Search

Background: Despite considerable research into COVID-19 sequelae, little is known about differences in illness duration and complications in patients presenting in primary care with symptoms of acute respiratory tract infections (RTI) that are and are not attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection., Objective: To explore whether aetiology impacted course of illness and prediction of complications in patients presenting in primary care with symptoms of RTI early in the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Between April 2020-March 2021 general practitioners from nine European countries recruited consecutively contacting patients with RTI symptoms. At baseline, an oropharyngeal-nasal swab was obtained for aetiology determination using PCR after follow-up of 28 days. Time to self-reported recovery was analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Predictors (baseline variables of demographics, patient and disease characteristics) of a complicated course (composite of hospital admission and persisting signs/symptoms at 28 days follow-up) were explored with logistic regression modelling., Results: Of 855 patients with RTI symptoms, 237 (27.7%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive. The proportion not feeling fully recovered (15.6% vs 18.1%, p  = 0.39), reporting being extremely tired (9.7% vs 12.8%, p  = 0.21), and not having returned to usual daily activities (18.1% vs 14.4%, p  = 0.18) at day 28 were comparable between SARS-CoV-2 positive ( n  = 237) and negative ( n  = 618) groups. However, among those feeling fully recovered (SARS-CoV-2 positive: 200 patients, SARS-CoV-2 negative: 506 patients), time to full recovery was significantly longer in SARS-CoV-2 patients (10.6 vs 7.7 days, p  < 0.001). We found no evidence that predictors of a complicated course differed between groups ( p  = 0.07)., Conclusion: Early in the pandemic, the proportion of patients not feeling fully recovered by 28 days was similar between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients presenting in primary care with RTI symptoms, but it took somewhat longer for SARS-CoV-2 patients to feel fully recovered. More research is needed on predictors of a complicated course in RTI.

Objectives: To assess the safety and immunogenicity of a fourth vaccination (second booster) in individuals aged ≥75 years., Methods: Participants were randomized to BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, 30 µg) or messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 (Spikevax, 100 µg). The primary end point was the rate of two-fold antibody titer increase 14 days after vaccination, targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) region of wild-type SARS-CoV-2. The secondary end points included changes in neutralizing activity against wild-type and 25 variants. Safety was assessed by monitoring solicited adverse events (AEs) for 7 days., Results: A total of 269 participants (mean age 81 years, mRNA-1273 n = 135/BNT162b2 n = 134) were included. Two-fold anti-RBD immunoglobulin (Ig) G titer increase was achieved by 101 of 129 (78%) and 116 of 133 (87%) subjects in the BNT162b2 and the mRNA-1273 group, respectively (P = 0.054). A second booster of mRNA-1273 provided higher anti-RBD IgG geometric mean titer: 21.326 IU/mL (95% confidence interval: 18.235-24.940) vs BNT162b2: 15.181 IU/mL (95% confidence interval: 13.172-17.497). A higher neutralizing activity was noted for the mRNA-1273 group. The most frequent AE was pain at the injection site (51% in mRNA-1273 and 48% in BNT162b2). Participants in the mRNA-1273 group had less vaccine-related AEs (30% vs 39%)., Conclusions: A second booster of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 provided substantial IgG increase. Full-dose mRNA-1273 provided higher IgG levels and neutralizing capacity against SARS-CoV-2, with similar safety profile for subjects of advanced age., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interest JS has received research grants by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Noscendo and Basilea Pharmaceuticals; has received speaker honoraria by AbbVie, Hikma, Pfizer and Gilead; has been a consultant to Gilead, Produkt&Markt GmbH, Alvea Vax and Micron Research and has received travel grants by German Society for Infectious Diseases (DGI) and Meta-Alexander Foundation, all outside the submitted work. MA has received research grants from Pfizer and Gilead. Contributed to educational activities organized/supported by Pfizer, Roche, Gilead, GSK, Moderna and Sanofi. All honoraria from these activities are paid to the Institution. JSG has received speaker honoraria from Gilead and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. MZ has received honoraria for lecturing courses by Pfizer Malaysia; is now an employee with AiCuris AG. RS has received lecture honoraria from Pfizer and Hikma, outside of the submitted work. JFI has received research grants by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministry of Science. Spain has received grants or research contracts from Laboratorios Faes, Normon, Pfizer, Italfarmaco, GSK, Prestige; has been a consultant or has received speaker honoraria from Faes, Normon, Cinfa, Mundipharma, Abbott, Novartis, and collaborations from AbbVie. PWGM has received honoraria and/or grant funding from Gilead, Janssen, MSD, ViiV Healthcare, GSK, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. SMK has received grants from Pfizer, MSD, Huvepharma, AiCuris, Astra Zeneca, Mylan, Janssen pharma. PK reports grants or contracts from German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) B-FAST (Bundesweites Forschungsnetz Angewandte Surveillance und Testung) and NAPKON (Nationales Pandemie Kohorten Netz, German National Pandemic Cohort Network) of the Network University Medicine and the State of North Rhine-Westphalia; Consulting fees Ambu GmbH, Gilead Sciences, Mundipharma Resarch Limited, Noxxon N.V. and Pfizer Pharma; Honoraria for lectures from Akademie für Infektionsmedizin e.V., Ambu GmbH, Astellas Pharma, BioRad Laboratories Inc., Datamed GmbH, European Confederation of Medical Mycology, Gilead Sciences, GPR Academy Ruesselsheim, HELIOS Kliniken GmbH, Lahn-Dill-Kliniken GmbH, medupdate GmbH, MedMedia GmbH, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Scilink Comunicación Científica SC, streamedup! GmbH and University Hospital and LMU Munich; Participation on an Advisory Board from Ambu GmbH, Gilead Sciences, Mundipharma Resarch Limited and Pfizer Pharma; A pending patent currently reviewed at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DE 10 2021 113 007.7); Other non-financial interests from Elsevier, Wiley and Taylor & Francis online outside the submitted work. OAC reports grants or contracts from Amplyx, Basilea, BMBF, Cidara, DZIF, EU-DG RTD (101037867), F2G, Gilead, Matinas, MedPace, MSD, Mundipharma, Octapharma, Pfizer, Scynexis; Consulting fees from AbbVie, Amplyx, Biocon, Biosys, Cidara, Da Volterra, Gilead, IQVIA, Janssen, Matinas, MedPace, Menarini, Molecular Partners, MSG-ERC, Noxxon, Octapharma, Pfizer, PSI, Scynexis, Seres; Honoraria for lectures from Abbott, AbbVie, Al-Jazeera Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, Gilead, Grupo Biotoscana/United Medical/Knight, Hikma, MedScape, MedUpdate, Merck/MSD, Mylan, Noscendo, Pfizer, Shionogi; payment for expert testimony from Cidara; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Actelion, Allecra, Cidara, Entasis, IQVIA, Janssen, MedPace, Paratek, PSI, Pulmocide, Shionogi, and The Prime Meridian Group. Kristin G-I Mohn has received honoraria for lectures from Takeda, IQVIA and BioNTech, has received a Research Grant from Norwegian Regional Health authorities, West, grant nr F12626 and is a Member of an advisory board on committee for National vaccination programs, Norwegian Public Health Institute. The remaining authors have no competing interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear., Methods: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2)., Results: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control., Conclusions: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Access to testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was limited, impacting patients with COVID-19-like symptoms. Current qualitative studies have been limited to one country or were conducted outside Europe., Objectives: To explore - in eight European countries - the experiences of patients consulting in primary care with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic., Methods: Sixty-six semi-structured interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted by telephone or in person between April and July 2020. Patients with COVID-19-like symptoms were purposively recruited in primary care sites in eight countries and sampled based on age, gender, and symptom presentation. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop a framework representing data across settings. Data adequacy was attained by collecting rich data., Results: Seven themes were identified, which described the experiences of patients consulting. Two themes are reported in this manuscript describing the role of COVID-19 testing in this experience. Patients described significant distress due to their symptoms, especially those at higher risk of complications from COVID-19, and those with severe symptoms. Patients wanted access to testing to identify the cause of their illness and minimise the burden of managing uncertainty. Some patients testing positive for COVID-19 assumed they would be immune from future infection., Conclusion: Patients experiencing novel and severe symptoms, particularly those with comorbidities, experienced a significant emotional and psychological burden due to concerns about COVID-19. Testing provided reassurance over health status and helped patients identify which guidance to follow. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 led to some patients thinking they were immune from future infection, thus influencing subsequent behaviour.

Background: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs had to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other aetiologies in patients presenting with respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms on clinical grounds and adapt management accordingly., Objectives: To test the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a period when COVID-19 was a new disease. To describe GPs' management of patients presenting with RTI for whom no confirmed diagnosis was available. To investigate associations between patient and clinical features with a SARS-CoV-2 infection., Methods: In April 2020-March 2021, 876 patients (9 countries) were recruited when they contacted their GP with symptoms of an RTI of unknown aetiology. A swab was taken at baseline for later analysis. Aetiology (PCR), diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, and patient management were explored. Factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were determined by logistic regression modelling., Results: GPs suspected SARS-CoV-2 in 53% of patients whereas 27% of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. True-positive patients (23%) were more intensively managed for follow-up, antiviral prescribing and advice than true-negatives (42%). False negatives (5%) were under-advised, particularly for social distancing and isolation. Older age (OR: 1.02 (1.01-1.03)), male sex (OR: 1.68 (1.16-2.41)), loss of taste/smell (OR: 5.8 (3.7-9)), fever (OR: 1.9 (1.3-2.8)), muscle aches (OR: 2.1 (1.5-3)), and a known risk factor for COVID-19 (travel, health care worker, contact with proven case; OR: 2.7 (1.8-4)) were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Absence of loss of taste/smell, fever, muscle aches and a known risk factor for COVID-19 correctly excluded SARS-CoV-2 in 92.3% of patients, whereas presence of 3, or 4 of these variables correctly classified SARS-CoV-2 in 57.7% and 87.1%., Conclusion: Correct clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, without POC-testing available, appeared to be complicated.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain., Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility., Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy., Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Background: The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care for respiratory tract infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for the management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) have been developed to help optimize antibiotic prescribing. While some countries in Europe have adopted these tests in primary care settings, most have not. Stakeholders, such as policy-makers, regulators, the diagnostic industry, and scientific associations, have roles in the implementation of new diagnostics in primary care. The aim of this study is to explore these stakeholders' views and experiences, and identify areas of unmet need relating to POCT implementation., Methods: Stakeholders were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing. Between March 2021 and May 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with stakeholders in Belgium, the UK and from European Union (EU) -level organizations. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis., Results: Twenty-six stakeholders participated: eleven from EU-level organizations, seven from Belgium, and eight from the UK. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders felt a balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches were an optimal strategy to the implementation of POCTs. Stakeholders stressed the need to engage with clinicians to act as champions for tests to help raise awareness and generate new evidence on how tests are used. While acknowledging the potential of POCTs for improving patient outcomes and impacting antibiotic prescribing behavior, some raised concerns on how tests would be used in practice and wished to see national data on effectiveness. COVID-19 catalyzed the use of tests, but stakeholders were pessimistic that processes for approving diagnostics during the pandemic would be replicated in the future., Conclusion: Stakeholders provided recommendations for research and practice. Robust reimbursement policies could alleviate financial burden from clinicians and patients, encouraging practices to adopt POCTs. Industry is likely to benefit from engaging as early on as possible with other stakeholders. Due to uncertainty among stakeholders on the impact of POCTs on antibiotic prescribing, further evidence is needed to understand how practices adopt POCTs and the implications for stewardship. Monitoring how POCTs are used can inform future guidelines on successful diagnostic implementation., Competing Interests: J-LT was employed by bioMérieux. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Hoste, Colman, Wanat, Hayward, Tissier, Postma, Goossens, Anthierens and Tonkin-Crine on behalf of the VALUE-Dx study team.)

Objectives: To validate a rapid serological test (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies used in seroprevalence studies in healthcare providers, including primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium., Design: A phase III validation study of the RST (OrientGene) within a prospective cohort study., Setting: Primary care in Belgium., Participants: Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages patients were eligible in the seroprevalence study. For the validation study, all participants who tested positive (376) on the RST at the first testing timepoint (T1) and a random sample of those who tested negative (790) and unclear (24) were included., Intervention: At T2, 4 weeks later, PHCPs performed the RST with fingerprick blood (index test) immediately after providing a serum sample to be analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies using a two-out-of-three assay (reference test)., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The RST accuracy was estimated using inverse probability weighting to correct for missing reference test data, and considering unclear RST results as negative for the sensitivity and positive for the specificity. Using these conservative estimates, the true seroprevalence was estimated both for T2 and RST-based prevalence values found in a cohort study with PHCPs in Belgium., Results: 1073 paired tests (403 positive on the reference test) were included. A sensitivity of 73% (a specificity of 92%) was found considering unclear RST results as negative (positive). For an RST-based prevalence at T1 (13.9), T2 (24.9) and T7 (70.21), the true prevalence was estimated to be 9.1%, 25.9% and 95.7%, respectively., Conclusion: The RST sensitivity (73%) and specificity (92%) make an RST-based seroprevalence below (above) 23% overestimate (underestimate) the true seroprevalence., Trial Registration Number: NCT04779424., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19., Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022)., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes., Results: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Objectives: We compared age-stratified SARS-CoV-2 symptomatology of wild-type/Alpha vs Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variant infected individuals and the impact of COVID-19 booster vaccination on Omicron symptom burden., Methods: Data from three European prospective household cohorts were used (April 2020 to April 2021 and January to March 2022). Standardized outbreak protocols included (repeated) polymerase chain reaction testing, paired serology, and daily symptom scoring for all household members. Comparative analyses were performed on 346 secondary household cases from both periods., Results: Children <12 years (all unvaccinated) experienced more symptoms and higher severity scores during Omicron compared with wild-type/Alpha period (P ≤0.01). In adults, Omicron disease duration and severity were reduced (P ≤ 0.095). Omicron was associated with lower odds for loss of smell or taste (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.50) and higher but non-significant odds for upper respiratory symptoms, fever, and fatigue (aORs: 1.85-2.23). No differences were observed in disease severity or duration between primary vs booster series vaccinated adults (P ≥0.12)., Conclusion: The Omicron variant causes higher symptom burden in children compared with wild-type/Alpha and lower in adults, possibly due to previous vaccination. A shift in symptoms occurred with reduction in loss of smell/taste for Omicron. No additional effect of booster vaccination on Omicron symptom burden was observed., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown., Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83., Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Background: Patients with cancer, especially hematological cancer, are at increased risk for breakthrough COVID-19 infection. So far, a predictive biomarker that can assess compromised vaccine-induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity in cancer patients has not been proposed., Methods: We employed machine learning approaches to identify a biomarker signature based on blood cytokines, chemokines, and immune- and non-immune-related growth factors linked to vaccine immunogenicity in 199 cancer patients receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine., Results: C-reactive protein (general marker of inflammation), interleukin (IL)-15 (a pro-inflammatory cytokine), IL-18 (interferon-gamma inducing factor), and placental growth factor (an angiogenic cytokine) correctly classified patients with a diminished vaccine response assessed at day 49 with >80% accuracy. Amongst these, CRP showed the highest predictive value for poor response to vaccine administration. Importantly, this unique signature of vaccine response was present at different studied timepoints both before and after vaccination and was not majorly affected by different anti-cancer treatments., Conclusion: We propose a blood-based signature of cytokines and growth factors that can be employed in identifying cancer patients at persistent high risk of COVID-19 despite vaccination with BNT162b2. Our data also suggest that such a signature may reflect the inherent immunological constitution of some cancer patients who are refractive to immunotherapy., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Konnova, De Winter, Gupta, Verbruggen, Hotterbeekx, Berkell, Teuwen, Vanhoutte, Peeters, Raats, Massen, De Keersmaecker, Debie, Huizing, Pannus, Neven, Ariën, Martens, Bulcke, Roelant, Desombere, Anguille, Berneman, Goossens, Goossens, Malhotra-Kumar, Tacconelli, Vandamme, Peeters, van Dam and Kumar-Singh.)

Introduction: The B.1.617.2 SARS-CoV-2 or Delta variant, first detected in India, has shown a rapid global spread due to its high transmissibility and now represents more than 99% of the currently circulating variants in Europe., Methods and Result: In May 2021, two ships that had recently arrived in the Port of Antwerp reported crew members with COVID-like symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in nasopharyngeal swabs in 30 out of 45 skippers and the B.1.617.2 variant was identified via whole genome sequencing. Crew members were isolated or quarantined and repeatedly tested to assess the evolution of their SARS-CoV-2 viral load based on the cycle threshold (CT) values of the PCR reaction. Viral cultures were also taken at day 7 to detect viable virus and were compared with the subjects CT value at that moment. The shipper's clinical condition was closely observed using a digital home monitoring tool. Eleven crew members (37%) required hospitalization, with CT values of SARS-CoV-2 RNA being a good predictive factor for the hospitalization need. Furthermore, a clear correlation between CT values and positive viral culture was observed, hinting infectiousness even longer than 10 days after the intitial positive PCR test., Conclusion: Our study of 2 Delta variant clusters shows that the initial CT value is a good predictor for hospitalization need and suggests that patients infected with this variant may remain infectious for a longer time period.

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among primary healthcare providers (PHCPs)., Design: Prospective cohort study with 12 months of follow-up., Setting: Primary care in Belgium., Participants: Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages (examines, tests, treats) patients were eligible. A convenience sample of 3648 eligible PHCPs from 2001 GP practices registered for this study (3044 and 604 to start in December 2020 and January 2021, respectively). 3390 PHCPs (92,9%) participated in their first testing time point (2820 and 565, respectively) and 2557 PHCPs (70,1%) in the last testing time point (December 2021)., Interventions: Participants were asked to perform a rapid serological test targeting IgM and IgG against the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 and to complete an online questionnaire at each of maximum eight testing time points., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 both after natural infection and after vaccination., Results: Among all participants, 67% were women and 77% GPs. Median age was 43 years. The seroprevalence in December 2020 (before vaccination availability) was 15.1% (95% CI 13.5% to 16.6%), increased to 84.2% (95% CI 82.9% to 85.5%) in March 2021 (after vaccination availability) and reached 93.9% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.9%) in December 2021 (during booster vaccination availability and fourth (delta variant dominant) COVID-19 wave). Among not (yet) vaccinated participants the first monthly incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was estimated to be 2.91% (95% CI 1.80% to 4.01%). The longevity of antibodies is higher in PHCPs with self-reported COVID-19 infection., Conclusions: This study confirms that occupational health measures provided sufficient protection when managing patients. High uptake of vaccination resulted in high seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in PHCPs in Belgium. Longevity of antibodies was supported by booster vaccination and virus circulation., Trial Registration Number: NCT04779424., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The use of saliva for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sparks debate due to presumed lower sensitivity and lack of standardization. Our aim was to evaluate the performance characteristics of (i) saliva collected by the ORAcollect TM device as a matrix for SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and (ii) 2 saliva rapid antigen tests (AgRDT). From 342 ambulatory individuals, both a nasopharyngeal swab and saliva sample via ORAcollect TM were obtained for a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test. Furthermore, 54 and 123 additionally performed the V-Chek TM or Whistling TM saliva AgRDT. In total, 35% of individuals screened positive for SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal swab. Saliva, as a matrix for the RT-PCR, had a specificity of 96.5% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.3%. Interestingly, 6 out of 8 patients thought to be false positive in saliva re-tested positive by nasopharyngeal sampling after 2 to 9 days. Both V-Chek TM and Whistling TM AgRDT had a lack of sensitivity, resulting in an NPV of 66.9 and 67.3%, respectively. Saliva proved to be a sensitive and specific matrix for SARS-CoV-2 detection by the RT-PCR. In this setting, saliva might have an earlier window of detection than the nasopharyngeal swab. By contrast, both AgRDT showed an unacceptably low sensitivity and NPV.

Purpose: In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, multiple serological assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immune response are currently being developed. This study compares the FREND TM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo (NanoEntec) a point of care (POCT) assay with the automated Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 electrochemiluminescent assay (Roche Diagnostics)., Methods: Serum samples ( n = 81) from PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive patients at different time points after the onset of symptoms were analyzed with both assays. An additional 24 serum samples with cross reactivity potential were also included., Results: The sensitivity of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay was higher as compared to the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay, especially when using the combined IgM/IgG result in samples analyzed within 6 days after the onset of symptoms (46.2% vs. 15.4%). The sensitivity of both assays increased with increasing time interval after the onset of symptoms and reached 100% for the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay in samples taken 14 days or more after symptom onset. Specificity of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo assay was 95.8% for IgM, 91.7% for IgG and 87.5% for the combination of both., Conclusion: This study shows that the sensitivity of both assays was highly dependent on the time interval between the onset of the COVID-19 symptoms and serum sampling. Furthermore, rapid serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by means of the FREND TM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo POCT assay showed a comparable diagnostic performance as the reference automated immunoassay.

Clinicians have worked feverishly to treat patients with COVID-19 while also carrying out clinical research studies. We discuss how the clinical research community responded to the pandemic in Europe, what lessons were learned, and provide recommendations for future clinical research response during pandemics. We focused on two platform trials: RECOVERY and REMAP-CAP. Both trials were able to enrol patients very rapidly during the beginning of the pandemic because of pre-established structures and procedures, and because they share simple execution and flexibility to adjust when evidence emergences. However, contracting, regulatory hurdles, and competition with (often inadequately designed or underpowered) national trials was a major challenge in several EU countries. We recommend the creation of structures and partnerships that facilitate prioritisation of clinical research, simplification of clinical trial delivery, development of digital models and procedures for data collection and sharing, development of a mechanism to rapidly leverage pandemic funding and to connect EU funding with national funding, and investment in clinical trial networks, platform trials, and master protocols. Finally, the future pandemic clinical research response of the EU should be embedded in the global response. We believe that globally connected clinical trial networks will be essential to respond more effectively to future infectious diseases outbreaks., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Household transmission studies are useful to quantify SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. We conducted a remote prospective household study to quantify transmission, and the effects of subject characteristics, household characteristics, and implemented infection control measures on transmission. Households with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 index case were enrolled < 48 h following test result. Follow-up included digitally daily symptom recording, regular nose-throat self-sampling and paired dried blood spots from all household members. Samples were tested for virus detection and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Secondary attack rates (SARs) and associated factors were estimated using logistic regression. In 276 households with 920 participants (276 index cases and 644 household members) daily symptom diaries and questionnaires were completed by 95%, and > 85% completed sample collection. 200 secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected, yielding a household SAR of 45.7% (95% CI 39.7-51.7%) and per-person SAR of 32.6% (95%CI: 28.1-37.4%). 126 (63%) secondary cases were detected at enrollment. Mild (aRR = 0.57) and asymptomatic index cases (aRR = 0.29) were less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared to index cases with an acute respiratory illness (p = 0.03 for trend), and child index cases (< 12 years aRR = 0.60 and 12-18 years aRR = 0.85) compared to adults (p = 0.03 for trend). Infection control interventions in households had no significant effect on transmission. We found high SARs with the majority of transmissions occuring early after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into the household. This may explain the futile effect of implemented household measures. Age and symptom status of the index case influence secondary transmission. Remote, digitally-supported study designs with self-sampling are feasible for studying transmission under pandemic restrictions., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Presence of SARS-CoV-2 was monitored in nasopharyngeal samples from young children aged 6-30 months attending day-care centres (DCCs) in Belgium from May 2020-February 2022. SARS-CoV-2 carriage among DCC children was only detected from November 2021, after emergence of Delta and Omicron variants, in 9 of the 42 DCCs screened. In only one DCC, two children tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the same sampling time point, suggesting limited transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Belgian DCCs among young children during the studied period.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain., Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021)., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions., Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Background: There is little evidence about the relationship between aetiology, illness severity, and clinical course of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. Understanding these associations would aid in the development of effective management strategies for these infections., Aim: To investigate whether clinical presentation and illness course differ between RTIs where a viral pathogen was detected and those where a potential bacterial pathogen was found., Design and Setting: Post hoc analysis of data from a pragmatic randomised trial on the effects of oseltamivir in patients with flu-like illness in primary care ( n = 3266) in 15 European countries., Method: Patient characteristics and their signs and symptoms of disease were registered at baseline. Nasopharyngeal (adults) or nasal and pharyngeal (children) swabs were taken for polymerase chain reaction analysis. Patients were followed up until 28 days after inclusion. Regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyse the relationship between aetiology, clinical presentation at baseline, and course of disease including complications., Results: Except for a less prominent congested nose (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 0.86) and acute cough (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.65) in patients with flu-like illness in whom a possible bacterial pathogen was isolated, there were no clear clinical differences in presentations between those with a possible bacterial aetiology compared with those with a viral aetiology. Also, course of disease and complications were not related to aetiology., Conclusion: Given current available microbiological tests and antimicrobial treatments, and outside pandemics such as COVID-19, microbiological testing in primary care patients with flu-like illness seems to have limited value. A wait-and-see policy in most of these patients with flu-like illness seems the best option., (© The Authors.)

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has offered a powerful preventive measure to help control SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nevertheless, long-standing public hesitation around vaccines heightened concerns that vaccine coverage would not achieve desired public health impacts, particularly in light of more contagious variants. This cross-sectional survey was conducted online just before the European vaccine rollout in December 2020 among 7000 respondents (aged 18-65) in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine. The survey included open text boxes for fuller explanation of responses. Overall, 56.9% of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 19.0% would not, and 24.1% did not know or preferred not to say. By country, between 44% (France) and 66% (Italy) of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Respondents expressed conditionality in open responses, voicing concerns about vaccine safety and mistrust of authorities. We highlight lessons learned about the dynamism of vaccine conditionality and persistence of safety concerns., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Working under pandemic conditions exposes health care workers (HCWs) to infection risk and psychological strain. A better understanding of HCWs' experiences of following local infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures during COVID-19 is urgently needed to inform strategies for protecting the psychical and psychological health of HCWs. The objective of this study was therefore to capture the perceptions of hospital HCWs on local IPC procedures and the impact on their emotional wellbeing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe., Methods: Participants were recruited in two sampling rounds of an international cross-sectional survey. Sampling took place between 31 March and 17 April 2020 via existing research networks and between 14 May and 31 August 2020 via online convenience sampling. Main outcome measures were behavioural determinants of HCWs' adherence to IPC guidelines and the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a validated scale of 0-100 reflecting emotional wellbeing. The WHO-5 was interpreted as a score below or above 50 points, a cut-off score used in previous literature to screen for depression., Results: 2289 HCWs from 40 countries in Europe participated. Mean age was 42 (±11) years, 66% were female, 47% and 39% were medical doctors and nurses, respectively. 74% (n = 1699) of HCWs were directly treating patients with COVID-19, of which 32% (n = 527) reported they were fearful of caring for these patients. HCWs reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 infection risk to themselves (71%) and their family (82%) as a result of their job. 40% of HCWs considered that getting infected with COVID-19 was not within their control. This feeling was more common among junior than senior HCWs (46% versus 38%, P value < .01). Sufficient COVID-19-specific IPC training, confidence in PPE use and institutional trust were positively associated with the feeling that becoming infected with COVID-19 was within their control. Female HCWs were more likely than males to report a WHO-5 score below 50 points (aOR 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.8)., Conclusions: In Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a differential impact on those providing direct COVID-19 patient care, junior staff and women. Health facilities must be aware of these differential impacts, build trust and provide tailored support for this vital workforce during the current COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: National SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data provide essential information about population exposure to the virus and help predict the future course of the epidemic. Early cohort studies have suggested declines in levels of antibodies in individuals associated with, for example, illness severity, age and comorbidities. This protocol focuses on the seroprevalence among primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium. PHCPs manage the vast majority of (COVID-19) patients and therefore play an essential role in the efficient organisation of healthcare. Currently, evidence is lacking on (1) how many PHCPs get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Belgium, (2) the rate at which this happens, (3) their clinical spectrum, (4) their risk factors, (5) the effectiveness of the measures to prevent infection and (6) the accuracy of the serology-based point-of-care test (POCT) in a primary care setting., Methods and Analysis: This study will be set up as a prospective cohort study. General practitioners (GPs) and other PHCPs (working in a GP practice) will be recruited via professional networks and professional media outlets to register online to participate. Registered GPs and other PHCPs will be asked at each testing point (n=9) to perform a capillary blood sample antibody POCT targeting IgM and IgG against the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 and complete an online questionnaire. The primary outcomes are the prevalence and incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in PHCPs during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include the longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the ethics committee of the University Hospital of Antwerp/University of Antwerp (Belgian registration number: 3002020000237). Alongside journal publications, dissemination activities include the publication of monthly reports to be shared with the participants and the general population through the publicly available website of the Belgian health authorities (Sciensano)., Trial Registration Number: NCT04779424., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Primary health care providers (PHCPs) are assumed to be at high risk of a COVID-19 infection, as they are exposed to patients with usually less personal protective equipment (PPE) than other frontline health care workers (HCWs). Nevertheless, current research efforts focussed on the assessment of COVID-19 seroprevalence rates in the general population or hospital HCWs., Objective: We aimed to determine the seroprevalence in PHCPs during the second SARS-CoV-2 wave in Flanders (Belgium) and compared it to the seroprevalence in the general population. We also assessed risk factors, availability of PPE and attitudes towards the government guidelines over time., Methods: A prospective cohort of PHCPs (n = 698), mainly general practitioners, was asked to complete a questionnaire and self-sample capillary blood by finger-pricking at five distinct points in time (June-December 2020). We analysed the dried blood spots for IgG antibodies using a Luminex multiplex immunoassay., Results: The seroprevalence of PHCPs remained stable between June and September (4.6-5.0%), increased significantly from October to December (8.1-13.4%) and was significantly higher than the seroprevalence of the general population. The majority of PHCPs were concerned about becoming infected, had adequate PPE and showed increasing confidence in government guidelines., Conclusions: The marked increase in seroprevalence during the second COVID-19 wave shows that PHCPs were more at risk during the second wave compared to the first wave in Flanders. This increase was only slightly higher in PHCPs than in the general population suggesting that the occupational health measures implemented provided sufficient protection when managing patients., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To evaluate a testing algorithm for the rapid identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants that includes the use of PCR-based targeted single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) detection assays preceded by a multiplex PCR sensitive to S-Gene Target Failure (SGTF)., Methods: PCR SNP assays targeting SARS-CoV-2 S-gene mutations ΔH69-V70, L452R, E484K, N501Y, H655Y and P681R using melting curve analysis were performed on 567 samples in which SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected by a multiplex PCR. Viral whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was performed to confirm the presence of SNPs and to identify the Pangolin lineage. Additionally, 1133 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples with SGTF were further assessed by WGS to determine the presence of ΔH69-V70., Results: The N501Y-specific assay (n = 567) had an overall percentage agreement (OPA) of 98.5%. The ΔH69-V70-specific (n = 178) and E484K-specific (n = 401) assays had OPA of 96.6% and 99.7%, respectively. Assessment of H655Y (n = 139) yielded a 100.0% concordance when applied in the proposed algorithm. The L452R-specific (n = 67) and P681R-specific (n = 62) assays had an OPA of 98.2% and 98.1%, respectively. The proposed algorithm identified six variants of concern/interest (VOC/VOI)-Alpha (n = 149), Beta (n = 65), Gamma (n = 86), Delta (n = 49), Eta (n = 6), Kappa (n = 6)-and 205 non-VOC/VOI strains-including the variants under monitoring B.1.214.2 (n = 43) and B.1.1.318 (n = 18) and Epsilon (n = 1). An excellent concordance was observed for the identification of all SARS-CoV-2 lineages evaluated., Conclusions: We present a flexible testing algorithm for the rapid detection of current and emerging SARS-CoV-2 VOC/VOIs, which can be easily adapted based on the local endemicity of specific variants., (Copyright © 2021 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive., Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021., Interventions: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events., Results: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Antibiotic use in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has exceeded the incidence of bacterial coinfections and secondary infections, suggesting inappropriate and excessive prescribing. Even in settings with established antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, there were weaknesses exposed regarding appropriate antibiotic use in the context of the pandemic. Moreover, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance and AMS have been deprioritised with diversion of health system resources to the pandemic response. This experience highlights deficiencies in AMR containment and mitigation strategies that require urgent attention from clinical and scientific communities. These include the need to implement diagnostic stewardship to assess the global incidence of coinfections and secondary infections in COVID-19 patients, including those by multidrug-resistant pathogens, to identify patients most likely to benefit from antibiotic treatment and identify when antibiotics can be safely withheld, de-escalated or discontinued. Long-term global surveillance of clinical and societal antibiotic use and resistance trends is required to prepare for subsequent changes in AMR epidemiology, while ensuring uninterrupted supply chains and preventing drug shortages and stock outs. These interventions present implementation challenges in resource-constrained settings, making a case for implementation research on AMR. Knowledge and support for these practices will come from internationally coordinated, targeted research on AMR, supporting the preparation for future challenges from emerging AMR in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.)

Introduction: In order to tackle the pandemic, governments have established various types of advisory boards to provide evidence and recommendations to policy makers. Scientists working on these boards have faced many challenges, including working under significant time constraints to produce 'evidence' as quickly as possible. However, their voices are still largely missing in the discussion. This study explores the views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim to learn lessons for future pandemic management and preparedness., Methods: We conducted online video or telephone semi-structured interviews between December 2020 and April 2021 with 21 scientists with an official government advisory role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, Sweden and Germany. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques., Results: Scientists viewed the initial focus on biomedically oriented work during the pandemic as somewhat one-dimensional, but also highlighted difficulties of working in an interdisciplinary way. They found it difficult at times to ensure that the evidence is understood and taken on board by governments. They found themselves taking on new roles, the boundaries of which were not clearly defined. Consequently, they were often perceived and treated as a public figure., Conclusion: Scientists working on advisory boards in European countries faced similar challenges, highlighting key lessons to be learnt. Future pandemic preparedness efforts should focus on building interdisciplinary collaboration through development of scientists' skills and appropriate infrastructure; ensuring transparency in how boards operate; defining and protecting the boundaries of the scientific advisor role; and supporting scientists to inform the public in the fight against disinformation, while dealing with potential hostile reactions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To describe primary health care (consultation characteristics and management) for patients contacting their general practitioner (GP) with a respiratory tract infection (RTI) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in contrasting European countries, with comparison to prepandemic findings., Setting: Primary care in 16 countries (79 practices), when no routine SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally available., Design and Participants: Before (n=4376) and early in the pandemic (n=3301), patients with RTI symptoms were registered in this prospective audit study., Outcome Measures: Consultation characteristics (type of contact and use of PPE) and management characteristics (clinical assessments, diagnostic testing, prescribing, advice and referral) were registered. Differences in these characteristics between countries and between pandemic and prepandemic care are described., Results: Care for patients with RTIs rapidly switched to telephone/video consultations (10% in Armenia, 91% in Denmark), and when consultations were face-to-face, GPs used PPE during 97% (95% CI 96% to 98%) of contacts. Laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care patients with RTIs was rapidly implemented in Denmark (59%) and Germany (31%), while overall testing for C reactive protein decreased. The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics varied considerably between countries (3% in Belgium, 48% in UK) and was lower during the pandemic compared with the months before, except for Greece, Poland and UK. GPs provided frequent and varied COVID-related advice and more frequently scheduled a follow-up contact (50%, 95% CI 48% to 52%). GPs reported a slightly higher degree of confidence in the likely effectiveness of their management in face-to-face (73% (very) confident, 95% CI 71% to 76%) than in virtual consultations (69%, 95% CI 67% to 71%)., Conclusions: Despite between-country variation in consultation characteristics, access to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and medication prescribing, GPs reported a high degree of confidence in managing their patients with RTIs in the emerging pandemic. Insight in the highly variable pandemic responses, as measured in this multicountry audit, can aid in fine-tuning national action and in coordinating a pan-European response during future pandemic threats., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AWvdV, CCB, TV, ST-K, SA, EB and HGo received unrestricted funding for studies from the European Commission (IMI2 and H2020). SE is an employee of Abbott Rapid Diagnostics Germany., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Primary care has a crucial role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic as the first point of patient care and gatekeeper to secondary care. Qualitative studies exploring the experiences of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly focused on secondary care., Aim: To gain an understanding of the experiences of European primary care professionals (PCPs) working during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic., Design and Setting: An exploratory qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews in primary care in England, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Greece, and Sweden, between April and July 2020., Method: Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques., Results: Eighty interviews were conducted with PCPs. PCPs had to make their own decisions on how to rapidly transform services in relation to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 care. Despite being overwhelmed with guidance, they often lacked access to practical training. Consequently, PCPs turned to their colleagues for moral support and information to try to quickly adjust to new ways of working, including remote care, and to deal with uncertainty., Conclusion: PCPs rapidly transformed primary care delivery despite a number of challenges. Representation of primary care at policy level and engagement with local primary care champions are needed to facilitate easy and coordinated access to practical information on how to adapt services, ongoing training, and access to appropriate mental health support services for PCPs. Preservation of autonomy and responsiveness of primary care are critical to preserve the ability for rapid transformation in any future crisis of care delivery., (© The Authors.)

Antimicrobial resistance must be recognised as a global societal priority - even in the face of the worldwide challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has illustrated the vulnerability of our healthcare systems in co-managing multiple infectious disease threats as resources for monitoring and detecting, and conducting research on antimicrobial resistance have been compromised during the pandemic. The increased awareness of the importance of infectious diseases, clinical microbiology and infection control and lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic should be exploited to ensure that emergence of future infectious disease threats, including those related to AMR, are minimised. Harnessing the public understanding of the relevance of infectious diseases towards the long-term pandemic of AMR could have major implications for promoting good practices about the control of AMR transmission., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Households are important sites for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and preventive measures are recommended. This study aimed to 1) investigate the impact of living with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2; 2) understand how household members implemented infection control recommendations in their home; and 3) identify the information and support needs of household members., Methods: For this observational mixed-methods study, households with a person with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited via drive-through testing sites of Municipal Health Services, healthcare worker screening or hospital emergency visits in the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands and via primary care physicians, hospital emergency visits or preoperative screening in the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium. We recorded household characteristics, including characteristics of all household members, together with their views on prevention measures. In a subset of households one adult household member was asked to participate in an interview investigating their views on preventive measures. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data by rapid framework analysis. A triangulation protocol was used to integrate findings., Results: Thirty-four households (120 household members) were included in the quantitative survey. Twenty-two households were invited to be interviewed, of which 18 completed an interview (response 81.8%). Survey data showed that almost all households implemented some preventive measures, the use of face masks being least frequently reported. Measures taken depended on what was physically possible, the perceived severity of illness of the index patient and to what extent household members were willing to limit social interaction. Respondents did not believe in the effectiveness of wearing face masks within the house, and from the interviews this was explained by media coverage of face masks, impracticality and the stigma associated with wearing masks. Interviewees reported that quarantine had a high emotional burden and wished to have more information about the exact duration of quarantine, their own COVID-19 status, symptoms and when to seek medical help., Conclusion: People were willing to implement prevention measures, however actual adherence depended on perceived severity of illness and the perceived risk of becoming infected. Homes are social environments and recommendations for infection prevention should account for this context. Incorporating our findings into policy making could provide households with more relevant and actionable advice., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Starting from historic reflections, the current SARS-CoV-2 induced COVID-19 pandemic is examined from various perspectives, in terms of what it implies for the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the modeling and monitoring of the epidemic, the development of early-warning systems, the study of mortality, prevalence estimation, diagnostic and serological testing, vaccine development, and ultimately clinical trials. Emphasis is placed on how the pandemic had led to unprecedented speed in methodological and clinical development, the pitfalls thereof, but also the opportunities that it engenders for national and international collaboration, and how it has simplified and sped up procedures. We also study the impact of the pandemic on clinical trials in other indications. We note that it has placed biostatistics, epidemiology, virology, infectiology, and vaccinology, and related fields in the spotlight in an unprecedented way, implying great opportunities, but also the need to communicate effectively, often amidst controversy., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Development and implementation of SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays gained momentum. Laboratories keep on investigating the performance of these assays. In this study, we compared three fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays., Methods: A total of 186 samples from 84 PCR-positive COVID-19 patients and 120 control samples taken before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were analyzed using commercial serologic assays from Roche, Siemens and DiaSorin. Time after the positive COVID-19 PCR result and onset of symptoms was retrieved from the medical record. An extended golden standard, using the result of all three assays was defined, judging if antibodies are present or absent in a sample. Diagnostic and screening sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative predictive value were calculated., Results: Diagnostic sensitivity (ability to detect a COVID-19 positive patient) ≥14 days after positive PCR testing was 96.7% (95% CI 88.5-99.6%) for DiaSorin, 93.3% (95% CI 83.8-98.2%) for Roche and 100% (95% CI 94.0-100%) for Siemens. Lower diagnostic sensitivities were observed <14 days after onset of symptoms for all three assay. Diagnostic specificity (ability to detect a COVID-19 negative patient) was 95.0% (95% CI 89.4-98.1%) for DiaSorin, 99.2% (95% CI 95.4-99.9%) for Roche and 100% (95% CI 97.0-100%) for Siemens. The sensitivity/specificity for detecting antibodies (ability of detecting absence (specificity) or presence (sensitivity) of COVID-19 antibodies) was 92.4% (95% CI 86.4-96.3%)/94.9% (95% CI 90.5-97.6%) for DiaSorin, 97.7% (95% CI 93.5-99.5%)/97.1% (95% CI 93.5-99.1%) for Roche and 98.5% (95% CI 94.6-99.8)/97.1 (95% CI 93.5-99.1%) for Siemens., Conclusions: This study revealed acceptable performance for all three assays. An orthogonal testing algorithm using the Siemens and Roche assay achieved the highest positive predictive values for antibody detection in low seroprevalence settings.

A key unsolved question in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the duration of acquired immunity. Insights from infections with the four seasonal human coronaviruses might reveal common characteristics applicable to all human coronaviruses. We monitored healthy individuals for more than 35 years and determined that reinfection with the same seasonal coronavirus occurred frequently at 12 months after infection.

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsIn this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsIn this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

PurposeTo study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsCritically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable.ResultsWe randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively).ConclusionAmong critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

Human coronavirus HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1) is one of the four endemic coronaviruses. It has been suggested that there is a difference in incidence, with PCR-confirmed HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 infections occurring more commonly, whereas HCoV-HKU1 is the least seen. Lower incidence of HCoV-HKU1 infection has also been observed in serological studies. The current study aimed to investigate antibody dynamics during PCR-confirmed HCoV-HKU1 infections using serum collected during infection and 1 month later. We expressed a new HCoV-HKU1 antigen consisting of both the linker and carboxy-terminal domain of the viral nucleocapsid protein and implemented it in ELISA. We also applied a spike-based Luminex assay on serum samples from PCR-confirmed infections by the four endemic HCoVs. At least half of HCoV-HKU1-infected subjects consistently showed no antibody rise via either assay, and some subjects even exhibited substantial antibody decline. Investigation of self-reported symptoms revealed that HCoV-HKU1-infected subjects rated their illness milder than subjects infected by other HCoVs. In conclusion, HCoV-HKU1 infections reported in this study displayed atypical antibody dynamics and milder symptoms when compared to the other endemic HCoVs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]