Understanding the potential impact of different drug properties on SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease burden : a modelling analysis

Q1Q1Background The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods and Findings develop a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care to explore the potential public-health impact of a range of different potential therapeutics, under a range of different scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. We find the impact of drugs like dexamethasone (which are delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in highincome countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalisation) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. Conclusions There is a global asymmetry in who is likely to benefit from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have been focussed on hospitalised-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priorityRevista Internacional - Indexad

Characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with pre-delta, delta and omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection in Indonesia (2020–2023): a multicentre prospective cohort studyResearch in context

Summary: Background: Limited data exist from southeast Asia on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants and inactivated vaccines on disease severity and death among patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods: A multicentre hospital-based prospective cohort was enrolled from September 2020 through January 2023, spanning pre-delta, delta, and omicron periods. The participant hospitals were conveniently sampled based on existing collaborations, site willingness and available study resources, and included six urban and two rural general hospitals from East Nusa Tenggara, Jakarta, and North Sumatra provinces. Factors associated with severe disease and day-28 mortality were examined using logistic and Cox regression. Findings: Among 822 participants, the age-adjusted percentage of severe disease was 26.8% (95% CI 22.7–30.9) for pre-delta, 50.1% (44.0–56.2) for delta, and 15.2% (9.7–20.7) for omicron. The odds of severe disease were 64% (18–84%) lower for omicron than delta (p < 0.001). One or more vaccine doses reduced the odds of severe disease by 89% (65–97%) for delta and 98% (91–100%) for omicron. Age-adjusted mortality was 11.9% (8.8–15.0) for pre-delta, 24.4% (18.8–29.9) for delta and 9.6% (5.2–14.0) for omicron. The day-28 cumulative incidence of death was lower for omicron (9.2% [5.6–13.9%]) than delta (28.6% [22.0–35.5%]) (p < 0.001). Severe disease on admission was the predominant prognostic factor for death (aHR34.0 [16.6–69.9] vs mild-or-moderate; p < 0.001). After controlling for disease severity on admission as an intermediate, the risk of death was 48% (32–60%) lower for omicron than delta (p < 0.001); and 51% (38–61%; p < 0.001) lower for vaccinated participants than unvaccinated participants overall, and 56% (37–69%; p < 0.001) for omicron, 46% (−5 to 73%; p = 0.070) for pre-delta (not estimable for delta). Interpretation: Infections by omicron variant resulted in less severe and fatal outcomes than delta in hospitalised patients in Indonesia. However, older, and unvaccinated individuals remained at greater risk of adverse outcomes. Funding: University of Oxford and Wellcome Trust

An appraisal of respiratory system compliance in mechanically ventilated covid-19 patients

BackgroundHeterogeneous respiratory system static compliance (CRS) values and levels of hypoxemia in patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) requiring mechanical ventilation have been reported in previous small-case series or studies conducted at a national level.MethodsWe designed a retrospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering from the international COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium study to comprehensively describe CRS—calculated as: tidal volume/[airway plateau pressure-positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)]—and its association with ventilatory management and outcomes of COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation (MV), admitted to intensive care units (ICU) worldwide.ResultsWe studied 745 patients from 22 countries, who required admission to the ICU and MV from January 14 to December 31, 2020, and presented at least one value of CRS within the first seven days of MV. Median (IQR) age was 62 (52–71), patients were predominantly males (68%) and from Europe/North and South America (88%). CRS, within 48 h from endotracheal intubation, was available in 649 patients and was neither associated with the duration from onset of symptoms to commencement of MV (p = 0.417) nor with PaO2/FiO2 (p = 0.100). Females presented lower CRS than males (95% CI of CRS difference between females-males: − 11.8 to − 7.4 mL/cmH2O p RS was marginal (p = 0.139). Ventilatory management varied across CRS range, resulting in a significant association between CRS and driving pressure (estimated decrease − 0.31 cmH2O/L per mL/cmH20 of CRS, 95% CI − 0.48 to − 0.14, p RS (+ 10 mL/cm H2O) was only associated with being discharge from the ICU within 28 days (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02–1.28, p = 0.018).ConclusionsThis multicentre report provides a comprehensive account of CRS in COVID-19 patients on MV. CRS measured within 48 h from commencement of MV has marginal predictive value for 28-day mortality, but was associated with being discharged from ICU within the same period. Trial documentation: Available at https://www.covid-critical.com/study.Trial registration: ACTRN12620000421932

Early short course of neuromuscular blocking agents in patients with COVID-19 ARDS : a propensity score analysis

Background: The role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis. Methods: We analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2 days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48 h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression. Results: Data from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2 years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90 days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28 days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0–25) and 25 (IQR 7–26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0–87) and 87 (IQR 0–88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177). Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting.</p

Early short course of neuromuscular blocking agents in patients with COVID-19 ARDS: a propensity score analysis

Background: The role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis. Methods: We analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2&nbsp;days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48&nbsp;h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression. Results: Data from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2&nbsp;years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90&nbsp;days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28&nbsp;days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0–25) and 25 (IQR 7–26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0–87) and 87 (IQR 0–88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177). Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting