Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Alpha (B.1.1.7) vs. Beta (B.1.351) in Critically Ill Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Objectives: The clinical outcomes of the Beta (B.1.351) variant of concern (VOC) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remain poorly understood. In early 2021, northeastern France experienced an outbreak of Beta that was not observed elsewhere. This outbreak slightly preceded and then overlapped with a second outbreak of the better understood VOC Alpha (B.1.1.7) in the region. This situation allowed us to contemporaneously compare Alpha and Beta in terms of the characteristics, management, and outcomes of critically ill patients. Methods: A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted on all consecutive adult patients who had laboratory confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, underwent variant screening, and were admitted to one of four intensive care units (ICU) for acute respiratory failure between January 9th and May 15th, 2021. Primary outcome was 60-day mortality. Differences between Alpha and Beta in terms of other outcomes, patient variables, management, and vaccination characteristics were also explored by univariate analysis. The factors that associated with 60-day death in Alpha- and Beta-infected patients were examined with logistic regression analysis. Results: In total, 333 patients (median age, 63 years; 68% male) were enrolled. Of these, 174 and 159 had Alpha and Beta, respectively. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of 60-day mortality (19 vs. 23%), 28-day mortality (17 vs. 20%), need for mechanical ventilation (60 vs. 61%), mechanical ventilation duration (14 vs. 15 days), other management variables, patient demographic variables, comorbidities, or clinical variables on ICU admission. The vast majority of patients were unvaccinated (94%). The remaining 18 patients had received a partial vaccine course and 2 were fully vaccinated. The vaccinated patients were equally likely to have Alpha and Beta. Conclusions: Beta did not differ from Alpha in terms of patient characteristics, management, or outcomes in critically ill patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04906850.

An open-label randomized controlled trial of the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-ß-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. METHODS: We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). 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. CONCLUSION: In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-ß-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.

Early hypertension after vasopressor weaning during septic shock: associated factors and prognostic significance.

BACKGROUND: During septic shock, early development of hypertension after vasopressors weaning seems paradoxical. The aim of this study was to authenticate this empirical observation, identify associated factors and document its prognostic significance. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, retrospective study in a medical ICU of a teaching hospital among adult patients with septic shock. RESULTS: From January 1st, 2013 to December 31st, 2014, 262 consecutive patients over 18 years of age were admitted because of septic shock; 195 of them were successfully weaned from vasopressors. Early hypertension within the 24 hours following vasopressors weaning occurred in 22% of patients (N.=43) who did not differ in terms of past history of hypertension or chronic renal insufficiency, severity scores, vasopressor doses or duration, volume resuscitation or fluid balance. In multivariate analysis, predictive factors for developing early hypertension were past history of ischemic heart disease (OR=4.25; 95% CI: 1.74-10.35, P=0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR=2.86; 95% CI: 1.26-6.51, P=0.01). Occurrence of early hypertension was independently associated with a better survival (OR=0.03; 95% CI: 0.001-0.73, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Development of hypertension within 24 hours of vasopressor support cessation is a frequent event affecting almost a quarter of the patients who survived the initial phase of septic shock resuscitation and is independently associated with a better outcome.

Francisella tularensis endocarditis: two case reports and a literature review.

We report the first two cases of infective endocarditis caused by Francisella tularensis in Europe (two cases have previously been reported outside Europe). We suggest clinicians should consider tularemia as a possible diagnosis in endemic regions in cases of culture-negative endocarditis.