Persistence of symptoms and quality of life at 35 days after hospitalization for COVID-19 infection.

BackgroundCharacterizing the prevalence and persistence of symptoms associated with COVID-19 infection following hospitalization and their impact is essential to planning post-acute community-based clinical services. This study seeks to identify persistent COVID-19 symptoms in patients 35 days post-hospitalization and their impact on quality of life, health, physical, mental, and psychosocial function.Methods and findingsThis prospective cohort study used the PROMIS® Instruments to identify symptoms and quality of life parameters in consecutively enrolled patients between March 22 and April 16, 2020, in New Jersey. The 183 patients (median age 57 years; 61.5% male, 54.1% white) reported persistent symptoms at 35 days, including fatigue (55.0%), dyspnea (45.3%), muscular pain (51%), associated with a lower odds rating general health (41.5%, OR 0.093 [95% CI: 0.026, 0.329], p = 0.0002), quality of life (39.8%; OR 0.116 [95% CI: 0.038, 0.364], p = 0.0002), physical health (38.7%, OR 0.055 [95% CI: 0.016, 0.193], p ConclusionsCOVID-19 symptoms commonly persist to 35 days, impacting quality of life, health, physical and mental function. Early post-acute evaluation of symptoms and their impact on function is necessary to plan community-based services

Hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in COVID-19 patients—An observational study

Hydroxychloroquine has been touted as a potential COVID-19 treatment. Tocilizumab, an inhibitor of IL-6, has also been proposed as a treatment of critically ill patients. In this retrospective observational cohort study drawn from electronic health records we sought to describe the association between mortality and hydroxychloroquine or tocilizumab therapy among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients were hospitalized at a 13-hospital network spanning New Jersey USA between March 1, 2020 and April 22, 2020 with positive polymerase chain reaction results for SARS-CoV-2. Follow up was through May 5, 2020. Among 2512 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 there have been 547 deaths (22%), 1539 (61%) discharges and 426 (17%) remain hospitalized. 1914 (76%) received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and 1473 (59%) received hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin. After adjusting for imbalances via propensity modeling, compared to receiving neither drug, there were no significant differences in associated mortality for patients receiving any hydroxychloroquine during the hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.80–1.22]), hydroxychloroquine alone (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83–1.27]), or hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75–1.28]). The 30-day unadjusted mortality for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, the combination or neither drug was 25%, 20%, 18%, and 20%, respectively. Among 547 evaluable ICU patients, including 134 receiving tocilizumab in the ICU, an exploratory analysis found a trend towards an improved survival association with tocilizumab treatment (adjusted HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57–1.00]), with 30 day unadjusted mortality with and without tocilizumab of 46% versus 56%. This observational cohort study suggests hydroxychloroquine, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, was not associated with a survival benefit among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab demonstrated a trend association towards reduced mortality among ICU patients. Our findings are limited to hospitalized patients and must be interpreted with caution while awaiting results of randomized trials

Remdesivir for Severe COVID-19 versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe COVID-19 using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard-of-care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation 94% or lower on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard-of-care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio 2.03: 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.08, p CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: 22-.68, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia treated with high-titer convalescent plasma

Here, we report on a phase IIa study to determine the intubation rate, survival, viral clearance, and development of endogenous Abs in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with convalescent plasma (CCP) containing high levels of neutralizing anti–SARS-CoV-2 Abs. Radiographic and laboratory evaluation confirmed all 51 treated patients had COVID-19 pneumonia. Fresh or frozen CCP from donors with high titers of neutralizing Abs was administered. The nonmechanically ventilated patients (n = 36) had an intubation rate of 13.9% and a 30-day survival rate of 88.9%, and the overall survival rate for a comparative group based on network data was 72.5% (1625/2241). Patients had negative nasopharyngeal swab rates of 43.8% and 73.0% on days 10 and 30, respectively. Patients mechanically ventilated had a day-30 mortality rate of 46.7%; the mortality rate for a comparative group based on network data was 71.0% (369/520). All evaluable patients were found to have neutralizing Abs on day 3 (n = 47), and all but 1 patient had Abs on days 30 and 60. The only adverse event was a mild rash. In this study on patients with COVID-19 disease, we show therapeutic use of CCP was safe and conferred transfer of Abs, while preserving endogenous immune response

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health