Nicholas Heming

Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with severe lung damage. Corticosteroids are a possible therapeutic option. Objective: To determine the effect of hydrocortisone on treatment failure on day 21 in critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized double-blind sequential trial conducted in France, with interim analyses planned every 50 patients. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure were enrolled from March 7 to June 1, 2020, with last follow-up on June 29, 2020. The study intended to enroll 290 patients but was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive low-dose hydrocortisone (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, was defined as death or persistent dependency on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included the need for tracheal intubation (among patients not intubated at baseline); cumulative incidences (until day 21) of prone position sessions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and inhaled nitric oxide; Pao2:Fio2 ratio measured daily from day 1 to day 7, then on days 14 and 21; and the proportion of patients with secondary infections during their ICU stay. Results: The study was stopped after 149 patients (mean age, 62.2 years; 30.2% women; 81.2% mechanically ventilated) were enrolled. One hundred forty-eight patients (99.3%) completed the study, and there were 69 treatment failure events, including 11 deaths in the hydrocortisone group and 20 deaths in the placebo group. The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, occurred in 32 of 76 patients (42.1%) in the hydrocortisone group compared with 37 of 73 (50.7%) in the placebo group (difference of proportions, -8.6% [95.48% CI, -24.9% to 7.7%]; P = .29). Of the 4 prespecified secondary outcomes, none showed a significant difference. No serious adverse events were related to the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure, low-dose hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce treatment failure (defined as death or persistent respiratory support) at day 21. However, the study was stopped early and likely was underpowered to find a statistically and clinically important difference in the primary outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517489.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is of the utmost importance but remains challenging. The objective of the current study was to characterize exhaled breath from mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we used real-time, online, proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry to perform a metabolomic analysis of expired air from adults undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit due to severe COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). FINDINGS: , 2020, we included 40 patients with ARDS, of whom 28 had proven COVID-19. In a multivariate analysis, we identified a characteristic breathprint for COVID-19. We could differentiate between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS with accuracy of 93% (sensitivity: 90%, specificity: 94%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0·94-0·98, after cross-validation). The four most prominent volatile compounds in COVID-19 patients were methylpent-2-enal, 2,4-octadiene 1-chloroheptane, and nonanal. INTERPRETATION: The real-time, non-invasive detection of methylpent-2-enal, 2,4-octadiene 1-chloroheptane, and nonanal in exhaled breath may identify ARDS patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: The study was funded by Agence Nationale de la Recherche (SoftwAiR, ANR-18-CE45-0017 and RHU4 RECORDS, Programme d'Investissements d'Avenir, ANR-18-RHUS-0004), Région Île de France (SESAME 2016), and Fondation Foch.

BACKGROUND: Complement pathway inhibition may provide benefit for severe acute respiratory illnesses caused by viral infections such as COVID-19. We present results from a nonrandomized proof-of-concept study of complement C5 inhibitor eculizumab for treatment of severe COVID-19. METHODS: = 80) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 admitted to our intensive care unit between March 10 and May 5, 2020 were included. Forty-five patients were treated with standard care and 35 with standard care plus eculizumab through expanded-access emergency treatment. The prespecified primary outcome was day-15 survival. Clinical laboratory values and biomarkers, complement levels, and treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) were also assessed. FINDINGS: = 0.04). Patients treated with eculizumab experienced a significantly more rapid decrease in lactate, blood urea nitrogen, total and conjugated bilirubin levels and a significantly more rapid increase in platelet count, prothrombin time, and in the ratio of arterial oxygen tension over fraction of inspired oxygen versus patients treated without eculizumab. Eculizumab-associated changes in complement levels, laboratory values, and biomarkers were consistent with terminal complement inhibition, reduced hypoxia, and decreased inflammation. TESAEs of special interest occurring in >5% of patients treated with/without eculizumab were ventilator-associated pneumonia (51%/24%), bacteremia (11%/2%), gastroduodenal hemorrhage (14%/16%), and hemolysis (3%/18%). INTERPRETATION: Findings from this proof-of-concept study suggest eculizumab may improve survival and reduce hypoxia in patients with severe COVID-19. Randomized studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of this treatment approach are needed. FUNDING: Programme d'Investissements d'Avenir: ANR-18-RHUS60004.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2017. Other selected articles can be found online at http://ccforum.com/series/annualupdate2017 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901 .Originally published in the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2017. The number of authors differs in the two versions due to constraints regarding the number of authors in the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. In the Annual Update version of the review, the three senior authors appear in the acknowledgement section. In the Critical Care version, these three senior authors appear as full authors of the manuscript. All authors helped draft and revise the manuscript for critical intellectual content.