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

Purpose The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unparalleled influx of patients. Prognostic scores could help optimizing healthcare delivery, but most of them have not been comprehensively validated. We aim to externally validate existing prognostic scores for COVID-19. Methods We used “COVID-19 Evidence Alerts” (McMaster University) to retrieve high-quality prognostic scores predicting death or intensive care unit (ICU) transfer from routinely collected data. We studied their accuracy in a retrospective multicenter cohort of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January 2020 to April 2021 in the Greater Paris University Hospitals. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were computed for the prediction of the original outcome, 30-day in-hospital mortality and the composite of 30-day in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer. Results We included 14,343 consecutive patients, 2583 (18%) died and 5067 (35%) died or were transferred to the ICU. We examined 274 studies and found 32 scores meeting the inclusion criteria: 19 had a significantly lower AUC in our cohort than in previously published validation studies for the original outcome; 25 performed better to predict in-hospital mortality than the composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer; 7 had an AUC > 0.75 to predict in-hospital mortality; 2 had an AUC > 0.70 to predict the composite outcome. Conclusion Seven prognostic scores were fairly accurate to predict death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The 4C Mortality Score and the ABCS stand out because they performed as well in our cohort and their initial validation cohort, during the first epidemic wave and subsequent waves, and in younger and older patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06524-w.

The widespread use of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) has converted the prognosis of HIV infection from a rapidly progressive and ultimately fatal disease to a chronic condition with limited impact on life expectancy. Yet, HIV-infected patients remain at high risk for critical illness due to the occurrence of severe opportunistic infections in those with advanced immunosuppression (i.e., inaugural admissions or limited access to cART), a pronounced susceptibility to bacterial sepsis and tuberculosis at every stage of HIV infection, and a rising prevalence of underlying comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, atherosclerosis or non-AIDS-defining neoplasms in cART-treated patients aging with controlled viral replication. Several patterns of intensive care have markedly evolved in this patient population over the late cART era, including a steady decline in AIDS-related admissions, an opposite trend in admissions for exacerbated comorbidities, the emergence of additional drivers of immunosuppression (e.g., anti-neoplastic chemotherapy or solid organ transplantation), the management of cART in the acute phase of critical illness, and a dramatic progress in short-term survival that mainly results from general advances in intensive care practices. Besides, there is a lack of data regarding other features of ICU and post-ICU care in these patients, especially on the impact of sociological factors on clinical presentation and prognosis, the optimal timing of cART introduction in AIDS-related admissions, determinants of end-of-life decisions, long-term survival, and functional outcomes. In this narrative review, we sought to depict the current evidence regarding the management of HIV-infected patients admitted to the intensive care unit.