International audienceSummaryBackground Neuraminidase inhibitors were widely used during the 2009–10 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, but evidence for their effectiveness in reducing mortality is uncertain. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to investigate the association between use of neuraminidase inhibitors and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. Methods We assembled data for patients (all ages) admitted to hospital worldwide with laboratory confirmed or clinically diagnosed pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. We identified potential data contributors from an earlier systematic review of reported studies addressing the same research question. In our systematic review, eligible studies were done between March 1, 2009 (Mexico), or April 1, 2009 (rest of the world), until the WHO declaration of the end of the pandemic (Aug 10, 2010); however, we continued to receive data up to March 14, 2011, from ongoing studies. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to assess the association between neuraminidase inhibitor treatment and mortality (primary outcome), adjusting for both treatment propensity and potential confounders, using generalised linear mixed modelling. We assessed the association with time to treatment using time-dependent Cox regression shared frailty modelling. Findings We included data for 29 234 patients from 78 studies of patients admitted to hospital between Jan 2, 2009, and March 14, 2011. Compared with no treatment, neuraminidase inhibitor treatment (irrespective of timing) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·81; 95% CI 0·70–0·93; p=0·0024). Compared with later treatment, early treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted OR 0·48; 95% CI 0·41–0·56; p<0·0001). Early treatment versus no treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality (adjusted OR 0·50; 95% CI 0·37–0·67; p<0·0001). These associations with reduced mortality risk were less pronounced and not significant in children. There was an increase in the mortality hazard rate with each day's delay in initiation of treatment up to day 5 as compared with treatment initiated within 2 days of symptom onset (adjusted hazard ratio [HR 1·23] [95% CI 1·18–1·28]; p<0·0001 for the increasing HR with each day's delay). Interpretation We advocate early instigation of neuraminidase inhibitor treatment in adults admitted to hospital with suspected or proven influenza infection. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche

BackgroundThe impact of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) on influenza‐related pneumonia (IRP) is not established. Our objective was to investigate the association between NAI treatment and IRP incidence and outcomes in patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection.MethodsA worldwide meta‐analysis of individual participant data from 20 634 hospitalised patients with laboratory‐confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 (n = 20 021) or clinically diagnosed (n = 613) ‘pandemic influenza’. The primary outcome was radiologically confirmed IRP. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using generalised linear mixed modelling, adjusting for NAI treatment propensity, antibiotics and corticosteroids.ResultsOf 20 634 included participants, 5978 (29·0%) had IRP; conversely, 3349 (16·2%) had confirmed the absence of radiographic pneumonia (the comparator). Early NAI treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) versus no NAI was not significantly associated with IRP [adj. OR 0·83 (95% CI 0·64–1·06; P = 0·136)]. Among the 5978 patients with IRP, early NAI treatment versus none did not impact on mortality [adj. OR = 0·72 (0·44–1·17; P = 0·180)] or likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 1·17 (0·71–1·92; P = 0·537)], but early treatment versus later significantly reduced mortality [adj. OR = 0·70 (0·55–0·88; P = 0·003)] and likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 0·68 (0·54–0·85; P = 0·001)].ConclusionsEarly NAI treatment of patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection versus no treatment did not reduce the likelihood of IRP. However, in patients who developed IRP, early NAI treatment versus later reduced the likelihood of mortality and needing ventilatory support.

Background The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men.

Data on the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children are limited, and studies from Europe are scarce. We analyzed the clinical severity and epidemiologic aspects of COVID-19 in consecutive children aged 0–18 years, referred with a suspicion of COVID-19 between February 1, and April 15, 2020. RT-PCR on a nasopharyngeal swab was used to confirm COVID-19. 319 children met the criteria of a suspected case. COVID-19 was diagnosed in 15/319 (4.7%) patients (8 male; mean age 10.5 years). All of them had household contact with an infected relative. Five (33.3%) patients were asymptomatic. In 9/15 (60.0%) children, the course of the disease was mild, and in 1/15 (6.7%), it was moderate, with the following symptoms: fever (46.7%), cough (40%), diarrhea (20%), vomiting (13.3%), rhinitis (6.7%), and shortness of breath (6.7%). In the COVID-19-negative patients, other infections were confirmed, including influenza in 32/319 (10%). The clinical course of COVID-19 and influenza differed significantly based on the clinical presentation. In conclusion, the clinical course of COVID-19 in children is usually mild or asymptomatic. In children suspected of having COVID-19, other infections should not be overlooked. The main risk factor for COVID-19 in children is household contact with an infected relative.