Cluster of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the French Alps, February 2020.

BACKGROUND: On 7 February 2020, French Health authorities were informed of a confirmed case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in an Englishman infected in Singapore who had recently stayed in a chalet in the French Alps. We conducted an investigation to identify secondary cases and interrupt transmission. METHODS: We defined as a confirmed case a person linked to the chalet with a positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction sample for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: The index case stayed 4 days in the chalet with 10 English tourists and a family of 5 French residents; SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 5 individuals in France, 6 in England (including the index case), and 1 in Spain (overall attack rate in the chalet: 75%). One pediatric case, with picornavirus and influenza A coinfection, visited 3 different schools while symptomatic. One case was asymptomatic, with similar viral load as that of a symptomatic case. Seven days after the first cases were diagnosed, 1 tertiary case was detected in a symptomatic patient with from the chalet a positive endotracheal aspirate; all previous and concurrent nasopharyngeal specimens were negative. Additionally, 172 contacts were monitored; all contacts tested for SARS-CoV-2 (N = 73) were negative. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence in this cluster of 1 asymptomatic case with similar viral load as a symptomatic patient suggests transmission potential of asymptomatic individuals. The fact that an infected child did not transmit the disease despite close interactions within schools suggests potential different transmission dynamics in children. Finally, the dissociation between upper and lower respiratory tract results underscores the need for close monitoring of the clinical evolution of suspected cases of coronavirus disease 2019.

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.

Antibiothérapie du sujet âgé : On peut toujours mieux faire.

Antimicrobials are among the most prescribed drugs and their prescription increases with age, due to frailty and accrued risk factors for acquiring infections. Antimicrobial prescription in elderly patients must not only account for the risk of toxicity due to drug overexposure, but also of treatment failure or promotion of antimicrobial resistance due to under-dosage. This paper reviews the main antimicrobial, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variations induced by aging, comorbidities and polypharmacy, and how to take them into account to optimize antimicrobial prescription in elders.

Sepsis severe or septic shock: outcome according to immune status and immunodeficiency profile.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the influence of the immune profile on the outcome at day 28 (D28) of patients admitted to the ICU for septic shock or severe sepsis. METHODS: We conducted an observational study using a prospective multicenter database and included all patients admitted to 11 ICUs for severe sepsis or septic shock from January 1997 to August 2011. Seven profiles of immunodeficiency were defined. The prognostic analysis used a competitive risk model (Fine and Gray), in which being alive at ICU or hospital discharge before D28 competed with death. RESULTS: Among the 1,981 included patients, 607 (31%) were immunocompromised (including nonneutropenic solid tumor [19.6%], nonneutropenic hematologic malignancies [26.3%], and all-cause neutropenia [28%]). Compared with immunocompetent patients, immunocompromised patients were younger, with less comorbidity, were more often admitted for medical reasons, and presented less often with septic shock. The D28 crude mortality was 31.3% in immunocompromised patients and 28.8% in immunocompetent patients (P = .26). However, after adjustment for other prognostic factors, immunodeficiency was an independent risk factor for death at D28 (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.12-1.67). The immunodeficiency profiles independently associated with death were AIDS (sHR = 1.9), non-neutropenic solid tumor (sHR = 1.8), nonneutropenic hematologic malignancies (sHR = 1.4), and all-cause neutropenia (sHR = 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Immunodeficiency is common in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Despite a similar crude mortality, immunodeficiency was associated with an increased risk of short-term mortality after multivariate analysis. Neutropenia and specific, but not all, profiles of immunodeficiency were independently associated with an increased risk of death.