Explore the vast range of titles available.

Hospitalized adults with severe Covid-19 pneumonia were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma or placebo. At 30 days, no significant difference in clinical status was noted between the two groups. Overall mortality was 11.43% with placebo and 10.96% with convalescent plasma, a difference that was not significant.

Investigators in China report the results of an open-label, randomized clinical trial of lopinavir–ritonavir for the treatment of Covid-19 in 199 infected adult patients. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement.

In this randomized, double-blind trial in 1062 adults hospitalized with Covid-19, remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery (10 days, vs. 15 days with placebo). The estimates of mortality by day 29 were 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo. The benefit of remdesivir was most apparent in patients who were receiving low-flow oxygen at baseline.

Among 4716 hospitalized adult patients with Covid-19 in the United Kingdom, those who were treated with hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care.

A randomized trial comparing a 5-day course of intravenous remdesivir with a 10-day course in patients with Covid-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia who were not yet receiving mechanical ventilation showed no significant differences in outcome related to the duration of treatment.

The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94–1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Background. The objective of this quasi-experimental study was to determine whether bolus vitamin D supplementation taken either regularly over the preceding year or after the diagnosis of COVID-19 was effective in improving survival among hospitalized frail elderly COVID-19 patients. Methods. Seventy-seven patients consecutively hospitalized for COVID-19 in a geriatric unit were included. Intervention groups were participants regularly supplemented with vitamin D over the preceding year (Group 1), and those supplemented with vitamin D after COVID-19 diagnosis (Group 2). The comparator group involved participants having received no vitamin D supplements (Group 3). Outcomes were 14-day mortality and highest (worst) score on the ordinal scale for clinical improvement (OSCI) measured during COVID-19 acute phase. Potential confounders were age, gender, functional abilities, undernutrition, cancer, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, glycated hemoglobin, number of acute health issues at admission, hospital use of antibiotics, corticosteroids, and pharmacological treatments of respiratory disorders. Results. The three groups (n = 77; mean ± SD, 88 ± 5 years; 49% women) were similar at baseline (except for woman proportion, p = 0.02), as were the treatments used for COVID-19. In Group 1 (n = 29), 93.1% of COVID-19 participants survived at day 14, compared to 81.2% survivors in Group 2 (n = 16) (p = 0.33) and 68.7% survivors in Group 3 (n = 32) (p = 0.02). While considering Group 3 as reference (hazard ratio (HR) = 1), the fully-adjusted HR for 14-day mortality was HR = 0.07 (p = 0.017) for Group 1 and HR = 0.37 (p = 0.28) for Group 2. Group 1 had longer survival time than Group 3 (log-rank p = 0.015), although there was no difference between Groups 2 and 3 (log-rank p = 0.32). Group 1, but not Group 2 (p = 0.40), was associated with lower risk of OSCI score ≥5 compared to Group 3 (odds ratio = 0.08, p = 0.03). Conclusions. Regular bolus vitamin D supplementation was associated with less severe COVID-19 and better survival in frail elderly.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected people in many countries worldwide. Discovering an effective treatment for this disease, particularly in severe cases, has become the subject of intense scientific investigation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in patients with severe COVID-19 infection. Methods This study was conducted as a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial. Fifty-nine patients with severe COVID-19 infection who did not respond to initial treatments were randomly assigned into two groups. One group received IVIg (human)—four vials daily for 3 days (in addition to initial treatment), while the other group received a placebo. Patients’ demographic, clinical, and select laboratory test results, as well as the occurrence of in-hospital mortality, were recorded. Results Among total study subjects, 30 patients received IVIg and 29 patients received a placebo. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and laboratory tests were not statistically different ( P  > 0.05) between the two groups. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower in the IVIg group compared to the control group (6 [20.0%] vs. 14 [48.3%], respectively; P  = 0.025). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that administration of IVIg did indeed have a significant impact on mortality rate (aOR = 0.003 [95% CI: 0.001–0.815]; P  = 0.042). Conclusions Our study demonstrated that the administration of IVIg in patients with severe COVID-19 infection who did not respond to initial treatment could improve their clinical outcome and significantly reduce mortality rate. Further multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are nonetheless required to confirm the appropriateness of this medication as a standard treatment. Trial registration A study protocol was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials ( www.IRCT.ir ), number IRCT20200501047259N1 . It was registered retrospectively on May 17th, 2020.

Background COVID-19 is a highly infectious respiratory disease. No therapeutics have yet been proven effective for treating severe COVID-19. Objectives To determine whether human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell infusion may be effective and safe for the treatment of severe COVID-19. Methods Patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly divided into 2 groups: the standard treatment group and the standard treatment plus hUC-MSC infusion group. The incidence of progression from severe to critical illness, 28-day mortality, clinical symptom improvement, time to clinical symptom improvement, hematologic indicators including C-reactive protein, lymphocyte number, and interleukin 6, and imaging changes were observed and compared between the two groups. Measurements and main results The incidence of progression from severe to critical illness and the 28-day mortality rate were 0 in the hUC-MSC treatment group, while 4 patients in the control group deteriorated to critical condition and received invasive ventilation; 3 of them died, and the 28-day mortality rate was 10.34%. In the hUC-MSC treatment group, the time to clinical improvement was shorter than that in the control group. Clinical symptoms of weakness and fatigue, shortness of breath, and low oxygen saturation obviously improved beginning on the third day of stem cell infusion and reached a significant difference on day 7. CRP and IL-6 levels were significantly lower from day 3 of infusion, the time for the lymphocyte count to return to the normal range was significantly faster, and lung inflammation absorption was significantly shorter on CT imaging in the hUC-MSC group than in the control group. Conclusions Intravenous transplantation of hUC-MSCs is a safe and effective method that can be considered a salvage and priority treatment option for severe COVID-19. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registration; ChiCTR2000031494; Registered on 2 April 2020; http:// www.medresman.org

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first reported in Wuhan, China, where the initial wave of intense community transmissions was cut short by interventions. Using multiple data sources, here we estimate the disease burden and clinical severity by age of COVID-19 in Wuhan from December 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. Our estimates account for the sensitivity of the laboratory assays, prospective community screenings, and healthcare seeking behaviors. Rates of symptomatic cases, medical consultations, hospitalizations and deaths were estimated at 796 (95% CI: 703–977), 489 (472–509), 370 (358–384), and 36.2 (35.0–37.3) per 100,000 persons, respectively. The COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan had a higher burden than the 2009 influenza pandemic or seasonal influenza in terms of hospitalization and mortality rates, and clinical severity was similar to that of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Our comparison puts the COVID-19 pandemic into context and could be helpful to guide intervention strategies and preparedness for the potential resurgence of COVID-19. Here the authors analyze disease burden and clinical severity of COVID-19 during the first wave in Wuhan, China in comparison to past influenza virus pandemics and COVID-19 in the US and Canada. These estimates of symptomatic cases, medical consultations, hospitalizations and deaths should guide preparedness for this disease.