; for the CORIMUNO-19 Collaborative Group IMPORTANCE Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICPANTS This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events. RESULTS Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] −9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], −21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI −28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care...

Background Coronaviruses can induce the production of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, tumour necrosis factor, and other cytokines implicated in autoinflammatory disorders. It has been postulated that anakinra, a recombinant IL-1 receptor antagonist, might help to neutralise the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related hyperinflammatory state, which is considered to be one cause of acute respiratory distress among patients with COVID-19. We aimed to assess the off-label use of anakinra in patients who were admitted to hospital for severe forms of COVID-19 with symptoms indicative of worsening respiratory function.Methods The Ana-COVID study included a prospective cohort from Groupe Hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph (Paris, France) and a historical control cohort retrospectively selected from the Groupe Hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph COVID cohort, which began on March 18, 2020. Patients were included in the prospective cohort if they were aged 18 years or older and admitted to Groupe Hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph with severe COVID-19-related bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or lung CT scan. The other inclusion criteria were either laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or typical lung infiltrates on a lung CT scan, and either an oxygen saturation of 93% or less under oxygen 6 L/min or more, or aggravation (saturation ≤93% under oxygen 3 L/min) with a loss of 3% of oxygen saturation in ambient air over the previous 24 h. The historical control group of patients had the same inclusion criteria. Patients in the anakinra group were treated with subcutaneous anakinra (100 mg twice a day for 72 h, then 100 mg daily for 7 days) as well as the standard treatments at the institution at the time. Patients in the historical group received standard treatments and supportive care. The main outcome was a composite of either admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for invasive mechanical ventilation or death.The main analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis (including all patients in the anakinra group who received at least one injection of anakinra). FindingsFrom March 24 to April 6, 2020, 52 consecutive patients were included in the anakinra group and 44 historical patients were identified in the Groupe Hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph COVID cohort study. Admission to the ICU for invasive mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 13 (25%) patients in the anakinra group and 32 (73%) patients in the historical group (hazard ratio [HR] 0•22 [95% CI 0•11-0•41; p<0•0001). The treatment effect of anakinra remained significant in the multivariate analysis (HR 0•22 [95% CI 0•10-0•49]; p=0•0002). An increase in liver aminotransferases occurred in seven (13%) patients in the anakinra group and four (9%) patients in the historical group.Interpretation Anakinra reduced both need for invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU and mortality among patients with severe forms of COVID-19, without serious side-effects. Confirmation of efficacy will require con trolled trials.

Background Cancer patients are thought to have an increased risk of developing severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and of dying from the disease. In this work, predictive factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality in cancer patients were investigated. Patients and Methods In this large nationwide retro-prospective cohort study, we collected data on patients with solid tumours and COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1 and June 11, 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and COVID-19 severity, defined as admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or mechanical ventilation and/or death, was one of the secondary endpoints. Results From April 4 to June 11, 2020, 1289 patients were analysed. The most frequent cancers were digestive and thoracic. Altogether, 424 (33%) patients had a severe form of COVID-19 and 370 (29%) patients died. In multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with death were male sex (odds ratio 1.73, 95%CI: 1.18-2.52), ECOG PS ≥ 2 (OR 3.23, 95%CI: 2.27-4.61), updated Charlson comorbidity index (OR 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.16) and admission to ICU (OR 3.62, 95%CI 2.14-6.11). The same factors, age along with corticosteroids before COVID-19 diagnosis, and thoracic primary tumour site were independently associated with COVID-19 severity. None of the anticancer treatments administered within the previous 3 months had any effect on mortality or COVID-19 severity, except cytotoxic chemotherapy in the subgroup of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR, which was associated with a slight increase of the risk of death (OR 1.53; 95%CI: 1.00-2.34; p = 0.05). A total of 431 (39%) patients had their systemic anticancer treatment interrupted or stopped following diagnosis of COVID-19. Conclusions Mortality and COVID-19 severity in cancer patients are high and are associated with general characteristics of patients. We found no deleterious effects of recent anticancer treatments, except for cytotoxic chemotherapy in the RT-PCR-confirmed subgroup of patients. In almost 40% of patients, the systemic anticancer therapy was interrupted or stopped after COVID-19 diagnosis.

Background Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have an excess of inflammation and increased concentrations of cytokines including interleukin-1 (IL-1). We aimed to determine whether anakinra, a recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist, could improve outcomes in patients in hospital with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods In this multicentre, open-label, Bayesian randomised clinical trial (CORIMUNO-ANA-1), nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, we recruited patients from 16 University hospitals in France with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by real-time RT-PCR, requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen by mask or nasal cannula but without ventilation assistance, a score of 5 on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS), and a C-reactive protein serum concentration of more than 25 mg/L not requiring admission to the intensive care unit at admission to hospital. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based secure centralised system, stratified by centre and blocked with varying block sizes (randomly of size two or four), to either usual care plus anakinra (200 mg twice a day on days 1-3, 100 mg twice on day 4, 100 mg once on day 5) or usual care alone. Usual care was provided at the discretion of the site clinicians. The two coprimary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had died or needed non-invasive or mechanical ventilation by day 4 (ie, a score of >5 on the WHO-CPS) and survival without need for mechanical or non-invasive ventilation (including high-flow oxygen) at day 14. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04341584, and is now closed to accrual. FindingsBetween April 8 and April 26, 2020, we screened 153 patients. The study was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, after the recruitment of 116 patients: 59 were assigned to the anakinra group, and 57 were assigned to the usual care group. Two patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. In the analysable population, the median age was 66 years (IQR 59 to 76) and 80 (70%) participants were men. In the anakinra group, 21 (36%) of 59 patients had a WHO-CPS score of more than 5 at day 4 versus 21 (38%) of 55 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -2•5%, 90% credible interval [CrI] -17•1 to 12•0), with a posterior probability of ARD of less than 0 (ie, anakinra better than usual care) of 61•2%. At day 14, 28 (47%; 95% CI 33 to 59) patients in the anakinra group and 28 (51%; 95% CI 36 to 62) in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, with a posterior probability of any efficacy of anakinra (hazard ratio [HR] being less than 1) of 54•5% (median posterior HR 0•97; 90% CrI 0•62 to 1•52). At day 90, 16 (27%) patients in the anakinra group and 15 (27%) in the usual care group had died. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (46%) patients in the anakinra group and 21 (38%) in the usu...

IMPORTANCEThe benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated.OBJECTIVES To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO 2 ) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (O 2 SC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021.INTERVENTIONS Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to O 2 SC, CPAP, or HFNO 2 . MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among O 2 SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNO 2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among O 2 support groups (O 2 SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; O 2 SC vs HFNO 2 : HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (O 2 SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; O 2 SC vs HFNO 2 : HR, 0.89 [95% CI,). Interactions between interventions were not significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of...

No abstract

BackgroundCOVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (CARDS) is the severe evolution of the Sars-Cov-2 infection leading to an intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Its onset is associated with “long-covid” including persisting respiratory disorders up to one year. Rehabilitation is suggested by most guidelines in the treatment of “long-covid”. As no randomised controlled trial did support its use in “long-covid” we aimed to evaluate the effects of endurance training rehabilitation (ETR) on dyspnoea in “long-covid” following CARDS.MethodsIn this multicentre, two-arm, parallel, open, assessor-blinded, randomised, controlled trial performed in three French ICU, we enrolled adults previously admitted for CARDS, discharged for at least three months and presenting an mMRC dyspnea scale score > 1. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either ETR or standard physiotherapy (SP), both for three months. Outcomes assessors were masked to treatment assignment. Primary outcome was dyspnoea’s evolution, measured by Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP) at inclusion and after 90 days.ResultsBetween August 7, 2020 and January 26, 2022, 871 COVID-19 patients were screened, of whom 60 were randomly assigned to ETR (n=27) or SP (n=33). Mean MDP score after treatment was significantly lower in the ETR group than in the SP group (26.15 [SD 15.48] vs. 44.76 [SD 19.25]; mean difference -18.61 [95% CI -27.78 to -9.44]; p<0.0001).ConclusionCARDS patients suffering from breathlessness three months after discharge improved their dyspnoea significantly more when treated with ETR for three months rather than with SP.

Background Intradialytic hypotension (IDH), a common complication in hemodialysis (HD) patients, is associated with multiple risk factors including cardiac dysfunction and alterations of the peripheral autonomic nervous system. To what extent dysautonomia may contribute to the occurrence of IHD remains elusive. We sought to investigate the clinical utility of Sudocan®, a device that quantifies dysautonomia, in the prediction of IDH. Methods We conducted a prospective monocentric study in adult HD patients from July 2019 to February 2020. Dysautonomia was assessed by the measurements of hand and foot Electrochemical Skin Conductance (ESC) using Sudocan®, before HD. The primary end point was the incidence of IDH (NKF/K-DOQI definition), according to the presence of a pathological hand and/or foot ESC value, during the 3-month study period. Results A total of 176 HD patients (64 ± 14 years old) were enrolled. Mean pre-dialysis hand and foot ESC were 45 ± 20 µS and 54 ± 22 µS, respectively. Thirty-five and 40% of patients had a pathological ESC at the hand and foot, respectively. IDH occurred in 46 patients. Logistic regression showed that pathologic pre-HD hand ESC was associated with an increased risk of IDH [OR = 2.56, IC95% (1.04-6.67), p = 0.04]. The cumulative risk incidence of IHD during the study was 5.65 [IC95% (2.04-15.71), p = 0.001] and 3.71 [IC95% (1.41-9.76), p = 0.008], with a pathological hand and foot ESC, respectively. Conclusions A pathological hand ESC, as assessed by a non-invasive Sudoscan® test is associated with an increased risk of IDH.