Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. MethodsIn this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients).Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03-1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61-12·23; p<0·0001), and d-dimer greater than 1 µg/mL (18·42, 2·64-128·55; p=0·0033) on admission. Median duration of viral shedding was 20·0 days (IQR 17·0-24·0) in survivors, but SARS-CoV-2 was detectable until death in non-survivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days.Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 µg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future.

BACKGROUNDNo therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODSWe conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao 2 ) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao 2 ) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio 2 ) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTSA total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.72). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, −5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS

To face SARS-CoV-2 pandemic various attempts are made to identify potential effective treatments by repurposing available drugs. Among them, indomethacin, an anti-inflammatory drug, was shown to have potent in-vitro antiviral properties on human SARS-CoV-1, canine CCoV, and more recently on human SARS-CoV-2 at low micromolar range. Our objective was to show that indomethacin could be considered as a promising candidate for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and to provide criteria for comparing benefits of alternative dosage regimens using a model-based approach. A multi-stage model-based approach was developed to characterize % of recovery and viral load in CCoVinfected dogs, to estimate the PK of indomethacin in dog and human using published data after administration of immediate (IR) and sustained-release (SR) formulations, and to estimate the expected antiviral activity as a function of different assumptions on the effective exposure in human. Different dosage regimens were evaluated for IR formulation (25 mg and 50 mg three-times-a-day, and 25 mg four-times-a-day), and SR formulation (75 mg once and twice-a-day). The best performing dosing regimens were: 50 mg three-times-a-day for the IR formulation, and 75 mg twice-a-day for the SR formulation. The treatment with the SR formulation at the dose of 75 mg twice-a-day is expected to achieve a complete response in three days for the treatment in patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. These results suggest that indomethacin could be considered as a promising candidate for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 whose potential therapeutic effect needs to be further assessed in a prospective clinical trial.