Background To date, influenza epidemics have been considered suitable for use as a model for the COVID-19 epidemic, given that they are respiratory diseases with similar modes of transmission. However, data directly comparing the two diseases are scarce.Methods We did a nationwide retrospective cohort study using the French national administrative database (PMSI), which includes discharge summaries for all hospital admissions in France. All patients hospitalised for COVID-19 from March 1 to April 30, 2020, and all patients hospitalised for influenza between Dec 1, 2018, and Feb 28, 2019, were included. The diagnosis of COVID-19 (International Classification of Diseases [10th edition] codes U07.10, U07.11, U07.12, U07.14, or U07.15) or influenza (J09, J10, or J11) comprised primary, related, or associated diagnosis. Comparisons of risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes between patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and influenza were done, with data also stratified by age group. Findings 89 530 patients with COVID-19 and 45 819 patients with influenza were hospitalised in France during the respective study periods. The median age of patients was 68 years (IQR 52-82) for COVID-19 and 71 years (34-84) for influenza. Patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight, and more frequently had diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia than patients with influenza, whereas those with influenza more frequently had heart failure, chronic respiratory disease, cirrhosis, and deficiency anaemia. Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 more frequently developed acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, septic shock, or haemorrhagic stroke than patients with influenza, but less frequently developed myocardial infarction or atrial fibrillation. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza (15 104 [16•9%] of 89 530 vs 2640 [5•8%] of 45 819), with a relative risk of death of 2•9 (95% CI 2•8-3•0) and an age-standardised mortality ratio of 2•82. Of the patients hospitalised, the proportion of paediatric patients (<18 years) was smaller for COVID-19 than for influenza (1227 [1•4%] vs 8942 [19•5%]), but a larger proportion of patients younger than 5 years needed intensive care support for COVID-19 than for influenza (14 [2•3%] of 613 vs 65 [0•9%] of 6973). In adolescents (11-17 years), the in-hospital mortality was ten-times higher for COVID-19 than for influenza (five [1•1% of 458 vs one [0•1%] of 804), and patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight.Interpretation The presentation of patients with COVID-19 and seasonal influenza requiring hospitalisation differs considerably. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is likely to have a higher potential for respiratory pathogenicity, leading to more respiratory complications and to higher mortality. In children, although the rate of hospitalisation for COVID-19 appears to be lower than for influenza, in-hospital mortality is higher; however, low patient numbers limit this finding...

Background The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. Methods DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir–ritonavir, lopinavir–ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04315948 . Findings Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporea...

Background COVID-19-related ARDS has unique features when compared with ARDS from other origins, suggesting a distinctive inflammatory pathogenesis. Data regarding the host response within the lung are sparse. The objective is to compare alveolar and systemic inflammation response patterns, mitochondrial alarmin release, and outcomes according to ARDS etiology (i.e., COVID-19 vs. non-COVID-19). Methods Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and plasma were obtained from 7 control, 7 non-COVID-19 ARDS, and 14 COVID-19 ARDS patients. Clinical data, plasma, and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentrations of 45 inflammatory mediators and cell-free mitochondrial DNA were measured and compared. Results COVID-19 ARDS patients required mechanical ventilation (MV) for significantly longer, even after adjustment for potential confounders. There was a trend toward higher concentrations of plasma CCL5, CXCL2, CXCL10, CD40 ligand, IL-10, and GM-CSF, and ELF concentrations of CXCL1, CXCL10, granzyme B, TRAIL, and EGF in the COVID-19 ARDS group compared with the non-COVID-19 ARDS group. Plasma and ELF CXCL10 concentrations were independently associated with the number of ventilator-free days, without correlation between ELF CXCL-10 and viral load. Mitochondrial DNA plasma and ELF concentrations were elevated in all ARDS patients, with no differences between the two groups. ELF concentrations of mitochondrial DNA were correlated with alveolar cell counts, as well as IL-8 and IL-1β concentrations. Conclusion CXCL10 could be one key mediator involved in the dysregulated immune response. It should be evaluated as a candidate biomarker that may predict the duration of MV in COVID-19 ARDS patients. Targeting the CXCL10-CXCR3 axis could also be considered as a new therapeutic approach. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03955887

Background Although immune modulation is a promising therapeutic avenue in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the most relevant targets remain to be found. COVID-19 has peculiar characteristics and outcomes, suggesting a unique immunopathogenesis. Methods Thirty-six immunocompetent non-COVID-19 and 27 COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia were prospectively enrolled in a single center, most requiring intensive care. Clinical and biological characteristics (including T cell phenotype and function and plasma concentrations of 30 cytokines) and outcomes were compared. Results At similar baseline respiratory severity, COVID-19 patients required mechanical ventilation for significantly longer than non-COVID-19 patients (15 [7–22] vs. 4 (0–15) days; p = 0.0049). COVID-19 patients had lower levels of most classical inflammatory cytokines (G-CSF, CCL20, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, IL-15, TNF-α, TGF-β), but higher plasma concentrations of CXCL10, GM-CSF and CCL5, compared to non-COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients displayed similar T-cell exhaustion to non-COVID-19 patients, but with a more unbalanced inflammatory/anti-inflammatory cytokine response (IL-6/IL-10 and TNF-α/IL-10 ratios). Principal component analysis identified two main patterns, with a clear distinction between non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients. Multivariate regression analysis confirmed that GM-CSF, CXCL10 and IL-10 levels were independently associated with the duration of mechanical ventilation. Conclusion We identified a unique cytokine response, with higher plasma GM-CSF and CXCL10 in COVID-19 patients that were independently associated with the longer duration of mechanical ventilation. These cytokines could represent the dysregulated immune response in severe COVID-19, as well as promising therapeutic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505281.