Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care). Findings: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality. Interpretation: Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Funding: Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

Effect of remdesivir on viral dynamics in COVID-19 hospitalized patients: a modelling analysis of the randomized, controlled, open-label DisCoVeRy trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 hospitalized patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. METHODS: We analysed nasopharyngeal normalized viral loads from 665 hospitalized patients included in the DisCoVeRy trial (NCT04315948; EudraCT 2020-000936-23), randomized to either standard of care (SoC) or SoC + remdesivir. We used a mathematical model to reconstruct viral kinetic profiles and estimate the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in blocking viral replication. Additional analyses were conducted stratified on time of treatment initiation (≤7 or >7 days since symptom onset) or viral load at randomization (< or ≥3.5 log10 copies/104 cells). RESULTS: In our model, remdesivir reduced viral production by infected cells by 2-fold on average (95% CI: 1.5-3.2-fold). Model-based simulations predict that remdesivir reduced time to viral clearance by 0.7 days compared with SoC, with large inter-individual variabilities (IQR: 0.0-1.3 days). Remdesivir had a larger impact in patients with high viral load at randomization, reducing viral production by 5-fold on average (95% CI: 2.8-25-fold) and the median time to viral clearance by 2.4 days (IQR: 0.9-4.5 days). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir halved viral production, leading to a median reduction of 0.7 days in the time to viral clearance compared with SoC. The efficacy was larger in patients with high viral load at randomization.

Clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential and cardiovascular events in systemic lupus erythematosus (HEMATOPLUS study).

OBJECTIVE: The detection of somatic mutations among the genes of myeloid cells in asymptomatic patients-defining clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP)-is associated with a predisposition to cardiovascular events (CVEs) in the general population. We aimed to determine whether CHIP was associated with CVEs in SLE patients. METHODS: The study is an ancillary study of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre PLUS trial conducted from June 2007 through August 2010 at 37 centres in France, involving 573 SLE patients. The search for somatic mutations by high-throughput sequencing of 53 genes involved in clonal haematopoiesis was performed on genomic DNA collected at PLUS inclusion. CHIP prevalence was assessed in SLE and in a retrospective cohort of 479 patients free of haematological malignancy. The primary outcome was an incident CVE in SLE. RESULTS: Screening for CHIP was performed in 438 SLE patients [38 (29-47) years, 91.8% female]. Overall, 63 somatic mutations were identified in 47 patients, defining a CHIP prevalence of 10.7% in SLE. Most SLE patients (78.7%) carried a single mutation. Most variants (62.5%) were located in the DNMT3A gene. CHIP frequency was related to age and to age at SLE diagnosis, and was associated with a lower frequency of aPLs. CHIP occurred >20 years earlier (P < 0.00001) in SLE than in controls. The detection of CHIP at inclusion was not found to be associated with occurrence of CVEs during follow-up [HR = 0.42 (0.06-3.21), P = 0.406]. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of CHIP is relatively high in SLE for a given age, but was not found to be associated with incident CVEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05146414.

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

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

Dealing with the lack of evidence to treat depression in older patients with cancer: French Societies of Geriatric Oncology (SOFOG) and PsychoOncology (SFFPO) position paper based on a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Depression symptoms, frequently diagnosed in older patients with cancer, impacts on oncological treatment feasibility. The Francophone Society of Geriatric Oncology (SOFOG) has initiated a systematic review on depression treatment in older patients with cancer, to advocate guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Medline via PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL. METHODS: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, reviews and meta-analysis, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, qualitative studies, and guidelines published between January 2013 and December 2018 that involved depression with cancer in which the entire sample or a sub-group aged 65 and above. Efficacy and tolerance of depression treatment were examined, as a primary or secondary outcome, among articles published in French or English. RESULTS: Of 3171 references, only seven studies met our eligibility criteria. This systematic review reveals a lack of evidence-based knowledge in this field, preventing from making any recommendations on drug and non-drug therapies. It has highlighted the need for multidisciplinary collaboration with the French and Francophone Society of Psycho-Oncology. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, we advise health professionals to use the screening process not as a result but rather as an opportunity to engage with the patient and also to question the need for antidepressants and non-drug therapies.

Greater prevalence of comorbidities with increasing age: Cross-sectional analysis of chronic hepatitis B patients in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia to some extent, are endemic for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection which could be associated with high mortality and comorbidities risk. However, limited data characterizing this CHB population exists. Our aim was to characterize and compare CHB patients in 2015 with those in 2010 and 2012 in Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted and compared three cross-sectional analyses of adult patients with CHB defined as either positive hepatitis B surface antigen or documented CHB history in 2010, 2012, and 2015. Data were accessed from the multicenter Systematic Observatory Liver Disease Registry (SOLID). RESULTS: A total of 765 CHB patients were identified in 2010 (n = 274), 2012 (n = 256), and 2015 (n = 235). Median age was significantly higher in 2015 (47 years) compared to 2010 and 2012 (42 years;P < 0.05). The proportions of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (range 1-12%) and cirrhosis (range 5-23%) were significantly higher in 2015 compared to 2010 and 2012 (P < 0.05). Compared to 2010, patients in 2015 had significantly (P < 0.05) higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (10% vs. 4%) and hyperbilirubinemia (18% vs. 9%). Although not significant, there was a numerical increase in 2015 in chronic kidney disease (9% vs. 7% in 2010;P= 0.559) and hepatic steatosis (32% vs. 25% in 2010;P= 0.074). Significantly more patients in 2015 (P < 0.05) were treatment experienced (23% vs. 5% in 2010/2012) and switched treatment (17% vs. 1-2% in 2010/2012). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2010 and 2015, the CHB population in Saudi Arabia had significantly aged and was more likely to develop liver disease sequelae and other comorbidities.