Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma to treat hospitalised COVID-19 patients with or without underlying immunodeficiency: a randomized clinical trial

Efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in COVID-19 pneumonia is uncertain. The CORIPLASM study was an open-label, Bayesian randomised clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of CCP in patients with moderate COVID-19, including immunocompromised patients. Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and less than 9 days since symptoms onset were assigned to receive 4 units of plasma over 2 days ({approx} 840 ml)(CCP) or usual care alone (UC). Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with a WHO-Clinical Progression Score (CPS) [≥]6 on the 10-point scale on day (d) 4 and survival without ventilation or additional immunomodulatory treatment by d14. A total of 120 patients were recruited and assigned to CCP (n=60) or UC (n=60), including 22 (CCP) and 27 (UC) immunocompromised patients. Thirteen (22%) patients with CCP had a WHO-CPS [≥]6 at d4 versus 8 (13%) with UC, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.88 [95%CI 0.71 to 5.24]. By d14, 19 (31.6%) patients with CCP and 20 (33.3%) patients with UC had ventilation, additional immunomodulatory treatment or had died. Cumulative incidence of death was 3 (5%) with CCP and 8 (13%) with UC at d14 (aHR 0.40 [95%CI 0{middle dot}10 -1{middle dot}53]), and 7 (12%) with CCP and 12 (20%) with UC at d28 (aHR 0.51 [95%CI 0.20-1.32]). Subgroup analysis indicated that CCP might be associated with a lower mortality in immunocompromised patients (HR 0.37 [95%CI 0.14-0.97]). CCP treatment did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate COVID-19 but was associated with reduced mortality in the subgroup of immunocompromised patients.

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

BackgroundThe antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen and/or ventilator support. Following prior publication of preliminary results, here we present the final results after completion of data monitoring. MethodsIn this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948; EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care (SoC) alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir and IFN-{beta}-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzyme, severe chronic kidney disease, any contra-indication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before randomization, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breast-feeding. Here, we report results for remdesivir + SoC versus SoC alone. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg infusion on day 1, followed by once daily infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. Treatment assignation was performed via web-based block randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. FindingsBetween March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 843 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=423; remdesivir, n=420). At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was as follow in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities: 62/420 (14.8%) and 72/423 (17.0%); Not hospitalized, limitation on activities: 126/420 (30%) and 135/423 (31.9%); Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen: 56/420 (13.3%) and 31/423 (7.3%); Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen: 75/420 (17.9%) and 65/423 (15.4%); Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices: 16/420 (3.8%) and 16/423 (3.8%); Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO: 64/420 (15.2%) and 80/423 (18.9%); Death: 21/420 (5%) and 24/423 (5.7%). The difference between treatment groups was not statistically significant (OR for remdesivir, 1.02, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.70, P=0.93). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups (remdesivir, n=147/410, 35.9%, versus control, n=138/423, 32.6%, p=0.29). InterpretationRemdesivir use for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15. FundingEuropean Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Ile-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB; Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), AGMT gGmbH, FEDER "European Regional Development Fund", Portugal Ministry of Health, Portugal Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation. Remdesivir was provided free of charge by Gilead.

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

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

A new SARS-CoV-2 variant poorly detected by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples, with high lethality

BackgroundIn early January 2021, an outbreak of nosocomial cases of COVID-19 emerged in Western France, with RT-PCR tests repeatedly negative on nasopharyngeal samples but positive on lower respiratory tract samples. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) revealed a new variant, currently defining a novel SARS-CoV-2 lineage: B.1.616. In March, WHO classified this variant as under investigation (VUI). We analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 cases related to this new variant. MethodsClinical, virological, and radiological data were retrospectively collected from medical charts in the two hospitals involved. We enrolled patients with at least one of the following: i) positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on a respiratory sample; ii) seroconversion with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM; iii) suggestive symptoms and typical features of COVID-19 on chest CT scan. Cases were categorized as either: i) B.1.616; ii) variant of concern (VOC); iii) unknown. FindingsFrom January 1st to March 24th, 2021, 114 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: B.1.616 (n=34), VOC (n=32), and unknown (n=48). B.1.616-related cases were older than VOC-related cases (81 years [73-88], vs 73 years [67-82], P<0.05) and their first RT-PCR tests were less often positive (5/34, 15% vs 31/32, 97%, P<0.05). The B.1.616 variant was independently associated with severe disease (multivariable Cox model HR 4.2 [1.3- 13.5], P=0.018), and increased lethality (logrank test P=0.01): 28-day mortality 15/34 (44%) with B.1.616, vs. 5/32 (16%) for VOC, P=0.036. InterpretationWe report a nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 cases related to a new variant, B.1.616, poorly detected by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples, with high lethality. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSAmong the numerous SARS-CoV-2 variants described worldwide, only 3 are currently classified as Variant of Concern (VOC) by the WHO, since they are associated with either an increased risk in transmissibility, severity, or significant reduction in neutralization by antibodies: B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and P.1 (Pango lineage nomenclature). With the ongoing circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in many places worldwide, the emergence of new variants may reduce the efficacy of vaccines and jeopardize our prospects to control the pandemic. In early January 2021, an outbreak of cases highly suggestive of COVID-19 despite negative RT-PCR tests on repeated nasopharyngeal (NP) samples was reported in Western France, leading to several nosocomial clusters. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) from lower respiratory tract samples identified a new lineage of SARS-CoV-2 virus, classified as B1.616. Consequently, the French public health agency (Sante publique France) and the WHO classified B.1.616 as variant under investigation (VUI). Added value of this studyOur observational study, conducted from January 1st to March 24th 2021 in the B.1.616 identified area, provides the first clinical and virological description of B.1.616-associated COVID-19. The 34 cases had clinical, biological and radiological findings in line with classical features of COVID-19, while RT-PCR tests on nasopharyngeal (NP) samples failed to detect SARS-CoV-2 in most patients. Indeed, this gold-standard test was positive in only 15% of the first tests in B.1.616-related COVID-19 patients. Of note, the diagnostic performance of RT-PCR tests was satisfactory on lower respiratory tract samples, suggesting that failure to detect B.1.616 on NP samples would be due to a viral load below the limit of detection in the upper respiratory tract, rather than to genomic mismatches between routine RT-PCR targets and this variant. In our cohort, B.1.616 was independently associated with worse clinical outcome, with high 28-day mortality (44%). Implications of all the available evidenceDiagnosis of B.1.616-related COVID-19 cases should not rely on RT-PCR tests on NP samples. In the epidemic area, strict infection control measures must be maintained as long as COVID-19 diagnosis is not ruled out, in order to limit nosocomial clusters and case fatality. Further studies are needed to confirm and investigate the association between genomic characteristics of B.1.616, and i) poor detection by RT-PCR tests on NP samples; ii) prognosis.

Innate immune deficiencies in patients with COVID-19

COVID-19 can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), leading to death in a significant number of individuals. Evidence of a strong role of the innate immune system is accumulating, but the precise cells and mechanism involved remain unclear. In this study, we investigated the links between circulating innate phagocyte phenotype and functions and severity in COVID-19 patients. Eighty-four consecutive patients were included, 44 of which were in intensive care units (ICU). We performed an in-depth phenotyping of neutrophil and monocyte subpopulations and measured soluble activation markers in plasma. Additionally, myeloid cell functions (phagocytosis, oxidative burst, and NETosis) were evaluated on fresh cells from patients. Resulting parameters were linked to disease severity and prognosis. Both ICU and non-ICU patients had circulating neutrophils and monocytes with an activated phenotype, as well as elevated concentrations of soluble activation markers (calprotectin, myeloperoxidase, neutrophil extracellular traps, MMP9, sCD14) in their plasma. ICU patients were characterized by increased CD10low CD13low immature neutrophils, LOX-1+ and CCR5+ immunosuppressive neutrophils, and HLA-DRlow CD14low downregulated monocytes. Markers of immature and immunosuppressive neutrophils were strongly associated with severity and poor outcome. Moreover, neutrophils and monocytes of ICU patients had impaired antimicrobial functions, which correlated with organ dysfunction, severe infections, and mortality. Our study reveals a marked dysregulation of innate immunity in COVID-19 patients, which was correlated with severity and prognosis. Together, our results strongly argue in favor of a pivotal role of innate immunity in COVID-19 severe infections and pleads for targeted therapeutic options. One Sentence SummaryOur study reveals a marked dysregulation of innate immunity in COVID-19 patients, which correlates with severity and prognosis.

Sarilumab treatment of hospitalised patients with severe or critical COVID-19: a multinational, randomised, adaptive, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BackgroundElevated proinflammatory cytokines have been associated with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity. We assessed efficacy and safety of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal canula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. MethodsThis was a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial in patients hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomised 2:2:1 to intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was time to [≥]2-point clinical improvement (7-point scale; range: 1 [death] to 7 [not hospitalised]). The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04327388). FindingsBetween March 28 and July 3, 2020, 420 patients were randomised; 416 received treatment (placebo, n=84; sarilumab 200 mg, n=159; sarilumab 400 mg, n=173). At day 29, there were no significant differences in median (95% CI) time to [≥]2-point improvement between placebo (12{middle dot}0 [9{middle dot}0-15{middle dot}0] days) and sarilumab groups (200 mg: 10{middle dot}0 [9{middle dot}0-12{middle dot}0] days, p=0.96, log-rank test; 400 mg: 10{middle dot}0 [9{middle dot}0-13{middle dot}0] days, p=0.34) or in proportions of patients alive (placebo, 91{middle dot}7%; sarilumab 200 mg, 89{middle dot}9%, p=0{middle dot}63; sarilumab 400 mg, 91{middle dot}9%, p=0{middle dot}85). At day 29, there were numerical, nonsignificant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +9%, 95% CI -7{middle dot}7 to 25{middle dot}5, p=0{middle dot}25) for critical patients. There were no unexpected safety signals. InterpretationThis trial did not demonstrate efficacy of sarilumab in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. FundingSanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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

BackgroundLopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-{beta}-1a and hydroxychloroquine efficacy for COVID-19 have been evaluated, but detailed evaluation is lacking. ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir for improving the clinical, virological outcomes in COVID-19 inpatients. DesignOpen-label, randomized, adaptive, controlled trial. SettingMulti-center trial with patients from France. Participants583 COVID-19 inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support InterventionStandard of care (SoC, control), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg lopinavir and 100 mg ritonavir every 12h for 14 days), SoC plus lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-{beta}-1a (44 g of subcutaneous IFN-{beta}-1a on days 1, 3, and 6), SoC plus hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice on day 1 then 400 mg once daily for 9 days) or SoC plus remdesivir (200 mg intravenously on day 1 then 100 mg once-daily for hospitalization duration or 10 days). MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 quantification in respiratory specimens and safety analyses. ResultsAdjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) for the WHO 7-point ordinal scale were not in favor of investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, aOR 0.83, 95%CI, 0.55 to 1.26, P=0.39; lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-{beta}-1a versus control, aOR 0.69, 95%CI, 0.45 to 1.04, P=0.08; hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93, 95%CI, 0.62 to 1.41, P=0.75. No significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract was evidenced. Lopinavir/ritonavir-containing treatments were significantly associated with more SAE. LimitationsNot a placebo-controlled, no anti-inflammatory agents tested. ConclusionNo improvement of the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in respiratory tract specimens by studied drugs. This comforts the recent Solidarity findings. RegistrationNCT04315948. FundingPHRC 2020, Dim OneHealth, REACTing

Corticosteroids are associated with increased survival in elderly presenting severe SARS-Cov2 infection

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids among elderly patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen. DesignComparative observational study based on routine care data. Baseline characteristics of patients were balanced using propensity-score inverse probability of treatment weighting. SettingGeriatric and infectious diseases wards from 36 hospitals in France and Luxembourg. ParticipantsAdults > 80 years old PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or typical CT-scan images, requiring oxygen [≥] 3L/min and with an inflammatory syndrome (C-reactive protein [≥] 40mg/L). MeasurementsThe primary outcome was overall survival at day 14. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged from hospital to home/rehabilitation on day 14. Adverse events were abstracted from electronic health records. ResultsAmong the 267 patients included in the analysis, 96 were assigned to the treatment group. Median age was 86, interquartile range 83 to 90 and 95% had a SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed diagnosis. Use of corticosteroids was significantly associated with an increased survival (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97). There was no significant difference between the treatment and control groups regarding the proportion of patients discharged to home/rehabilitation at day 14 (wRR 1.11, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.81). Twenty-two (16.7%) patients receiving corticosteroids developed adverse events while only 11 (6.4%) from the control group did. ConclusionsCorticosteroids were associated with a significant increase the day-14 overall survival of patients over 80 years old hospitalized for severe COVID-19. Impact statementWe certify that this work is novel. As of today, studies on the efficacy of corticosteroids did not specifically target elderly patients. Among older patients aged over 80 years old, the RECOVERY trial found no difference in the survival of patients treated or not with dexamethasone. However, the heterogeneity in the severity of infection within the latter subgroup limited the drawing of strong conclusions

Association between corticosteroids and intubation or death among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in non-ICU settings: an observational study using of real-world data from 51 hospitals in France and Luxembourg

Objective To assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids on outcomes of patients with mild COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods We used routine care data from 51 hospitals in France and Luxembourg to assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids at 0.8 mg/kg/day eq. prednisone (CTC group) vs standard of care (no-CTC group) among patients [≤] 80 years old with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen without mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was intubation or death at Day 28. Baseline characteristics of patients were balanced using propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results Among the 891 patients included in the analysis, 203 were assigned to the CTC group. At day 28, corticosteroids did not reduce the rate of the primary outcome (wHR 0.92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.39) nor the cumulative death rate (wHR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the rate of the primary outcome for patients requiring oxygen [≥] at 3L/min (wHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85) or C-Reactive Protein (CRP) [≥] 100mg/L (wHR 0.44, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.85). We found a higher number of hyperglycaemia events among patients who received corticosteroids, but number of infections were similar across the two groups. Conclusions We found no association between the use of corticosteroids and intubation or death in the broad population of patients [≤]80 years old with COVID-19 hospitalized in non-ICU settings. However, the treatment was beneficial for patients with [≥] 3L/min oxygen or CRP [≥] 100mg/L at baseline. These data support the need to confirm the right timing of corticosteroids for patients with mild COVID.

Airborne contamination of COVID-19 in hospitals: a scoping review of the current evidence.

IntroductionA controversy remains worldwide regarding the transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings. We reviewed the current evidence on the air contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings, and the factors associated to the contamination including the viral load and the particles size. MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science databases were systematically interrogated for original English-language articles detailing COVID-19 air contamination in hospital settings between 1 December 2019 and 21 July 2020. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and culture were described and compared according to the setting, clinical context, air ventilation system, and distance from patient. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies per m3 of air were pooled and their distribution were described by hospital areas. Particle sizes and SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies or TCID50 per m3 were analysed after categorization of sizes in < 1 {micro}m, 1-4 {micro}m, and > 4 {micro}m. ResultsAmong 2,034 records identified, 17 articles were included in the review. Overall, 27.5% (68/247) of air sampled from close patients environment were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, without difference according to the setting (ICU: 27/97, 27.8%; non-ICU: 41/150, 27.3%; p = 0.93), the distance from patients (< 1 meter: 1/64, 1.5%; 1-5 meters: 4/67, 6%; p = 0.4). In other areas, the positivity rate was 23.8% (5/21) in toilets, 9.5% (20/221) in clinical areas, 12.4% (15/121) in staff areas, and 34.1% (14/41) in public areas. A total of 78 viral cultures were performed in three studies, and 3 (4%) were positive, all from close patients environment. The median SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations varied from 1.103 copies per m3 (IQR: 0.4.103-9.103) in clinical areas to 9.7.103 (5.1.103-14.3.103) in the air of toilets or bathrooms. The protective equipment removal and patients rooms had high concentrations/titre of SARS-CoV-2 with aerosol size distributions that showed peaks in the < 1 {micro}m region, and staff offices in the > 4{micro}m region. ConclusionIn hospital, the air near and away from COVID-19 patients is frequently contaminated with SARSCoV-2 RNA, with however, rare proofs of their viability. High viral loads found in toilet/bathrooms, staff and public hallways suggests to carefully consider these areas.

Covid-19 and dysregulated cerebral perfusion: observations with multimodal MRI

The pathogenesis of encephalopathy-associated Covid-19 is still unclear. Multimodal brain MRI in 25 Covid-19 patients with neurological symptoms revealed angiographic and brain perfusion changes suggesting an under-recognized dysregulated brain perfusion not identified by morphological neuroimaging alone. Endothelial dysfunction, a key pathomechanism of dysregulated brain perfusion, may contribute to central-nervous-system disturbances in Covid-19.

Predictive usefulness of PCR testing in different patterns of Covid-19 symptomatology - Analysis of a French cohort of 12,810 outpatients

Polymerase Chain reaction (PCR) is a key tool to diagnose Covid-19. Yet access to PCR is often limited. In this paper, we develop a clinical strategy for prescribing PCR to patients based on data from COVIDOM, a French cohort of 54,000 patients with clinically suspected Covid-19 including 12,810 patients tested by PCR. Using a machine learning algorithm (a decision tree), we show that symptoms alone are sufficient to predict PCR outcome with a mean average precision of 86%. We identify combinations of symptoms that are predictive of PCR positivity (90% for anosmia/ageusia) or negativity (only 30% of PCR+ for a subgroup with cardiopulmonary symptoms): in both cases, PCR provides little added diagnostic value. We deduce a prescribing strategy based on clinical presentation that can improve the global efficiency of PCR testing.

Repurposed prophylaxis strategies for COVID-19: a systematic review

IntroductionEfficient therapeutic strategies are needed to counter the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARSCoV-2 virus. In a context where specific vaccines are not yet available, the containment of the pandemic would be facilitated with efficient prophylaxis. MethodsWe screened several clinical trials repositories and platforms in search of the prophylactic strategies that are investigated against COVID-19 in late April 2020. ResultsUp to April 27, 2020, we found 68 clinical trials targeting medical workers (n = 43, 63%), patients relatives (n = 16, 24%) or individuals at risk of severe COVID-19 (n = 5, 7%). (Hydroxy)chloroquine was the most frequently evaluated treatment (n = 46, 68%), before BCG vaccine (n = 5, 7%). Sixty-one (90%) clinical trials were randomized with a median of planned inclusions of 600 (IQR 255-1515). ConclusionThe investigated prophylaxis strategies cover both pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis and study numerous immune enhancers and antivirals, although most research efforts are focused on (hydroxy)chloroquine.

Review and methodological analysis of trials currently testing treatment and prevention options for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) globally.

BackgroundAs COVID-19 cases continue to rise globally within an unprecedented short period of time, solid evidence from large randomised controlled trials is still lacking. Currently, numerous trials testing potential treatment and preventative options are undertaken globally. ObjectivesWe summarised all currently registered clinical trials examining treatment and prevention options for COVID-19. Additionally, we evaluated the quality of the retrieved interventional studies. Data sourcesClinicaltrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were systematically searched. Study eligibility criteriaRegistered clinical trials examining treatment and/or prevention options for COVID-19 were included. No language, country or study design restrictions were applied. We excluded withdrawn or cancelled studies and trials not reporting therapeutic or preventative strategies for COVID-19. Participants and interventionsNo restrictions in terms of participants age and medical background or type of intervention were enforced. MethodsThe registries were searched using the term "coronavirus" or "COVID-19" from their inception until 26th March 2020. Additional manual search of the registries was also performed. Eligible studies were summarised and tabulated. Interventional trials were methodologically analysed, excluding expanded access studies and trials testing Traditional Chinese Medicine. ResultsIn total, 309 trials evaluating therapeutic management options, 23 studies assessing preventive strategies and 3 studies examining both were retrieved. Interventional treatment studies were mostly randomised (n=150, 76%) and open-label (n=73, 37%) with a median number of planned inclusions of 90 (IQR 40-200). Major categories of interventions that are currently being investigated are discussed. ConclusionNumerous clinical trials have been registered since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarised data on these trials will assist physicians and researchers to promote patient care and guide future research efforts for COVID-19 pandemic containment. However, up to the end of March, 2020, significant information on reported trials was often lacking.

Characterization and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal and bronchial human airway epithelia

In the current COVID-19 pandemic context, proposing and validating effective treatments represents a major challenge. However, the lack of biologically relevant pre-clinical experimental models of SARS-CoV-2 infection as a complement of classic cell lines represents a major barrier for scientific and medical progress. Here, we advantageously used human reconstituted airway epithelial models of nasal or bronchial origin to characterize viral infection kinetics, tissue-level remodeling of the cellular ultrastructure and transcriptional immune signatures induced by SARS-CoV-2. Our results underline the relevance of this model for the preclinical evaluation of antiviral candidates. Foremost, we provide evidence on the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir and the therapeutic potential of the remdesivir-diltiazem combination as a rapidly available option to respond to the current unmet medical need imposed by COVID-19. One Sentence SummaryNew insights on SARS-CoV-2 biology and drug combination therapies against COVID-19.

No evidence of clinical efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection with oxygen requirement: results of a study using routinely collected data to emulate a target trial

BackgroundTreatments are urgently needed to prevent respiratory failure and deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has received worldwide attention because of positive results from small studies. MethodsWe used data collected from routine care of all adults in 4 French hospitals with documented SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and requiring oxygen [≥] 2 L/min to emulate a target trial aimed at assessing the effectiveness of HCQ at 600 mg/day. The composite primary endpoint was transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) within 7 days from inclusion and/or death from any cause. Analyses were adjusted for confounding factors by inverse probability of treatment weighting. ResultsThis study included 181 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia; 84 received HCQ within 48 hours of admission (HCQ group) and 97 did not (no-HCQ group). Initial severity was well balanced between the groups. In the weighted analysis, 20.2% patients in the HCQ group were transferred to the ICU or died within 7 days vs 22.1% in the no-HCQ group (16 vs 21 events, relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.47-1.80). In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients died within 7 days vs 4.6% in the no-HCQ group (3 vs 4 events, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.13-2.89), and 27.4% and 24.1%, respectively, developed acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (24 vs 23 events, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65-2.00). Eight patients receiving HCQ (9.5%) experienced electrocardiogram modifications requiring HCQ discontinuation. InterpretationThese results do not support the use of HCQ in patients hospitalised for documented SARS-CoV-2-positive hypoxic pneumonia.

A brief review of antiviral drugs evaluated in registered clinical trials for COVID-19

BackgroundAlthough a number of antiviral agents have been evaluated for coronaviruses there are no approved drugs available. To provide an overview of the landscape of therapeutic research for COVID-19, we conducted a review of registered clinical trials. MethodsA review of currently registered clinical trials was performed on registries, including the Chinese (chictr.org.cn) and US (clinicaltrials.gov) databases to identify relevant studies up to March, 7th 2020. The search was conducted using the search terms "2019-nCoV", "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "Hcov-19", "new coronavirus", "novel coronavirus". We included interventional clinical trials focusing on patients with COVID-19 and assessing antiviral drugs or agents. FindingsOut of the 353 studies identified, 115 clinical trials were selected for data extraction. Phase IV trials were the most commonly reported study type (n=27, 23%). However, 62 trials (54%) did not describe the phase of the study. Eighty percent (n=92) of the trials were randomized with parallel assignment and the median number of planned inclusions was 63 (IQR, 36-120). Open-label studies were the most frequent (46%) followed by double-blind (13%) and single blind studies (10%). The most frequently assessed therapies were: stem cells therapy (n=23 trials), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=15), chloroquine (n=11), umifenovir (n=9), hydroxychloroquine (n=7), plasma treatment (n=7), favipiravir (n=7), methylprednisolone (n=5), and remdesivir (n=5). Remdesivir was tested in 5 trials with a median of 400 (IQR, 394-453) planned inclusions per trial, while stem cells therapy was tested in 23 trials, but had a median of 40 (IQR, 23-60) planned inclusions per trial. Lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with the highest total number of planned inclusions (2606) followed by remdesivir (2155). Only 52% of the clinical trials reported the treatment dose (n=60) and only 34% (n=39) the duration. The primary outcome was clinical in 76 studies (66%), virological in 27 (23%); radiological in 9 (8%) or immunological in three studies (3%). InterpretationNumerous clinical trials have been registered since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, however, a number of information regarding drugs or trial design were lacking. FundingNone