Japan (G2P-Japan) Consortium
Neutralisation sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 omicron subvariants to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Jul;22(7):942-943. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00365-6. Epub 2022 Jun 9.
Abstract/Text
Emi Takashita, Seiya Yamayoshi, Viviana Simon, Harm van Bakel, Emilia M Sordillo, Andrew Pekosz, Shuetsu Fukushi, Tadaki Suzuki, Ken Maeda, Peter Halfmann, Yuko Sakai-Tagawa, Mutsumi Ito, Shinji Watanabe, Masaki Imai, Hideki Hasegawa, Yoshihiro Kawaoka
Efficacy of Antibodies and Antiviral Drugs against Omicron BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 Subvariants.
N Engl J Med. 2022 Aug 4;387(5):468-470. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2207519. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
Abstract/Text
Emi Takashita, Noriko Kinoshita, Seiya Yamayoshi, Yuko Sakai-Tagawa, Seiichiro Fujisaki, Mutsumi Ito, Kiyoko Iwatsuki-Horimoto, Peter Halfmann, Shinji Watanabe, Kenji Maeda, Masaki Imai, Hiroaki Mitsuya, Norio Ohmagari, Makoto Takeda, Hideki Hasegawa, Yoshihiro Kawaoka
Efficacy of Antiviral Agents against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariant BA.2.
N Engl J Med. 2022 Apr 14;386(15):1475-1477. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2201933. Epub 2022 Mar 9.
Abstract/Text
Masaki Imai, Mutsumi Ito, Maki Kiso, Seiya Yamayoshi, Ryuta Uraki, Shuetsu Fukushi, Shinji Watanabe, Tadaki Suzuki, Ken Maeda, Yuko Sakai-Tagawa, Kiyoko Iwatsuki-Horimoto, Peter J Halfmann, Yoshihiro Kawaoka
Efficacy of Antiviral Agents against Omicron Subvariants BQ.1.1 and XBB.
N Engl J Med. 2023 Jan 5;388(1):89-91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2214302. Epub 2022 Dec 7.
Abstract/Text
厚生労働省：[新型コロナウイルス感染症における中和抗体薬の医療機関への配分について （別紙及び質疑応答集の修正） https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/000996090.pdf]（令和4年9月30日最終改正）.
David M. Weinreich, Sumathi Sivapalasingam, Thomas Norton et al. REGEN-COV Antibody Cocktail Clinical Outcomes Study in Covid-19 Outpatients. medRxiv 2021, 2021.05.19.21257469. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.19.21257469v2.
Meagan P O'Brien, Eduardo Forleo-Neto, Bret J Musser, Flonza Isa, Kuo-Chen Chan, Neena Sarkar, Katharine J Bar, Ruanne V Barnabas, Dan H Barouch, Myron S Cohen, Christopher B Hurt, Dale R Burwen, Mary A Marovich, Peijie Hou, Ingeborg Heirman, John D Davis, Kenneth C Turner, Divya Ramesh, Adnan Mahmood, Andrea T Hooper, Jennifer D Hamilton, Yunji Kim, Lisa A Purcell, Alina Baum, Christos A Kyratsous, James Krainson, Richard Perez-Perez, Rizwana Mohseni, Bari Kowal, A Thomas DiCioccio, Neil Stahl, Leah Lipsich, Ned Braunstein, Gary Herman, George D Yancopoulos, David M Weinreich, Covid-19 Phase 3 Prevention Trial Team
Subcutaneous REGEN-COV Antibody Combination to Prevent Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2021 Sep 23;385(13):1184-1195. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109682. Epub 2021 Aug 4.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: REGEN-COV (previously known as REGN-COV2), a combination of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab, has been shown to markedly reduce the risk of hospitalization or death among high-risk persons with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether subcutaneous REGEN-COV prevents severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and subsequent Covid-19 in persons at high risk for infection because of household exposure to a person with SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown.
METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, participants (≥12 years of age) who were enrolled within 96 hours after a household contact received a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to receive a total dose of 1200 mg of REGEN-COV or matching placebo administered by means of subcutaneous injection. At the time of randomization, participants were stratified according to the results of the local diagnostic assay for SARS-CoV-2 and according to age. The primary efficacy end point was the development of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection through day 28 in participants who did not have SARS-CoV-2 infection (as measured by reverse-transcriptase-quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction assay) or previous immunity (seronegativity).
RESULTS: Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection developed in 11 of 753 participants in the REGEN-COV group (1.5%) and in 59 of 752 participants in the placebo group (7.8%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk], 81.4%; P<0.001). In weeks 2 to 4, a total of 2 of 753 participants in the REGEN-COV group (0.3%) and 27 of 752 participants in the placebo group (3.6%) had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (relative risk reduction, 92.6%). REGEN-COV also prevented symptomatic and asymptomatic infections overall (relative risk reduction, 66.4%). Among symptomatic infected participants, the median time to resolution of symptoms was 2 weeks shorter with REGEN-COV than with placebo (1.2 weeks and 3.2 weeks, respectively), and the duration of a high viral load (>104 copies per milliliter) was shorter (0.4 weeks and 1.3 weeks, respectively). No dose-limiting toxic effects of REGEN-COV were noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous REGEN-COV prevented symptomatic Covid-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in previously uninfected household contacts of infected persons. Among the participants who became infected, REGEN-COV reduced the duration of symptomatic disease and the duration of a high viral load. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04452318.).
Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Anil Gupta, Yaneicy Gonzalez-Rojas, Erick Juarez, Manuel Crespo Casal, Jaynier Moya, Diego R Falci, Elias Sarkis, Joel Solis, Hanzhe Zheng, Nicola Scott, Andrea L Cathcart, Christy M Hebner, Jennifer Sager, Erik Mogalian, Craig Tipple, Amanda Peppercorn, Elizabeth Alexander, Phillip S Pang, Almena Free, Cynthia Brinson, Melissa Aldinger, Adrienne E Shapiro, COMET-ICE Investigators
Early Treatment for Covid-19 with SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab.
N Engl J Med. 2021 Nov 18;385(21):1941-1950. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107934. Epub 2021 Oct 27.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) disproportionately results in hospitalization or death in older patients and those with underlying conditions. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus monoclonal antibody that was designed to prevent progression of Covid-19 in high-risk patients early in the course of disease.
METHODS: In this ongoing, multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic Covid-19 (≤5 days after the onset of symptoms) and at least one risk factor for disease progression to receive a single infusion of sotrovimab at a dose of 500 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was hospitalization (for >24 hours) for any cause or death within 29 days after randomization.
RESULTS: In this prespecified interim analysis, which included an intention-to-treat population of 583 patients (291 in the sotrovimab group and 292 in the placebo group), 3 patients (1%) in the sotrovimab group, as compared with 21 patients (7%) in the placebo group, had disease progression leading to hospitalization or death (relative risk reduction, 85%; 97.24% confidence interval, 44 to 96; P = 0.002). In the placebo group, 5 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, including 1 who died by day 29. Safety was assessed in 868 patients (430 in the sotrovimab group and 438 in the placebo group). Adverse events were reported by 17% of the patients in the sotrovimab group and 19% of those in the placebo group; serious adverse events were less common with sotrovimab than with placebo (in 2% and 6% of the patients, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, sotrovimab reduced the risk of disease progression. No safety signals were identified. (Funded by Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline; COMET-ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04545060.).
Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Myron J Levin, Andrew Ustianowski, Stéphane De Wit, Odile Launay, Miles Avila, Alison Templeton, Yuan Yuan, Seth Seegobin, Adam Ellery, Dennis J Levinson, Philip Ambery, Rosalinda H Arends, Rohini Beavon, Kanika Dey, Pedro Garbes, Elizabeth J Kelly, Gavin C K W Koh, Karen A Near, Kelly W Padilla, Konstantina Psachoulia, Audrey Sharbaugh, Katie Streicher, Menelas N Pangalos, Mark T Esser, PROVENT Study Group
Intramuscular AZD7442 (Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab) for Prevention of Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2022 Jun 9;386(23):2188-2200. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116620. Epub 2022 Apr 20.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The monoclonal-antibody combination AZD7442 is composed of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, two neutralizing antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that have an extended half-life and have been shown to have prophylactic and therapeutic effects in animal models. Pharmacokinetic data in humans indicate that AZD7442 has an extended half-life of approximately 90 days.
METHODS: In an ongoing phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years of age) who had an increased risk of an inadequate response to vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), an increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, or both. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive a single dose (two consecutive intramuscular injections, one containing tixagevimab and the other containing cilgavimab) of either 300 mg of AZD7442 or saline placebo, and they were followed for up to 183 days in the primary analysis. The primary safety end point was the incidence of adverse events after a single dose of AZD7442. The primary efficacy end point was symptomatic Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by means of reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay) occurring after administration of AZD7442 or placebo and on or before day 183.
RESULTS: A total of 5197 participants underwent randomization and received one dose of AZD7442 or placebo (3460 in the AZD7442 group and 1737 in the placebo group). The primary analysis was conducted after 30% of the participants had become aware of their randomized assignment. In total, 1221 of 3461 participants (35.3%) in the AZD7442 group and 593 of 1736 participants (34.2%) in the placebo group reported having at least one adverse event, most of which were mild or moderate in severity. Symptomatic Covid-19 occurred in 8 of 3441 participants (0.2%) in the AZD7442 group and in 17 of 1731 participants (1.0%) in the placebo group (relative risk reduction, 76.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 46.0 to 90.0; P<0.001); extended follow-up at a median of 6 months showed a relative risk reduction of 82.8% (95% CI, 65.8 to 91.4). Five cases of severe or critical Covid-19 and two Covid-19-related deaths occurred, all in the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of AZD7442 had efficacy for the prevention of Covid-19, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the U.S. government; PROVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04625725.).
Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.
厚生労働省：[別紙 中和抗体薬「チキサゲビマブ及びシルガビマブ」（エバシェルド）について https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/001015722.pdf]（令和 4年11月22日最終改正）.
Angélica Jayk Bernal, Monica M Gomes da Silva, Dany B Musungaie, Evgeniy Kovalchuk, Antonio Gonzalez, Virginia Delos Reyes, Alejandro Martín-Quirós, Yoseph Caraco, Angela Williams-Diaz, Michelle L Brown, Jiejun Du, Alison Pedley, Christopher Assaid, Julie Strizki, Jay A Grobler, Hala H Shamsuddin, Robert Tipping, Hong Wan, Amanda Paschke, Joan R Butterton, Matthew G Johnson, Carisa De Anda, MOVe-OUT Study Group
Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients.
N Engl J Med. 2021 Dec 16;. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116044. Epub 2021 Dec 16.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29.
RESULTS: A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).
Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Christopher C Butler, F D Richard Hobbs, Oghenekome A Gbinigie, Najib M Rahman, Gail Hayward, Duncan B Richards, Jienchi Dorward, David M Lowe, Joseph F Standing, Judith Breuer, Saye Khoo, Stavros Petrou, Kerenza Hood, Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam, Mahendra G Patel, Benjamin R Saville, Joe Marion, Emma Ogburn, Julie Allen, Heather Rutter, Nick Francis, Nicholas P B Thomas, Philip Evans, Melissa Dobson, Tracie-Ann Madden, Jane Holmes, Victoria Harris, May Ee Png, Mark Lown, Oliver van Hecke, Michelle A Detry, Christina T Saunders, Mark Fitzgerald, Nicholas S Berry, Lazaro Mwandigha, Ushma Galal, Sam Mort, Bhautesh D Jani, Nigel D Hart, Haroon Ahmed, Daniel Butler, Micheal McKenna, Jem Chalk, Layla Lavallee, Elizabeth Hadley, Lucy Cureton, Magdalena Benysek, Monique Andersson, Maria Coates, Sarah Barrett, Clare Bateman, Jennifer C Davies, Ivy Raymundo-Wood, Andrew Ustianowski, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Ly-Mee Yu, Paul Little, PANORAMIC Trial Collaborative Group
Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.
Lancet. 2023 Jan 28;401(10373):281-293. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02597-1. Epub 2022 Dec 22.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.
METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.
FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.
INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.
FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Saye H Khoo, Richard FitzGerald, Geoffrey Saunders, Calley Middleton, Shazaad Ahmad, Christopher J Edwards, Dennis Hadjiyiannakis, Lauren Walker, Rebecca Lyon, Victoria Shaw, Pavel Mozgunov, Jimstan Periselneris, Christie Woods, Katie Bullock, Colin Hale, Helen Reynolds, Nichola Downs, Sean Ewings, Amanda Buadi, David Cameron, Thomas Edwards, Emma Knox, I'ah Donovan-Banfield, William Greenhalf, Justin Chiong, Lara Lavelle-Langham, Michael Jacobs, Josh Northey, Wendy Painter, Wayne Holman, David G Lalloo, Michelle Tetlow, Julian A Hiscox, Thomas Jaki, Thomas Fletcher, Gareth Griffiths, AGILE CST-2 Study Group
Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2023 Feb;23(2):183-195. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00644-2. Epub 2022 Oct 19.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19.
METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial.
INTERPRETATION: We found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive.
FUNDING: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Yan Xie, Benjamin Bowe, Ziyad Al-Aly
Molnupiravir and risk of hospital admission or death in adults with covid-19: emulation of a randomized target trial using electronic health records.
BMJ. 2023 Mar 7;380:e072705. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072705. Epub 2023 Mar 7.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To emulate a randomized target trial to estimate the association between the antiviral drug molnupiravir and hospital admission or death in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community during the omicron predominant era who were at high risk of progression to severe covid-19.
DESIGN: Emulation of a randomized target trial using electronic health records.
SETTING: US Department of Veterans Affairs.
PARTICIPANTS: 85 998 adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection between 5 January and 30 September 2022 and at least one risk factor for progression to severe covid-19: 7818 participants were eligible for and treated with molnupiravir and 78 180 received no treatment.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: The primary outcome was a composite of hospital admission or death at 30 days. The clone method with inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to adjust for informative censoring and balance baseline characteristics between the groups. The cumulative incidence function was used to estimate the relative risk and the absolute risk reduction at 30 days.
RESULTS: Molnupiravir was associated with a reduction in hospital admissions or death at 30 days (relative risk 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.79)) compared with no treatment; the event rates for hospital admission or death at 30 days were 2.7% (95% confidence interval 2.5% to 3.0%) for molnupiravir and 3.8% (3.7% to 3.9%) for no treatment; the absolute risk reduction was 1.1% (95% confidence interval 0.8% to 1.4%). Molnupiravir appeared to be effective in those who had not been vaccinated against covid-19 (relative risk 0.83 (0.70 to 0.97) and absolute risk reduction 0.9% (0.2% to 1.9%)), had received one or two vaccine doses (0.69 (0.56 to 0.83) and 1.3% (0.7% to 1.9%)), and had received a booster dose (0.71 (0.58 to 0.83) and 1.0% (0.5% to 1.4%)); in those infected during the era when the omicron subvariant BA.1 or BA.2 was predominant (0.72 (0.62 to 0.83) and 1.2% (0.7% to 1.6%)) and when BA.5 was predominant (0.75 (0.66 to 0.86) and 0.9% (0.5% to 1.3%)); and in those with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (0.72 (0.64 to 0.81) and 1.1% (0.8% to 1.4%)) and with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (0.75 (0.58 to 0.97) and 1.1% (0.1% to 1.8%)).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this emulation of a randomized target trial suggest that molnupiravir might have reduced hospital admission or death at 30 days in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community during the recent omicron predominant era who were at high risk of progression to severe covid-19 and eligible for treatment with molnupiravir.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Jennifer Hammond, Heidi Leister-Tebbe, Annie Gardner, Paula Abreu, Weihang Bao, Wayne Wisemandle, MaryLynn Baniecki, Victoria M Hendrick, Bharat Damle, Abraham Simón-Campos, Rienk Pypstra, James M Rusnak, EPIC-HR Investigators
Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2022 Apr 14;386(15):1397-1408. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2118542. Epub 2022 Feb 16.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir is an orally administered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (Mpro) inhibitor with potent pan-human-coronavirus activity in vitro.
METHODS: We conducted a phase 2-3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in which symptomatic, unvaccinated, nonhospitalized adults at high risk for progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 300 mg of nirmatrelvir plus 100 mg of ritonavir (a pharmacokinetic enhancer) or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause through day 28, viral load, and safety were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 2246 patients underwent randomization; 1120 patients received nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (nirmatrelvir group) and 1126 received placebo (placebo group). In the planned interim analysis of patients treated within 3 days after symptom onset (modified intention-to treat population, comprising 774 of the 1361 patients in the full analysis population), the incidence of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death by day 28 was lower in the nirmatrelvir group than in the placebo group by 6.32 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.04 to -3.59; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 89.1%); the incidence was 0.77% (3 of 389 patients) in the nirmatrelvir group, with 0 deaths, as compared with 7.01% (27 of 385 patients) in the placebo group, with 7 deaths. Efficacy was maintained in the final analysis involving the 1379 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a difference of -5.81 percentage points (95% CI, -7.78 to -3.84; P<0.001; relative risk reduction, 88.9%). All 13 deaths occurred in the placebo group. The viral load was lower with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo at day 5 of treatment, with an adjusted mean difference of -0.868 log10 copies per milliliter when treatment was initiated within 3 days after the onset of symptoms. The incidence of adverse events that emerged during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (any adverse event, 22.6% with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir vs. 23.9% with placebo; serious adverse events, 1.6% vs. 6.6%; and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drugs or placebo, 2.1% vs. 4.2%). Dysgeusia (5.6% vs. 0.3%) and diarrhea (3.1% vs. 1.6%) occurred more frequently with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir than with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of symptomatic Covid-19 with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir resulted in a risk of progression to severe Covid-19 that was 89% lower than the risk with placebo, without evident safety concerns. (Supported by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04960202.).
Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Ronza Najjar-Debbiny, Naomi Gronich, Gabriel Weber, Johad Khoury, Maisam Amar, Nili Stein, Lee Hilary Goldstein, Walid Saliba
Effectiveness of Paxlovid in Reducing Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Mortality in High-Risk Patients.
Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Feb 8;76(3):e342-e349. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac443.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Paxlovid was granted an Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), based on the interim analysis of the Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients (EPIC-HR) trial. Paxlovid effectiveness needs to be assessed in a noncontrolled setting. In this study we used population-based real-world data to evaluate the effectiveness of Paxlovid.
METHODS: The database of the largest healthcare provider in Israel was used to identify all adults aged 18 years or older with first-ever positive test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 between January and February 2022, who were at high risk for severe COVID-19 and had no contraindications for Paxlovid use. Patients were included irrespective of their COVID-19 vaccination status. Cox hazard regression was used to estimate the 28-day hazard ratio (HR) for severe COVID-19 or mortality with Paxlovid examined as time-dependent variable.
RESULTS: Overall, 180 351 eligible patients were included; of these, only 4737 (2.6%) were treated with Paxlovid, and 135 482 (75.1%) had adequate COVID-19 vaccination status. Both Paxlovid and adequate COVID-19 vaccination status were associated with significant decrease in the rate of severe COVID-19 or mortality with adjusted HRs of 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.75) and 0.20 (95% CI, .17-.22), respectively. Paxlovid appears to be more effective in older patients, immunosuppressed patients, and patients with underlying neurological or cardiovascular disease (interaction P < .05 for all). No significant interaction was detected between Paxlovid treatment and COVID-19 vaccination status.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in the era of Omicron and in real-life settings, Paxlovid is highly effective in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 or mortality.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Scott Dryden-Peterson, Andy Kim, Arthur Y Kim, Ellen C Caniglia, Inga T Lennes, Rajesh Patel, Lindsay Gainer, Lisa Dutton, Elizabeth Donahue, Rajesh T Gandhi, Lindsey R Baden, Ann E Woolley
Nirmatrelvir Plus Ritonavir for Early COVID-19 in a Large U.S. Health System : A Population-Based Cohort Study.
Ann Intern Med. 2023 Jan;176(1):77-84. doi: 10.7326/M22-2141. Epub 2022 Dec 13.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: In the EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for Covid-19 in High-Risk Patients) trial, nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir led to an 89% reduction in hospitalization or death among unvaccinated outpatients with early COVID-19. The clinical impact of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir among vaccinated populations is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir reduces risk for hospitalization or death among outpatients with early COVID-19 in the setting of prevalent SARS-CoV-2 immunity and immune-evasive SARS-CoV-2 lineages.
DESIGN: Population-based cohort study analyzed to emulate a clinical trial using inverse probability-weighted models to account for anticipated bias in treatment.
SETTING: A large health care system providing care for 1.5 million patients in Massachusetts and New Hampshire during the Omicron wave (1 January to 17 July 2022).
PATIENTS: 44 551 nonhospitalized adults (90.3% with ≥3 vaccine doses) aged 50 years or older with COVID-19 and no contraindications for nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization within 14 days or death within 28 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis.
RESULTS: During the study period, 12 541 (28.1%) patients were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, and 32 010 (71.9%) were not. Patients prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir were more likely to be older, have more comorbidities, and be vaccinated. The composite outcome of hospitalization or death occurred in 69 (0.55%) patients who were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and 310 (0.97%) who were not (adjusted risk ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.75]). Recipients of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir had lower risk for hospitalization (adjusted risk ratio, 0.60 [CI, 0.44 to 0.81]) and death (adjusted risk ratio, 0.29 [CI, 0.12 to 0.71]).
LIMITATION: Potential residual confounding due to differential access to COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatment.
CONCLUSION: The overall risk for hospitalization or death was already low (1%) after an outpatient diagnosis of COVID-19, but nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir reduced this risk further.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
Sarju Ganatra, Sourbha S Dani, Javaria Ahmad, Ashish Kumar, Jui Shah, George M Abraham, Daniel P McQuillen, Robert M Wachter, Paul E Sax
Oral Nirmatrelvir and Ritonavir in Nonhospitalized Vaccinated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Feb 18;76(4):563-572. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac673.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir (NMV-r) in high-risk nonhospitalized unvaccinated patients reduced the risk of progression to severe disease. However, the potential benefits of NMV-r among vaccinated patients are unclear.
METHODS: We conducted a comparative retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX research network. Patients ≥18 years of age who were vaccinated and subsequently developed COVID-19 between 1 December 2021 and 18 April 2022 were included. Cohorts were developed based on the use of NMV-r within 5 days of diagnosis. The primary composite outcome was all-cause emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death at a 30-day follow-up. Secondary outcomes included individual components of primary outcomes, multisystem symptoms, COVID-19-associated complications, and diagnostic test utilization.
RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1130 patients remained in each cohort. A primary composite outcome of all-cause ER visits, hospitalization, or death in 30 days occurred in 89 (7.87%) patients in the NMV-r cohort compared with 163 (14.4%) patients in the non-NMV-r cohort (odds ratio: .5; 95% confidence interval: .39-.67; P < .005) consistent with 45% relative risk reduction. A significant reduction in multisystem symptom burden and subsequent complications, such as lower respiratory tract infection, cardiac arrhythmia, and diagnostic radiology testing, were noted in NMV-r-treated patients. There was no apparent increase in serious complications between days 10 and 30.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with NMV-r in nonhospitalized vaccinated patients with COVID-19 was associated with a reduced likelihood of ER visits, hospitalization, or death. Complications and overall resource utilization were also decreased.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Kevin L Schwartz, Jun Wang, Mina Tadrous, Bradley J Langford, Nick Daneman, Valerie Leung, Tara Gomes, Lindsay Friedman, Peter Daley, Kevin A Brown
Population-based evaluation of the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for reducing hospital admissions and mortality from COVID-19.
CMAJ. 2023 Feb 13;195(6):E220-E226. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.221608.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial involving a high-risk, unvaccinated population that was conducted before the Omicron variant emerged found that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was effective in preventing progression to severe COVID-19. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing severe COVID-19 while Omicron and its subvariants predominate.
METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario that included all residents who were older than 17 years of age and had a positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between Apr. 4 and Aug. 31, 2022. We compared patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with patients who were not treated and measured the primary outcome of hospital admission from COVID-19 or all-cause death at 1-30 days, and a secondary outcome of all-cause death. We used weighted logistic regression to calculate weighted odds ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (CIs) using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding.
RESULTS: The final cohort included 177 545 patients, 8876 (5.0%) who were treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 168 669 (95.0%) who were not treated. The groups were well balanced with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics after applying stabilized IPTW. We found that the occurrence of hospital admission or death was lower in the group given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir than in those who were not (2.1% v. 3.7%; weighted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47-0.67). For death alone, the weighted OR was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39-0.62). Our findings were similar across strata of age, drug-drug interactions, vaccination status and comorbidities. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 case of severe COVID-19 was 62 (95% CI 43-80), which varied across strata.
INTERPRETATION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with significantly reduced odds of hospital admission and death from COVID-19, which supports use to treat patients with mild COVID-19 who are at risk for severe disease.
© 2023 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.
Gordon Chun Kau Chan, Grace Chung Yan Lui, Candy Ngai Sze Wong, Sindy Sin Ting Yip, Timothy Chun Man Li, Catherine Siu King Cheung, Ryan Kin Ho Sze, Cheuk Chun Szeto, Kai Ming Chow
Safety Profile and Clinical and Virological Outcomes of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir Treatment in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Aug 2;. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad371. Epub 2023 Aug 2.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is currently not recommended in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/minute/1.73 m2.
METHODS: To determine the safety profile and clinical and virological outcomes of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir use at a modified dosage in adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a prospective, single-arm, interventional trial recruited patients with eGFR <30 mL/minute/1.73 m2 and on dialysis. Primary outcomes included safety profile, adverse/serious adverse events, and events leading to drug discontinuation. Disease symptoms, virological outcomes by serial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, rapid antigen tests, and virological and symptomatic rebound were also recorded.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine (69.4%) of the 85 participants had stage 5 CKD and were on dialysis. Eighty (94.1%) completed the full treatment course; 9.4% and 5.9% had adverse and serious adverse events, and these were comparable between those with eGFR < or >30 mL/minute/1.73 m2. The viral load significantly decreased on days 5, 15, and 30 (P < .001 for all), and the reduction was consistent in the subgroup with eGFR <30 mL/minute/1.73 m2. Ten patients had virological rebound, which was transient and asymptomatic.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD, a modified dose of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is a well-tolerated therapy in mild COVID-19 as it can effectively suppress the SARS-CoV-2 viral load with a favorable safety profile. Virological and symptomatic rebound, although transient with low infectivity, may occur after treatment. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir should be considered for use in patients with CKD, including stage 5 CKD on dialysis. Clinical Trials Registration. Clinical Trials.gov; identifier: NCT05624840.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Hong Cai, Jiayi Yan, Shang Liu, Ping Li, Li Ding, Yaping Zhan, Jiayue Lu, Zhenyuan Li, Yiwen Sun, Mingli Zhu, Yuan Gao, Xingrong Gong, Haiqun Ban, Leyi Gu, Weibin Zhou, Jieying Wang, Shan Mou
Paxlovid for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with chronic kidney disease.
Antiviral Res. 2023 Aug;216:105659. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2023.105659. Epub 2023 Jun 25.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 causes significant mortality during the recent pandemic. Data regarding the effectiveness of Paxlovid on COVID-19 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD, eGFR <90 ml/min) are limited.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on the clinical data of the hospitalized adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection collected at Renji Hospital from April 7, 2022 to June 21, 2022. The association of Paxlovid treatment with early (within 5 days post diagnosis) or late (5 days or later post diagnosis) initiation time with clinical outcomes was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression model with time-dependent covariates.
RESULT: 1279 of 2387 enrollees were included in the study. Patients with early initiation of Paxlovid had a lower all-cause death rate compared to those with late initiation or without Paxlovid treatment (P = 0.046). For the CKD patients with Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) > 7, the early initiation of Paxlovid was associated with a lower all-cause death rate compared to the later initiation or the lack of Paxlovid treatment (P = 0.041). Cox regression analyses revealed that eGFR (HR 4.21 [95%, CI 1.62-10.99]), Paxlovid treatment (0.32 [0.13-0.77]), CCI (4.32 [1.64-11.40]), ICU admission (2.65 [1.09-6.49]), hsCRP (3.88 [1.46-7.80]), chronic liver disease (4.02 [1.09-14.85]) were the independent risk factors for all-cause death for CKD patients after adjusting for demographics and biochemical indexes.
CONCLUSIONS: All-cause death, invasive ventilation, and ICU admission were all significantly lowered by an early initiation of Paxlovid treatment in COVID-19 patients with severe CKD.
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Sima S Toussi, Joel Michael Neutel, Jesus Navarro, Richard Alfred Preston, Haihong Shi, Olga Kavetska, Robert R LaBadie, Michael Binks, Phylinda L S Chan, Neil Demers, Brian Corrigan, Bharat Damle
Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, a Protease Inhibitor for Treatment of COVID-19, in Subjects With Renal Impairment.
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2022 Oct;112(4):892-900. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2688. Epub 2022 Jul 5.
Abstract/Text
Nirmatrelvir coadministered with ritonavir is highly efficacious in reducing the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) adverse outcomes among patients at increased risk of progression to severe disease, including patients with chronic kidney disease. Because nirmatrelvir is eliminated by the kidneys when given with ritonavir, this phase I study evaluated the effects of renal impairment on pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Participants with normal renal function (n = 10) or mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment (n = 8 each) were administered a single 100-mg nirmatrelvir dose with 100 mg ritonavir given 12 hours before, together with and 12 and 24 hours after the nirmatrelvir dose. Systemic nirmatrelvir exposure increased with increasing renal impairment, with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment groups having respective adjusted geometric mean ratio areas under the plasma concentration-time profile from time 0 extrapolated to infinite time of 124%, 187%, and 304% vs. the normal renal function group. Corresponding ratios for maximum plasma concentration were 130%, 138%, and 148%. Apparent clearance was positively correlated with estimated glomerular filtration rate, and geometric mean renal clearance values were particularly lower for the moderate (47% decrease) and severe (80% decrease) renal impairment groups vs. the normal renal function group. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir exhibited an acceptable safety profile; treatment-related adverse events were mild in severity, and there were no significant findings regarding laboratory measurements, vital signs, or electrocardiogram assessments. These findings led to a dose reduction recommendation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients with moderate renal impairment (150/100 mg nirmatrelvir/ritonavir instead of 300/100 mg twice daily for 5 days). NCT04909853.
© 2022 Pfizer Inc. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
Annaliesa S Anderson, Patrick Caubel, James M Rusnak, EPIC-HR Trial Investigators
Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and Viral Load Rebound in Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2022 Sep 15;387(11):1047-1049. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2205944. Epub 2022 Sep 7.
Abstract/Text
Lindsey Wang, Nathan A Berger, Pamela B Davis, David C Kaelber, Nora D Volkow, Rong Xu
COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir during January-June 2022.
medRxiv. 2022 Jun 22;. doi: 10.1101/2022.06.21.22276724. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
Abstract/Text
IMPORTANCE: Recent case reports document that some patients who were treated with Paxlovid experienced rebound COVID-19 infections and symptoms 2 to 8 days after completing a 5-day course of Paxlovid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recently issued a Health Alert Network Health Advisory to update the public on the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatments. However, the rates of COVID-19 rebound in a real-world population or whether rebound is unique to Paxlovid remains unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the rates and relative risks of COVID-19 rebound in patients treated with Paxlovid or with Molnupiravir and to compare characteristics of patients who experienced COVID-19 rebound to those who did not.
DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of electronic health records (EHRs) of 92 million patients from a multicenter and nationwide database in the US. The study population comprised 13,644 patients age ≥ 18 years who contracted COVID-19 between 1/1/2022-6/8/2022 and were treated with Paxlovid (n =11,270) or with Molnupiravir (n =2,374) within 5 days of their COVID-19 infection.
EXPOSURES: Paxlovid or Molnupiravir.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Three types of COVID-19 rebound outcomes (COVID-19 infections, COVID-19 related symptoms, and hospitalizations) were examined. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 7-day and 30-day risk for COVID-19 rebound between patients treated with Paxlovid and patients treated with Molnupiravir were calculated before and after propensity-score matching.
RESULTS: The 7-day and 30-day COVID-19 rebound rates after Paxlovid treatment were 3.53% and 5.40% for COVID-19 infection, 2.31% and 5.87% for COVID-19 symptoms, and 0.44% and 0.77% for hospitalizations. The 7-day and 30-day COVID-19 rebound rates after Molnupiravir treatment were 5.86% and 8.59% for COVID-19 infection, 3.75% and 8.21% for COVID-19 symptoms, and 0.84% and 1.39% for hospitalizations. After propensity-score matching, there were no significant differences in COVID-19 rebound risks between Paxlovid and Molnupiravir: infection (HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73-1.11), COVID-19 symptoms (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.83-1.27), or hospitalizations (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.56-1.55). Patients with COVID-19 rebound had significantly higher prevalence of underlying medical conditions than those without.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: COVID-19 rebound occurred both after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, especially in patients with underlying medical conditions. This indicates that COVID-19 rebound is not unique to Paxlovid and the risks were similar for Paxlovid and Molnupiravir. For both drugs the rates of COVID-19 rebound increased with time after treatments. Our results call for continuous surveillance of COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir treatments. Studies are necessary to determine the mechanisms underlying COVID-19 rebounds and to test dosing and duration regimes that might prevent such rebounds in vulnerable patients.
Hiroshi Mukae, Hiroshi Yotsuyanagi, Norio Ohmagari, Yohei Doi, Hiroki Sakaguchi, Takuhiro Sonoyama, Genki Ichihashi, Takao Sanaki, Keiko Baba, Yuko Tsuge, Takeki Uehara
Efficacy and Safety of Ensitrelvir in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Phase 2b Part of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2/3 Study.
Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Apr 17;76(8):1403-1411. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac933.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: This phase 2b part of a randomized phase 2/3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ensitrelvir for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the Omicron epidemic.
METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to orally receive ensitrelvir fumaric acid 125 mg (375 mg on day 1) or 250 mg (750 mg on day 1) or placebo once daily for 5 days. The co-primary endpoints were the change from baseline in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) titer on day 4 and time-weighted average change from baseline up to 120 hours in the total score of predefined 12 COVID-19 symptoms. Safety was assessed through adverse events.
RESULTS: A total of 341 patients (ensitrelvir 125-mg group: 114; ensitrelvir 250-mg group: 116; and placebo group: 111; male: 53.5-64.9%; mean age: 35.3-37.3 years) were included in the efficacy analyses. The change from baseline in SARS-CoV-2 titer on day 4 was significantly greater with both ensitrelvir doses than with placebo (differences from placebo: -0.41 log10 50% tissue-culture infectious dose/mL; P < .0001 for both). The total score of the 12 COVID-19 symptoms did not show a significant difference between the ensitrelvir groups and placebo group. The time-weighted average change from baseline up to 120 hours was significantly greater with ensitrelvir versus placebo in several subtotal scores, including acute symptoms and respiratory symptoms. Most adverse events were mild in severity.
CONCLUSIONS: Ensitrelvir treatment demonstrated a favorable antiviral efficacy and potential clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials: jRCT2031210350 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2031210350).
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Yuani M Roman, Paula Alejandra Burela, Vinay Pasupuleti, Alejandro Piscoya, Jose E Vidal, Adrian V Hernandez
Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jun 28;. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab591. Epub 2021 Jun 28.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS: Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing IVM effects on COVID-19 adult patients were searched until March 22, 2021 in five engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2·0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology.
RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI -0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM.
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Andrew Bryant, Theresa A Lawrie, Therese Dowswell, Edmund J Fordham, Scott Mitchell, Sarah R Hill, Tony C Tham
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines.
Am J Ther. 2021 Jun 21;28(4):e434-e460. doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402. Epub 2021 Jun 21.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.
DATA SOURCES: We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Gilmar Reis, Eduardo A S M Silva, Daniela C M Silva, Lehana Thabane, Aline C Milagres, Thiago S Ferreira, Castilho V Q Dos Santos, Vitoria H S Campos, Ana M R Nogueira, Ana P F G de Almeida, Eduardo D Callegari, Adhemar D F Neto, Leonardo C M Savassi, Maria I C Simplicio, Luciene B Ribeiro, Rosemary Oliveira, Ofir Harari, Jamie I Forrest, Hinda Ruton, Sheila Sprague, Paula McKay, Christina M Guo, Karen Rowland-Yeo, Gordon H Guyatt, David R Boulware, Craig R Rayner, Edward J Mills, TOGETHER Investigators
Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19.
N Engl J Med. 2022 May 5;386(18):1721-1731. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2115869. Epub 2022 Mar 30.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear.
METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 μg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.
RESULTS: A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).
Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Adarsh Bhimraj, Rebecca L Morgan, Amy Hirsch Shumaker, Valery Lavergne, Lindsey Baden, Vincent Chi-Chung Cheng, Kathryn M Edwards, Rajesh Gandhi, William J Muller, John C O'Horo, Shmuel Shoham, M Hassan Murad, Reem A Mustafa, Shahnaz Sultan, Yngve Falck-Ytter
Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19.
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 27;. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa478. Epub 2020 Apr 27.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of COVID-19. There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature.
OBJECTIVE: Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians and other health-care professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.
METHODS: IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.
RESULTS: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations.
CONCLUSIONS: The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Thomas M Drake, Cameron J Fairfield, Riinu Pius, Stephen R Knight, Lisa Norman, Michelle Girvan, Hayley E Hardwick, Annemarie B Docherty, Ryan S Thwaites, Peter J M Openshaw, J Kenneth Baillie, Ewen M Harrison, Malcolm G Semple, ISARIC4C Investigators
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study.
Lancet Rheumatol. 2021 Jul;3(7):e498-e506. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00104-1. Epub 2021 May 7.
Abstract/Text
Background: Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease.
Methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations.
Results: Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no significant differences in severity between exposure groups. After adjusting for explanatory variables, NSAID use was not associated with worse in-hospital mortality (matched OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·84-1·07; p=0·35), critical care admission (1·01, 0·87-1·17; p=0·89), requirement for invasive ventilation (0·96, 0·80-1·17; p=0·69), requirement for non-invasive ventilation (1·12, 0·96-1·32; p=0·14), requirement for oxygen (1·00, 0·89-1·12; p=0·97), or occurrence of acute kidney injury (1·08, 0·92-1·26; p=0·33).
Interpretation: NSAID use is not associated with higher mortality or increased severity of COVID-19. Policy makers should consider reviewing issued advice around NSAID prescribing and COVID-19 severity.
Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
F A Klok, M J H A Kruip, N J M van der Meer, M S Arbous, D A M P J Gommers, K M Kant, F H J Kaptein, J van Paassen, M A M Stals, M V Huisman, H Endeman
Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19.
Thromb Res. 2020 Apr 10;. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013. Epub 2020 Apr 10.
Abstract/Text
INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 may predispose to both venous and arterial thromboembolism due to excessive inflammation, hypoxia, immobilisation and diffuse intravascular coagulation. Reports on the incidence of thrombotic complications are however not available.
METHODS: We evaluated the incidence of the composite outcome of symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep-vein thrombosis, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction or systemic arterial embolism in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of 2 Dutch university hospitals and 1 Dutch teaching hospital.
RESULTS: We studied 184 ICU patients with proven COVID-19 pneumonia of whom 23 died (13%), 22 were discharged alive (12%) and 139 (76%) were still on the ICU on April 5th 2020. All patients received at least standard doses thromboprophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of the composite outcome was 31% (95%CI 20-41), of which CTPA and/or ultrasonography confirmed VTE in 27% (95%CI 17-37%) and arterial thrombotic events in 3.7% (95%CI 0-8.2%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication (n = 25, 81%). Age (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.05/per year, 95%CI 1.004-1.01) and coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of the prothrombin time > 3 s or activated partial thromboplastin time > 5 s (aHR 4.1, 95%CI 1.9-9.1), were independent predictors of thrombotic complications.
CONCLUSION: The 31% incidence of thrombotic complications in ICU patients with COVID-19 infections is remarkably high. Our findings reinforce the recommendation to strictly apply pharmacological thrombosis prophylaxis in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, and are strongly suggestive of increasing the prophylaxis towards high-prophylactic doses, even in the absence of randomized evidence.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
R J Smith, R G Bryant
Metal substitutions incarbonic anhydrase: a halide ion probe study.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1975 Oct 27;66(4):1281-6.
Abstract/Text
日本静脈学会、肺塞栓症研究会、日本血管外科学会、日本脈管学会：新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）における静脈血栓塞栓症予防の診療指針.
Alexander Muik, Bonny Gaby Lui, Ann-Kathrin Wallisch, Maren Bacher, Julia Mühl, Jonas Reinholz, Orkun Ozhelvaci, Nina Beckmann, Ramón de la Caridad Güimil Garcia, Asaf Poran, Svetlana Shpyro, Andrew Finlayson, Hui Cai, Qi Yang, Kena A Swanson, Özlem Türeci, Uğur Şahin
Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron by BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine-elicited human sera.
Science. 2022 Feb 11;375(6581):678-680. doi: 10.1126/science.abn7591. Epub 2022 Jan 18.
Abstract/Text
The globally circulating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant of concern Omicron (B.1.1.529) has a large number of mutations, especially in the spike protein, indicating that recognition by neutralizing antibodies may be compromised. We tested Wuhan (Wuhan-Hu-1 reference strain), Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2), or Omicron pseudoviruses with sera of 51 participants who received two or three doses of the messenger RNA (mRNA)-based COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2. After two doses, Omicron-neutralizing titers were reduced >22-fold compared with Wuhan-neutralizing titers. One month after the third vaccine dose, Omicron-neutralizing titers were increased 23-fold relative to their levels after two doses and were similar to levels of Wuhan-neutralizing titers after two doses. The requirement of a third vaccine dose to effectively neutralize Omicron was confirmed with sera from a subset of participants using live SARS-CoV-2. These data suggest that three doses of the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 may protect against Omicron-mediated COVID-19.
Nicole A Doria-Rose, Xiaoying Shen, Stephen D Schmidt, Sijy O'Dell, Charlene McDanal, Wenhong Feng, Jin Tong, Amanda Eaton, Maha Maglinao, Haili Tang, Kelly E Manning, Venkata-Viswanadh Edara, Lilin Lai, Madison Ellis, Kathryn Moore, Katharine Floyd, Stephanie L Foster, Robert L Atmar, Kirsten E Lyke, Tongqing Zhou, Lingshu Wang, Yi Zhang, Martin R Gaudinski, Walker P Black, Ingelise Gordon, Mercy Guech, Julie E Ledgerwood, John N Misasi, Alicia Widge, Paul C Roberts, John Beigel, Bette Korber, Rolando Pajon, John R Mascola, Mehul S Suthar, David C Montefiori
Booster of mRNA-1273 Strengthens SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Neutralization.
medRxiv. 2021 Dec 20;. doi: 10.1101/2021.12.15.21267805. Epub 2021 Dec 20.
Abstract/Text
The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 is raising concerns because of its increased transmissibility and potential for reduced susceptibility to antibody neutralization. To assess the potential risk of this variant to existing vaccines, serum samples from mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients were tested for neutralizing activity against Omicron and compared to neutralization titers against D614G and Beta in live virus and pseudovirus assays. Omicron was 41-84-fold less sensitive to neutralization than D614G and 5.3-7.4-fold less sensitive than Beta when assayed with serum samples obtained 4 weeks after 2 standard inoculations with 100 μg mRNA-1273. A 50 μg boost increased Omicron neutralization titers and may substantially reduce the risk of symptomatic vaccine breakthrough infections.
Delphine Planas, Isabelle Staropoli, Françoise Porot, Florence Guivel-Benhassine, Lynda Handala, Matthieu Prot, William-Henry Bolland, Julien Puech, Hélène Péré, David Veyer, Aymeric Sève, Etienne Simon-Lorière, Timothée Bruel, Thierry Prazuck, Karl Stefic, Laurent Hocqueloux, Olivier Schwartz
Duration of BA.5 neutralization in sera and nasal swabs from SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated individuals, with or without omicron breakthrough infection.
Med (N Y). 2022 Oct 5;. doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2022.09.010. Epub 2022 Oct 5.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Since early 2022, Omicron BA.1 has been eclipsed by BA.2, which was in turn outcompeted by BA.5, which displays enhanced antibody escape properties.
METHODS: Here, we evaluated the duration of the neutralizing antibody (Nab) response, up to 18 months after Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccination, in individuals with or without BA.1/BA.2 breakthrough infection. We measured neutralization of the ancestral D614G lineage, Delta, and Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 variants in 300 sera and 35 nasal swabs from 27 individuals.
FINDINGS: Upon vaccination, serum Nab titers were decreased by 10-, 15-, and 25-fold for BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5, respectively, compared with D614G. We estimated that, after boosting, the duration of neutralization was markedly shortened from 11.5 months with D614G to 5.5 months with BA.5. After breakthrough, we observed a sharp increase of Nabs against Omicron subvariants, followed by a plateau and a slow decline after 5-6 months. In nasal swabs, infection, but not vaccination, triggered a strong immunoglobulin A (IgA) response and a detectable Omicron-neutralizing activity.
CONCLUSIONS: BA.5 spread is partly due to abbreviated vaccine efficacy, particularly in individuals who were not infected with previous Omicron variants.
FUNDING: Work in O.S.'s laboratory is funded by the Institut Pasteur, Urgence COVID-19 Fundraising Campaign of Institut Pasteur, Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FRM), ANRS, the Vaccine Research Institute (ANR-10-LABX-77), Labex IBEID (ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID), ANR/FRM Flash Covid PROTEO-SARS-CoV-2, ANR Coronamito, and IDISCOVR, Laboratoire d'Excellence 'Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases' (grant no. ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID), HERA european funding and the NIH PICREID (grant no U01AI151758).
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Kohei Kamegai, Noriko Iwamoto, Tomiteru Togano, Kenji Maeda, Yuki Takamatsu, Yusuke Miyazato, Masahiro Ishikane, Masashi Mizokami, Masaya Sugiyama, Shun Iida, Sho Miyamoto, Tadaki Suzuki, Norio Ohmagari
A Fatal Breakthrough COVID-19 Case Following Bendamustine-Rituximab Therapy.
Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Aug;121:85-88. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.04.058. Epub 2022 Apr 30.
Abstract/Text
Although messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines are substantially effective toward SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with hematologic malignancies are still prone to the virus. Herein, we report a fatal case of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infection in a patient with mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma with remission by bendamustine-rituximab (BR) therapy completed a year ago. The serologic study revealed impaired responsiveness toward vaccines and prolonged high viral load after infection. BR therapy seemingly induced an immune escape. Prevention and treatment strategies for such vulnerable patients should be clarified immediately.
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Teresa Aydillo, Ana S Gonzalez-Reiche, Sadaf Aslam, Adriana van de Guchte, Zenab Khan, Ajay Obla, Jayeeta Dutta, Harm van Bakel, Judith Aberg, Adolfo García-Sastre, Gunjan Shah, Tobias Hohl, Genovefa Papanicolaou, Miguel-Angel Perales, Kent Sepkowitz, N Esther Babady, Mini Kamboj
Shedding of Viable SARS-CoV-2 after Immunosuppressive Therapy for Cancer.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 24;383(26):2586-2588. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2031670. Epub 2020 Dec 1.
Abstract/Text
SeyedAhmad SeyedAlinaghi, Amir Masoud Afsahi, Mehrzad MohsseniPour, Farzane Behnezhad, Mohammad Amin Salehi, Alireza Barzegary, Pegah Mirzapour, Esmaeil Mehraeen, Omid Dadras
Late Complications of COVID-19; a Systematic Review of Current Evidence.
Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2021;9(1):e14. Epub 2021 Jan 20.
Abstract/Text
Angelo Carfì, Roberto Bernabei, Francesco Landi, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group
Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19.
JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):603-605. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12603.
Abstract/Text
Yusuke Miyazato, Shinichiro Morioka, Shinya Tsuzuki, Masako Akashi, Yasuyo Osanai, Keiko Tanaka, Mari Terada, Michiyo Suzuki, Satoshi Kutsuna, Sho Saito, Kayoko Hayakawa, Norio Ohmagari
Prolonged and Late-Onset Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Nov;7(11):ofaa507. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa507. Epub 2020 Oct 21.
Abstract/Text
Some patients who recover from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have prolonged symptoms such as dyspnea, fatigue, cough, and dysosmia for longer than 120 days after symptom onset. In addition, some patients who recovered from COVID-19 reported hair loss a few months after the onset of the disease. Alopecia is a late-onset symptom of COVID-19. The cause of alopecia is unknown; however, androgenic alopecia and telogen effluvium are possible causes.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Grant Waterer
Recovery from community acquired pneumonia: the view from the top of the iceberg.
Eur Respir J. 2017 Jun;49(6). doi: 10.1183/13993003.00571-2017. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
Abstract/Text
Yuhui Wang, Chengjun Dong, Yue Hu, Chungao Li, Qianqian Ren, Xin Zhang, Heshui Shi, Min Zhou
Temporal Changes of CT Findings in 90 Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Longitudinal Study.
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E55-E64. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200843. Epub 2020 Mar 19.
Abstract/Text
Background CT may play a central role in the diagnosis and management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Purpose To perform a longitudinal study to analyze the serial CT findings over time in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods During January 16 to February 17, 2020, 90 patients (33 men, 57 women; mean age, 45 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia were prospectively enrolled and followed up until being discharged, death, or the end of the study. A total of 366 CT scans were acquired and reviewed by two groups of radiologists for the patterns and distribution of lung abnormalities, total CT scores, and number of zones involved. Those features were analyzed for temporal change. Results CT scores and number of zones involved progressed rapidly, peaked during illness days 6-11 (median CT score, 5; median number of zones involved, five), and were followed by persistence of high levels. The predominant pattern of abnormalities after symptom onset was ground-glass opacity (35 of 78 scans [45%] to 49 of 79 scans [62%] in different periods). The percentage of mixed pattern peaked on illness days 12-17 (30 of 78 scans [38%]) and became the second most predominant pattern thereafter. Pure ground-glass opacity was the most prevalent subtype of ground-glass opacity after symptom onset (20 of 50 scans [40%] to 20 of 28 scans [71%]). The percentage of ground-glass opacity with irregular linear opacity peaked on illness days 6-11 (14 of 50 scans [28%]) and became the second most prevalent subtype thereafter. The distribution of lesions was predominantly bilateral and subpleural. Sixty-six of the 70 patients discharged (94%) had residual disease on final CT scans (median CT score, 4; median number of zones involved, four), with ground-glass opacity (42 of 70 patients [60%]) and pure ground-glass opacity (31 of 42 patients [74%]) the most common pattern and subtype. Conclusion The extent of lung abnormalities at CT peaked during illness days 6-11. The temporal changes of the diverse CT manifestations followed a specific pattern, which might indicate the progression and recovery of the illness. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Samir Nusair
Abnormal carbon monoxide diffusion capacity in COVID-19 patients at time of hospital discharge.
Eur Respir J. 2020 Jul;56(1). doi: 10.1183/13993003.01832-2020. Epub 2020 Jul 23.
Abstract/Text
Chaolin Huang, Lixue Huang, Yeming Wang, Xia Li, Lili Ren, Xiaoying Gu, Liang Kang, Li Guo, Min Liu, Xing Zhou, Jianfeng Luo, Zhenghui Huang, Shengjin Tu, Yue Zhao, Li Chen, Decui Xu, Yanping Li, Caihong Li, Lu Peng, Yong Li, Wuxiang Xie, Dan Cui, Lianhan Shang, Guohui Fan, Jiuyang Xu, Geng Wang, Ying Wang, Jingchuan Zhong, Chen Wang, Jianwei Wang, Dingyu Zhang, Bin Cao
6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study.
Lancet. 2021 Jan 16;397(10270):220-232. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8. Epub 2021 Jan 8.
Abstract/Text
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.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Martijn A Spruit, Anne E Holland, Sally J Singh, Thomy Tonia, Kevin C Wilson, Thierry Troosters
COVID-19: Interim Guidance on Rehabilitation in the Hospital and Post-Hospital Phase from a European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society-coordinated International Task Force.
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 13;. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02197-2020. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 or post-COVID-19 will most probably have a need for rehabilitation during and directly after the hospitalisation. Data on safety and efficacy are lacking. Healthcare professionals cannot wait for published randomised controlled trials before they can start these rehabilitative interventions in daily clinical practice, as the number of post-COVID-19 patients increases rapidly. The Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence process was used to make interim recommendation for the rehabilitation in the hospital and post-hospital phase in COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 patients, respectively.
METHODS: 93 experts were asked to fill out 13 multiple choice questions. Agreement of directionality was tabulated for each question. At least 70% agreement on directionality was necessary to make consensus suggestions.
RESULTS: 76 experts (82%) reached consensus on all questions based upon indirect evidence and clinical experience on the need for early rehabilitation during the hospital admission, the screening for treatable traits with rehabilitation in all patients at discharge and 6-8 weeks after discharge, and around the content of rehabilitation for these patients. It advocates for assessment of oxygen needs at discharge and more comprehensive assessment of rehabilitation needs including physical as well as mental aspects 6-8 weeks after discharge. Based on the deficits identified multidisciplinary rehabilitation should be offered with attention for skeletal muscle and functional as well as mental restoration.
CONCLUSIONS: This multinational task force recommends early, bedside rehabilitation for patients affected by severe COVID-19. The model of pulmonary rehabilitation may suit as a framework, particularly in a subset of patients with long term respiratory consequences.
Copyright ©ERS 2020.
Laura D Zambrano, Sascha Ellington, Penelope Strid, Romeo R Galang, Titilope Oduyebo, Van T Tong, Kate R Woodworth, John F Nahabedian, Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner, Suzanne M Gilboa, Dana Meaney-Delman, CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team
Update: Characteristics of Symptomatic Women of Reproductive Age with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Pregnancy Status - United States, January 22-October 3, 2020.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Nov 6;69(44):1641-1647. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3. Epub 2020 Nov 6.
Abstract/Text
Studies suggest that pregnant women might be at increased risk for severe illness associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). This report provides updated information about symptomatic women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. During January 22-October 3, CDC received reports through national COVID-19 case surveillance or through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) of 1,300,938 women aged 15-44 years with laboratory results indicative of acute infection with SARS-CoV-2. Data on pregnancy status were available for 461,825 (35.5%) women with laboratory-confirmed infection, 409,462 (88.7%) of whom were symptomatic. Among symptomatic women, 23,434 (5.7%) were reported to be pregnant. After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) (10.5 versus 3.9 per 1,000 cases; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.6-3.4), receive invasive ventilation (2.9 versus 1.1 per 1,000 cases; aRR = 2.9; 95% CI = 2.2-3.8), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (0.7 versus 0.3 per 1,000 cases; aRR = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.5-4.0), and die (1.5 versus 1.2 per 1,000 cases; aRR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.2-2.4). Stratifying these analyses by age and race/ethnicity highlighted disparities in risk by subgroup. Although the absolute risks for severe outcomes for women were low, pregnant women were at increased risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. To reduce the risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19, pregnant women should be counseled about the importance of seeking prompt medical care if they have symptoms and measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection should be strongly emphasized for pregnant women and their families during all medical encounters, including prenatal care visits. Understanding COVID-19-associated risks among pregnant women is important for prevention counseling and clinical care and treatment.
John Allotey, Elena Stallings, Mercedes Bonet, Magnus Yap, Shaunak Chatterjee, Tania Kew, Luke Debenham, Anna Clavé Llavall, Anushka Dixit, Dengyi Zhou, Rishab Balaji, Siang Ing Lee, Xiu Qiu, Mingyang Yuan, Dyuti Coomar, Jameela Sheikh, Heidi Lawson, Kehkashan Ansari, Madelon van Wely, Elizabeth van Leeuwen, Elena Kostova, Heinke Kunst, Asma Khalil, Simon Tiberi, Vanessa Brizuela, Nathalie Broutet, Edna Kara, Caron Rahn Kim, Anna Thorson, Olufemi T Oladapo, Lynne Mofenson, Javier Zamora, Shakila Thangaratinam, for PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium
Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMJ. 2020 Sep 1;370:m3320. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3320. Epub 2020 Sep 1.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN: Living systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 6 October 2020, along with preprint servers, social media, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies reporting the rates, clinical manifestations (symptoms, laboratory and radiological findings), risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed covid-19.
DATA EXTRACTION: At least two researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with estimates pooled as odds ratios and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses will be updated regularly.
RESULTS: 192 studies were included. Overall, 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 12%; 73 studies, 67 271 women) of pregnant and recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital for any reason were diagnosed as having suspected or confirmed covid-19. The most common clinical manifestations of covid-19 in pregnancy were fever (40%) and cough (41%). Compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 were less likely to have symptoms (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.62; I2=42.9%) or report symptoms of fever (0.49, 0.38 to 0.63; I2=40.8%), dyspnoea (0.76, 0.67 to 0.85; I2=4.4%) and myalgia (0.53, 0.36 to 0.78; I2=59.4%). The odds of admission to an intensive care unit (odds ratio 2.13, 1.53 to 2.95; I2=71.2%), invasive ventilation (2.59, 2.28 to 2.94; I2=0%) and need for extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (2.02, 1.22 to 3.34; I2=0%) were higher in pregnant and recently pregnant than non-pregnant reproductive aged women. Overall, 339 pregnant women (0.02%, 59 studies, 41 664 women) with confirmed covid-19 died from any cause. Increased maternal age (odds ratio 1.83, 1.27 to 2.63; I2=43.4%), high body mass index (2.37, 1.83 to 3.07; I2=0%), any pre-existing maternal comorbidity (1.81, 1.49 to 2.20; I2=0%), chronic hypertension (2.0, 1.14 to 3.48; I2=0%), pre-existing diabetes (2.12, 1.62 to 2.78; I2=0%), and pre-eclampsia (4.21, 1.27 to 14.0; I2=0%) were associated with severe covid-19 in pregnancy. In pregnant women with covid-19, increased maternal age, high body mass index, non-white ethnicity, any pre-existing maternal comorbidity including chronic hypertension and diabetes, and pre-eclampsia were associated with serious complications such as admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and maternal death. Compared to pregnant women without covid-19, those with the disease had increased odds of maternal death (odds ratio 2.85, 1.08 to 7.52; I2=0%), of needing admission to the intensive care unit (18.58, 7.53 to 45.82; I2=0%), and of preterm birth (1.47, 1.14 to 1.91; I2=18.6%). The odds of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (4.89, 1.87 to 12.81, I2=96.2%) were higher in babies born to mothers with covid-19 versus those without covid-19.
CONCLUSION: Pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 attending or admitted to the hospitals for any reason are less likely to manifest symptoms such as fever, dyspnoea, and myalgia, and are more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit or needing invasive ventilation than non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Pre-existing comorbidities, non-white ethnicity, chronic hypertension, pre-existing diabetes, high maternal age, and high body mass index are risk factors for severe covid-19 in pregnancy. Pregnant women with covid-19 versus without covid-19 are more likely to deliver preterm and could have an increased risk of maternal death and of being admitted to the intensive care unit. Their babies are more likely to be admitted to the neonatal unit.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178076.
READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 1 of the original article published on 1 September 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m3320), and previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3320/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Leila Karimi, Somayeh Makvandi, Amir Vahedian-Azimi, Thozhukat Sathyapalan, Amirhossein Sahebkar
Effect of COVID-19 on Mortality of Pregnant and Postpartum Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
J Pregnancy. 2021;2021:8870129. doi: 10.1155/2021/8870129. Epub 2021 Mar 5.
Abstract/Text
Background: Based on what is known at this time, pregnant women are at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 compared to nonpregnant women. Additionally, pregnant women with COVID-19 might have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. To investigate the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on mortality of pregnant and postpartum women, we performed a systematic review of available published literature on pregnancies affected by COVID-19.
Methods: Web of Science, SCOPUS, and MEDLINE- databases were searched for original studies concerning the effect of COVID-19 on mortality of pregnant and postpartum women published by July 10, 2020. Meta-analyses of proportions were used to combine data and report pooled proportions.
Results: 117 studies with a total of 11758 pregnant women were included. The age ranged between 15 and 48 years. Most subjects were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the third trimester. Disease severity was not reported in 1125 subjects. Maternal mortality was 1.3%. In 100% of fatal cases with adequate data, fever alone or with cough was one of the presenting symptoms. Also, dyspnea (58.3%) and myalgia (50%) were the most common symptoms. Sore throat (8.3%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (anorexia, nausea) (8.3%) were rare. The rate of comorbidities was 20% among COVID-19 deaths. The majority of COVID-19-infected women who died had cesarean section (58.3%), 25% had a vaginal delivery, and 16.7% of patients were not full term.
Conclusion: COVID-19 infection in pregnant women was associated with higher rates (and pooled proportions) of cesarean section and mortality. Because new data are continuously being generated and published, the findings of this study can be complete and updated with new researches. The results of this study can guide and improve prenatal counseling of COVID-19-infected pregnant women.
Copyright © 2021 Leila Karimi et al.
Patients taking ACE-i and ARBs who contract COVID-19 should continue treatment, unless otherwise advised by their physician, American Heart Association. Available from: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/patients-taking-ace-i-and-arbs-who-contract-covid-19-should-continue-treatment-unless-otherwise-advised-by-their-physician
Position Statement of the ESC Council on Hypertension on ACE-Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, European Society of Cardiology. Available from: https://www.escardio.org/Councils/Council-on-Hypertension-(CHT)/News/position-statement-of-the-esc-council-on-hypertension-on-ace-inhibitors-and-ang
COVID-19 Clinical Guidance for Adult Patients with Rheumatic Diseases. Available from: https://www.rheumatology.org/Portals/0/Files/ACR-COVID-19-Clinical-Guidance-Summary-Patients-with-Rheumatic-Diseases.pdf
Wenhua Liang, Weijie Guan, Ruchong Chen, Wei Wang, Jianfu Li, Ke Xu, Caichen Li, Qing Ai, Weixiang Lu, Hengrui Liang, Shiyue Li, Jianxing He
Cancer patients in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a nationwide analysis in China.
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21(3):335-337. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30096-6. Epub 2020 Feb 14.
Abstract/Text
Yang Xia, Rui Jin, Jing Zhao, Wen Li, Huahao Shen
Risk of COVID-19 for patients with cancer.
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Apr;21(4):e180. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30150-9. Epub 2020 Mar 3.
Abstract/Text
Vikas Mehta, Sanjay Goel, Rafi Kabarriti, Daniel Cole, Mendel Goldfinger, Ana Acuna-Villaorduna, Kith Pradhan, Raja Thota, Stan Reissman, Joseph A Sparano, Benjamin A Gartrell, Richard V Smith, Nitin Ohri, Madhur Garg, Andrew D Racine, Shalom Kalnicki, Roman Perez-Soler, Balazs Halmos, Amit Verma
Case Fatality Rate of Cancer Patients with COVID-19 in a New York Hospital System.
Cancer Discov. 2020 Jul;10(7):935-941. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0516. Epub 2020 May 1.
Abstract/Text
Patients with cancer are presumed to be at increased risk from COVID-19 infection-related fatality due to underlying malignancy, treatment-related immunosuppression, or increased comorbidities. A total of 218 COVID-19-positive patients from March 18, 2020, to April 8, 2020, with a malignant diagnosis were identified. A total of 61 (28%) patients with cancer died from COVID-19 with a case fatality rate (CFR) of 37% (20/54) for hematologic malignancies and 25% (41/164) for solid malignancies. Six of 11 (55%) patients with lung cancer died from COVID-19 disease. Increased mortality was significantly associated with older age, multiple comorbidities, need for ICU support, and elevated levels of D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, and lactate in multivariate analysis. Age-adjusted CFRs in patients with cancer compared with noncancer patients at our institution and New York City reported a significant increase in case fatality for patients with cancer. These data suggest the need for proactive strategies to reduce likelihood of infection and improve early identification in this vulnerable patient population. SIGNIFICANCE: COVID-19 in patients with cancer is associated with a significantly increased risk of case fatality, suggesting the need for proactive strategies to reduce likelihood of infection and improve early identification in this vulnerable patient population.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 890.
©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.
Masumi Ueda, Renato Martins, Paul C Hendrie, Terry McDonnell, Jennie R Crews, Tracy L Wong, Brittany McCreery, Barbara Jagels, Aaron Crane, David R Byrd, Steven A Pergam, Nancy E Davidson, Catherine Liu, F Marc Stewart
Managing Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Agility and Collaboration Toward a Common Goal.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Mar 20;:1-4. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7560. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
Abstract/Text
The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020, in Snohomish County, Washington. At the epicenter of COVID-19 in the United States, the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and University of Washington are at the forefront of delivering care to patients with cancer during this public health crisis. This Special Feature highlights the unique circumstances and challenges of cancer treatment amidst this global pandemic, and the importance of organizational structure, preparation, agility, and a shared vision for continuing to provide cancer treatment to patients in the face of uncertainty and rapid change.
Anna S Berghoff, Margaretha Gansterer, Arne C Bathke, Wolfgang Trutschnig, Philipp Hungerländer, Julia M Berger, Judith Kreminger, Angelika M Starzer, Robert Strassl, Ralf Schmidt, Harald Willschke, Wolfgang Lamm, Markus Raderer, Alex D Gottlieb, Norbert J Mauser, Matthias Preusser
SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Patients With Cancer Treated at a Tertiary Care Hospital During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 14;:JCO2001442. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01442. Epub 2020 Aug 14.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: To analyze the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer in hospital care after implementation of institutional and governmental safety measurements.
METHODS: Patients with cancer routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by nasal swab and real-time polymerase chain reaction between March 21 and May 4, 2020, were included. The results of this cancer cohort were statistically compared with the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the Austrian population as determined by a representative nationwide random sample study (control cohort 1) and a cohort of patients without cancer presenting to our hospital (control cohort 2).
RESULTS: A total of 1,688 SARS-CoV-2 tests in 1,016 consecutive patients with cancer were performed. A total of 270 of 1,016 (26.6%) of the patients were undergoing active anticancer treatment in a neoadjuvant/adjuvant and 560 of 1,016 (55.1%) in a palliative setting. A total of 53 of 1,016 (5.2%) patients self-reported symptoms potentially associated with COVID-19. In 4 of 1,016 (0.4%) patients, SARS-CoV-2 was detected. At the time of testing at our department, all four SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were asymptomatic, and two of them had recovered from symptomatic COVID-19. Viral clearance was achieved in three of the four patients 14-56 days after testing positive. The estimated odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence between the cancer cohort and control cohort 1 was 1.013 (95% CI, 0.209 to 4.272; P = 1), and between control cohort 2 and the cancer cohort it was 18.333 (95% CI, 6.056 to 74.157).
CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that continuation of active anticancer therapy and follow-up visits in a large tertiary care hospital are feasible and safe after implementation of strict population-wide and institutional safety measures during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Routine SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with cancer seems advisable to detect asymptomatic virus carriers and avoid uncontrolled viral spread.
Savannah Karmen-Tuohy, Philip M Carlucci, Fainareti N Zervou, Ioannis M Zacharioudakis, Gabriel Rebick, Elizabeth Klein, Jenna Reich, Simon Jones, Joseph Rahimian
Outcomes Among HIV-Positive Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020 Sep 1;85(1):6-10. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002423.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Preliminary data on SARS-CoV-2 infection suggest that some immunocompromised hosts experience worse outcomes. We performed a retrospective matched cohort study to characterize outcomes in HIV-positive patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS: Leveraging data collected from electronic medical records for all patients hospitalized at NYU Langone Health with COVID-19 between March 2, 2020, and April 23, 2020, we matched 21 HIV-positive patients with 42 non-HIV patients using a greedy nearest-neighbor algorithm. Admission characteristics, laboratory test results, and hospital outcomes were recorded and compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: Although there was a trend toward increased rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and mortality in HIV-positive patients, these differences were not statistically significant. Rates for these outcomes in our cohort are similar to those previously published for all patients hospitalized with COVID-19. HIV-positive patients had significantly higher admission and peak C-reactive protein values. Other inflammatory markers did not differ significantly between groups, although HIV-positive patients tended to have higher peak values during their clinical course. Three HIV-positive patients had superimposed bacterial pneumonia with positive sputum cultures, and all 3 patients died during hospitalization. There was no difference in frequency of thrombotic events or myocardial infarction between these groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that HIV coinfection does not significantly impact presentation, hospital course, or outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, when compared with matched non-HIV patients. A larger study is required to determine whether the trends we observed apply to all HIV-positive patients.
Joni Gilissen, Lara Pivodic, Kathleen T Unroe, Lieve Van den Block
International COVID-19 Palliative Care Guidance for Nursing Homes Leaves Key Themes Unaddressed.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Aug;60(2):e56-e69. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.151. Epub 2020 May 11.
Abstract/Text
COVID-19 mortality disproportionally affects nursing homes, creating enormous pressures to deliver high-quality end-of-life care. Comprehensive palliative care should be an explicit part of both national and global COVID-19 response plans. Therefore, we aimed to identify, review, and compare national and international COVID-19 guidance for nursing homes concerning palliative care, issued by government bodies and professional associations. We performed a directed documentary and content analysis of newly developed or adapted COVID-19 guidance documents from across the world. Documents were collected via expert consultation and independently screened against prespecified eligibility criteria. We applied thematic analysis and narrative synthesis techniques. We identified 21 eligible documents covering both nursing homes and palliative care, from the World Health Organization (n = 3), and eight individual countries: U.S. (n = 7), The Netherlands (n = 2), Ireland (n = 1), U.K. (n = 3), Switzerland (n = 3), New Zealand (n = 1), and Belgium (n = 1). International documents focused primarily on infection prevention and control, including only a few sentences on palliative care-related topics. Palliative care themes most frequently mentioned across documents were end-of-life visits, advance care planning documentation, and clinical decision making toward the end of life (focusing on hospital transfers). There is a dearth of comprehensive international COVID-19 guidance on palliative care for nursing homes. Most have a limited focus both regarding breadth of topics and recommendations made. Key aspects of palliative care, that is, symptom management, staff education and support, referral to specialist services or hospice, and family support, need greater attention in future guidelines.
Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. All rights reserved.
