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...

Prevalence of HIT among patients under VA-ECMO is extremely low at 0.36% with an associated mortality rate of 33.3%, which appears to be in the same range as that observed in patients treated with VA-ECMO without HIT. In addition, HIT was ultimately ruled out in one-third of patients with clinical suspicion of HIT and positive anti-PF4/heparin antibodies.

Background In some cases, anaphylactic shock (AS) is still lethal, despite rapid use of epinephrine. High doses of epinephrine are associated with severe complications. Platelet‐activating factor (PAF) is secreted in massive amounts during AS, and a high plasma level is correlated with increased AS severity. Objective To assess the effect of ABT‐491, a PAF‐receptor antagonist and possible adjunct treatment, alone or in combination with epinephrine during AS. Methods AS was induced by intravenous injection of 1 mg ovalbumin into ovalbumin‐sensitized rats. Rats were then randomly assigned to 5 groups (n = 10 per group): SHAM (vehicle only), SHOCK (no treatment), ABT (ABT‐491 1 mg/kg), EPI (epinephrine 5 µg as a bolus then 10 µg kg−1 min−1 by continuous infusion, followed by a reducing protocol) and EPI‐ABT (both treatments). Results Ovalbumin injection resulted in a severe decrease in mean arterial pressure, left ventricular inotropy (max dP/dt) and left ventricular shortening fraction (LVSF). All rats from the ABT group survived until the end of the experiment. ABT‐491 prevented the LVSF decrease observed in the SHOCK group (at T15: ABT 50% ± 11% vs SHOCK 36% ± 9%, P = .01), significantly reduced the dose of epinephrine needed to treat anaphylactic shock (EPI‐ABT 314 ± 67 µg/kg vs EPI 475 ± 69 µg/kg, P < .001) and reduced the time to restore basal MAP (ABT 23 ± 7 minutes vs EPI‐ABT 13 ± 5 minutes, P < .01). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance AS was characterized by early cardiac dysfunction in our model. Treatment with ABT‐491 allowed survival until the end of the experiment and reduced cardiac dysfunction. Use of the PAF‐R antagonist had a synergistic effect with epinephrine and allowed a significant reduction in epinephrine consumption. Use of PAF‐R antagonists during AS could reduce epinephrine‐related complications and improve the treatment of epinephrine refractory cases.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread rapidly worldwide, with more than two million deaths. Evidence indicates the critical role of the vascular endothelium in its pathophysiology but, like potential changes in functional vasodilation, the vascular effect of SARS-CoV-2 at a given distance from the acute infection is largely unknown. We assessed brachial artery flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) in 27 COVID-19 patients needing conventional or intensive care unit hospitalization, three months after SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis and in nine age- and sex- matched control subjects. Interestingly, the FMD was lower in COVID-19 patients as compared to controls (8.2 (7.2–8.9) vs. 10.3 (9.1–11.7); p = 0.002, and half of the hospitalized COVID-19 survivors presented with a reduced FMD < 8% at three months of COVID-19 onset. Impaired FMD was not associated with severe or critical SARS-CoV-2 infection, reflected by ICU hospitalization, total hospitalization duration, or severity of lung damage. In conclusion, reduced FMD is often observed even three months after hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection, but such alteration predominantly appears to not be related to COVID-19 severity. Longer and larger follow-up studies will help to clarify the potential prognosis value of FMD among COVID-19 patients, as well as to further determine the mechanisms involved.