; 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 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...

No abstract

Background The efficacy of high flow nasal canula oxygen therapy (HFNO) to prevent invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is not well established in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to compare the risk of IMV between two strategies of oxygenation (conventional oxygenation and HFNO) in critically ill COVID 19 patients. Methods This was a bicenter retrospective study which took place in two intensive care units (ICU) of tertiary hospitals in the Paris region from March 11, to May 3, 2020. We enrolled consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure (ARF) who did not receive IMV at ICU admission. The primary outcome was the rate of IMV after ICU admission. Secondary outcomes were death at day 28 and day 60, length of ICU stay and ventilator-free days at day 28. Data from the HFNO group were compared with those from the standard oxygen therapy (SOT) group using weighted propensity score. Results Among 138 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 62 (45%) were treated with SOT alone, and 76 (55%) with HFNO. In HFNO group, 39/76 (51%) patients received IMV and 46/62 (74%) in SOT group (OR 0.37 [95% CI, 0.18–0.76] p = 0.007). After weighted propensity score, HFNO was still associated with a lower rate of IMV (OR 0.31 [95% CI, 0.14–0.66] p = 0.002). Length of ICU stay and mortality at day 28 and day 60 did not significantly differ between HFNO and SOT groups after weighted propensity score. Ventilator-free days at days 28 was higher in HNFO group (21 days vs 10 days, p = 0.005). In the HFNO group, predictive factors associated with IMV were SAPS2 score (OR 1.13 [95%CI, 1.06–1.20] p = 0.0002) and ROX index > 4.88 (OR 0.23 [95%CI, 0.008–0.64] p = 0.006). Conclusions High flow nasal canula oxygen for ARF due to COVID-19 is associated with a lower rate of invasive mechanical ventilation.

Background Limited data are available regarding antiviral therapy efficacy in most severe patients under mechanical ventilation for Covid-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods Comparison of antiviral strategies (none, hydroxychloroquine (OHQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (L/R), others (combination or remdesivir) in an observational multicentre cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe Covid-19 ARDS. The primary endpoint was the number of day 28 ventilator-free days (VFD). Patients who died before d28 were considered as having 0 VFD. The variable was dichotomized into “patients still ventilated or dead at day 28” versus “patients weaned and alive at day 28”. Results We analyzed 415 patients (85 treated with standard of care (SOC), 57 with L/R, 220 with OHQ, and 53 others). The median number of d28-VFD was 0 (IQR 0–13) and differed between groups (P = 0.03), SOC patients having the highest d28-VFD. After adjustment for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and plateau pressure and accounting for center effect with a generalized linear mixed model, none of the antiviral strategies increased the chance of being alive and weaned from MV at day 28 compared to the SOC strategy (OR 0.48 CI95% (0.18–1.25); OR 0.96 (0.47–2.02) and OR 1.43 (0.53–4.04) for L/R, OHQ and other treatments, respectively). Acute kidney injury during ICU stay was frequent (55%); its incidence was higher in patients receiving lopinavir (66 vs 53%, P = 0.03). After adjustment for age, sex, BMI, chronic hypertension and chronic renal disease, the use of L/R was associated with an increased risk of renal replacement therapy (RRT). (OR 2.52 CI95% 1.16–5.59). Conclusion In this multicentre observational study of moderate-to-severe Covid-19 ARDS patients, we did not observe any benefit among patients treated with OHQ or L/R compared with SOC. The use of L/R treatment was associated with an increased need for RRT. Take home message Neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir/ritonavir as COVID-19 antiviral treatment is associated with higher ventilator-free days at day 28 when compared with standard of care (no antiviral treatment) in ICU patients under invasive mechanical ventilation. Lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with an increased risk of renal replacement therapy requirement. Tweet COVID-19: Insights from ARDS cohort: no signal of efficacy of any antiviral drugs. Lopinavir/ritonavir may be associated with need for RRT

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...

The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis,

Rational To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Methods Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P < 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36–0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78–3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61–1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79–4.21, P < 0.001). Conclusion In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed.