IntroductionRemdesivir is a registered treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that has moderate clinical effectiveness. Anecdotally, some patients’ respiratory insufficiency seemed to... Show moreIntroductionRemdesivir is a registered treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that has moderate clinical effectiveness. Anecdotally, some patients’ respiratory insufficiency seemed to recover particularly rapidly after initiation of remdesivir. In this study, we investigated if this rapid improvement was caused by remdesivir, and which patient characteristics might predict a rapid clinical improvement in response to remdesivir.MethodsThis was a multicentre observational cohort study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen and were treated with dexamethasone. Rapid clinical improvement in response to treatment was defined by a reduction of at least 1 L of supplemental oxygen per minute or discharge from the hospital within 72 h after admission. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between remdesivir and rapid clinical improvement. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, ICU admission rate and hospitalisation duration.ResultsOf 871 patients included, 445 were treated with remdesivir. There was no influence of remdesivir on the occurrence of rapid clinical improvement (62% vs 61% OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79–1.40; p = 0.76). The in-hospital mortality was lower (14.7% vs 19.8% OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48–1.02; p = 0.06) for the remdesivir-treated patients. Rapid clinical improvement occurred more often in patients with low C-reactive protein (≤ 75 mg/L) and short duration of symptoms prior to hospitalisation (< 7 days) (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07–7.56).ConclusionRemdesivir generally does not increase the incidence of rapid clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but it might have an effect in patients with short duration of symptoms and limited signs of systemic inflammation. Show less
Koekenbier, E.L.; Fohse, K.; Maat, J.S. van de; Oosterheert, J.J.; Nieuwkoop, C. van; Hoogerwerf, J.J.; ... ; BCG-PRIME Study Grp 2023
ObjectivesTo test whether Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination would reduce the incidence of COVID-19 and other respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in older adults with one or more... Show moreObjectivesTo test whether Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination would reduce the incidence of COVID-19 and other respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in older adults with one or more comorbidities.MethodsCommunity-dwelling adults aged 60 years or older with one or more underlying comorbidities and no contraindications to BCG vaccination were randomized 1:1 to BCG or placebo vaccination and followed for 6 months. The primary endpoint was a self-reported, test-confirmed COVID-19 incidence. Secondary endpoints included COVID-19 hospital admissions and clinically relevant RTIs (i.e. RTIs including but not limited to COVID-19 requiring medical intervention). COVID-19 and clinically relevant RTI episodes were adjudicated. Incidences were compared using Fine-Gray regression, accounting for competing events.ResultsA total of 6112 participants with a median age of 69 years (interquartile range, 65–74) and median of 2 (interquartile range, 1–3) comorbidities were randomized to BCG (n = 3058) or placebo (n = 3054) vaccination. COVID-19 infections were reported by 129 BCG recipients compared to 115 placebo recipients [hazard ratio (HR), 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87–1.44]. COVID-19-related hospitalization occurred in 18 BCG and 21 placebo recipients (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.46–1.61). During the study period, 13 BCG recipients died compared with 18 placebo recipients (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.35–1.43), of which 11 deaths (35%) were COVID-19-related: six in the placebo group and five in the BCG group.Clinically relevant RTI was reported by 66 BCG and 72 placebo recipients (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66–1.28).DiscussionBCG vaccination does not protect older adults with comorbidities against COVID-19, COVID-19 hospitalization, or clinically relevant RTIs. Show less
Objectives: Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to... Show moreObjectives: Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real-world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors. Methods: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed-dose tocilizumab, low-dose tocilizumab, and fixed-dose sarilumab treatment groups. Results: A total of 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios (HRs) for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.39), low-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31), and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds of progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low-dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group. Conclusion: We found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time-associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted. (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Show less
ObjectivesInterleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab... Show moreObjectivesInterleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real-world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors.MethodsHospitalized patients with COVID-19, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed-dose tocilizumab, low-dose tocilizumab, and fixed-dose sarilumab treatment groups.ResultsA total of 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios (HRs) for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.39), low-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31), and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds of progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low-dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group.ConclusionWe found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time-associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted. Show less
Hassan, S.; Ramspek, C.L.; Ferrari, B.; Diepen, M. van; Rossio, R.; Knevel, R.; ... ; COVID-19 Network Working Grp 2022
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents an urgent threat to global health. Prediction models that accurately estimate mortality risk in hospitalized patients could assist... Show moreBackground: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents an urgent threat to global health. Prediction models that accurately estimate mortality risk in hospitalized patients could assist medical staff in treatment and allocating limited resources. Aims: To externally validate two promising previously published risk scores that predict in-hospital mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Two prospective cohorts were available; a cohort of 1028 patients admitted to one of nine hospitals in Lombardy, Italy (the Lombardy cohort) and a cohort of 432 patients admitted to a hospital in Leiden, the Netherlands (the Leiden cohort). The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. All patients were adult and testedCOVID-19 PCR-positive. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed. Results: The C-statistic of the 4C mortality score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.85, 95CI: 0.82-0.89) and in the Leiden cohort (0.87, 95CI: 0.80-0.94). Model calibration was acceptable in the Lombardy cohort but poor in the Leiden cohort due to the model systematically overpredicting the mortality risk for all patients. The C -sta-tistic of the CURB-65 score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.80, 95CI: 0.75-0.85) and in the Leiden cohort (0.82, 95CI: 0.76-0.88). The mortality rate in the CURB-65 development cohort was much lower than the mortality rate in the Lombardy cohort. A similar but less pronounced trend was found for patients in the Leiden cohort. Conclusion: Although performances did not differ greatly, the 4C mortality score showed the best performance. However, because of quickly changing circumstances, model recalibration may be necessary before using the 4C mortality score. Show less
Controlled human infection (CHI) models for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been proposed as a tool to accelerate the development of vaccines and drugs. Such... Show moreControlled human infection (CHI) models for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been proposed as a tool to accelerate the development of vaccines and drugs. Such models carry inherent risks. Participants may develop severe disease or complications after deliberate infection. Prolonged isolation may negatively impact their well-being. Through secondary infection of study personnel or participant household contacts, the experimental virus strain may cause a community outbreak. We identified risks associated with such a SARS-CoV-2 CHI model and assessed their likelihood and impact and propose strategies that mitigate these risks. In this report, we show that risks can be minimized with proper risk mitigation strategies; the residual risk, however, should be weighed carefully against the scientific and social values of such a CHI model. Show less
BackgroundTo evaluate the association between crowding and transmission of viral respiratory infectious diseases, we investigated the change in transmission patterns of influenza and COVID-19... Show moreBackgroundTo evaluate the association between crowding and transmission of viral respiratory infectious diseases, we investigated the change in transmission patterns of influenza and COVID-19 before and after a mass gathering event (i.e., carnival) in the Netherlands.MethodsInformation on individual hospitalizations related to the 2017/2018 influenza epidemic were accessed from Statistics Netherlands. The influenza cases were stratified between non-carnival and carnival regions. Distributions of influenza cases were plotted with time and compared between regions. A similar investigation in the early outbreak of COVID-19 was also conducted using open data from the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.ResultsBaseline characteristics between non-carnival and carnival regions were broadly similar. There were 13,836 influenza-related hospitalizations in the 2017/2018 influenza epidemic, and carnival fell about 1week before the peak of these hospitalizations. The distributions of new influenza-related hospitalizations per 100,000 inhabitants with time between regions followed the same pattern with a surge of new cases in the carnival region about 1week after carnival, which did not occur in the non-carnival region. The increase of new cases for COVID-19 in the carnival region exceeded that in the non-carnival region about 1week after the first case was reported, but these results warrant caution as for COVID-19 there were no cases reported before the carnival and social measures were introduced shortly after carnival.ConclusionIn this study, a mass gathering event (carnival) was associated with aggravating the spread of viral respiratory infectious diseases. Show less
Background: Different countries have adopted different containment and testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2. The difference in testing makes it difficult to compare the effect of different containment... Show moreBackground: Different countries have adopted different containment and testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2. The difference in testing makes it difficult to compare the effect of different containment strategies. This study proposes methods to allow a direct comparison and presents the results.Design: Publicly available data on the numbers of reported COVID-19-related deaths between 01 January and 17 April 2020 were compared between countries.Results: The numbers of cases or deaths per 100,000 inhabitants gave severely biased comparisons between countries. Only the number of deaths expressed as a percentage of the number of deaths on day 25 after the first reported COVID-19-related death allowed a direct comparison between countries. From this comparison clear differences were observed between countries, associated with the timing of the implementation of containment measures.Conclusions: Comparisons between countries are only possible when simultaneously taking into account that the virus does not arrive in all countries simultaneously, absolute numbers are incomparable due to different population sizes, rates per 100,000 of the population are incomparable because not all countries are affected homogeneously, susceptibility to death by COVID-19 can differ between populations, and a death is only reported as a COVID-19-related death if the patient was diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. With the current methods, all these factors were accounted for and an unbiased direct comparison between countries was established. This comparison confirmed that early adoption of containment strategies is key in flattening the curve of the epidemic. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. Show less
