The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

We report the short- and long-term results of the SOLIDARITY Finland on mortality and other patient-important outcomes in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Between 08/2021 and 03/2023, we randomised 156 patients in 15 hospitals. In the imatinib group, 7.2% of patients had died at 30 days and 13.3% at 1 year and in the standard of care group 4.1% and 8.3% (adjusted HR at 30 days 1.09, 95% CI 0.23-5.07). In a meta-analysis of randomised trials of imatinib versus standard of care (n=732), allocation to imatinib was associated with a mortality risk ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.32-1.63). At 1-year, self-reported recovery occurred in 79.0% in imatinib and in 88.3% in standard of care (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-1.06). Of the 21 potential long COVID symptoms, patients often reported moderate or major bother from fatigue (24%), sleeping problems (19%) and memory difficulties (17%). We found no convincing difference between imatinib and standard of care groups in quality of life or symptom outcomes. The evidence raises serious doubts regarding the benefit of imatinib in reducing mortality, improving recovery, and preventing potential long COVID symptoms when given to patients hospitalised for COVID-19.

BackgroundThe success of early dexamethasone therapy for hospitalised COVID-19 cases in treatment of Sars-CoV-2 infection may predominantly reflect its anti-inflammatory action against a hyperinflammation (HI) response. It is likely that there is substantial heterogeneity in HI responses in COVID-19. MethodsBlood CRP, ferritin, neutrophil, lymphocyte and platelet counts were scored to assess HI (HI5) and combined with a validated measure of generalised medical deterioration (NEWS2) before day 2. Our primary outcome was 28 day mortality from early treatment with dexamethasone stratified by HI5-NEWS2 status. FindingsOf 1265 patients, high risk of HI (high HI5-NEWS2) (n=367, 29.0%) conferred a strikingly increased mortality (36.0% vs 7.8%; Age adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 5.9; 95% CI 3.6-9.8, p<0.001) compared to the low risk group (n= 455, 36.0%). An intermediate risk group (n= 443, 35.0%) also showed significantly higher mortality than the low risk group (17.6% vs 7.8%), aHR 2.2, p=0.005). Early dexamethasone treatment conferred a 50.0% reduction in mortality in the high risk group (36.0% to 18.0%, aHR 0.56, p=0.007). The intermediate risk group showed a trend to reduction in mortality (17.8% to 10.3%, aHR 0.82, p=0.46) which was not observed in the low risk group (7.8% to 9.2%, aHR 1.4, p =0.31). InterpretationThe HI5-NEWS2 measured at COVID-19 diagnosis, strongly predicts mortality at 28 days. Significant reduction in mortality with early dexamethasone treatment was only observed in the high risk group. Therefore, the HI5-NEWS2 score could be utilised to stratify randomised clinical trials to test whether intensified anti-inflammatory therapy would further benefit high risk patients and whether alternative approaches would benefit low risk groups. Considering its recognised morbidity, we suggest that early dexamethasone should not be routinely prescribed for HI5-NEWS2 low risk individuals with COVID-19 and clinicians should cautiously assess the risk benefit of this intervention. FundingNo external funding.

BackgroundLow-dose corticosteroids (e.g. 6 mg dexamethasone) have been shown to reduce mortality for hypoxic COVID-19 patients. We have previously reported that higher dose corticosteroids cause harm in patients with hypoxia but not receiving ventilatory support (non-invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation), but the balance of efficacy and safety in patients receiving ventilatory support is uncertain. MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) assessed multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adult patients receiving ventilatory support were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual care with higher dose corticosteroids (dexamethasone 20 mg once daily for 5 days followed by 10 mg once daily for 5 days or until discharge if sooner) or usual standard of care alone (which includes dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for 10 days or until discharge if sooner). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality; secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalisation and (among participants not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline) the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation or death. Recruitment closed on 31 March 2024 when funding for the trial ended. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsBetween 25 May 2021 and 9 January 2024, 477 COVID-19 patients receiving ventilatory support were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus higher dose corticosteroids versus usual care alone (of whom 99% received corticosteroids during the follow-up period). Of those randomised, 221 (46%) were in Asia, 245 (51%) in the UK and 11 (2%) in Africa. 143 (30%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall, 86 (35%) of 246 patients allocated to higher dose corticosteroids versus 86 (37%) of 231 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 0.87; 95% CI 0.64-1.18; p=0.37). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (128 [52%] in the higher dose corticosteroids group vs 120 [52%] in the usual care group; RR 1.04, 0.81-1.33]; p=0.78). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (76 [37%] of 206 vs 93 [45%] of 205; RR 0.79 [95% CI 0.63-1.00]; p=0.05). InterpretationIn patients hospitalised for COVID-19 receiving ventilatory support, we found no evidence that higher dose corticosteroids reduced the risk of death compared to usual care, which included low dose corticosteroids. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056), and Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref: 222406/Z/20/Z).

BackgroundColchicine has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-inflammatory actions. MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus colchicine twice daily for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other treatment arms) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsBetween 27 November 2020 and 4 March 2021, 5610 patients were randomly allocated to receive colchicine and 5730 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1173 (21%) patients allocated to colchicine and 1190 (21%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.10; p=0.77). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. There was no significant difference in duration of hospitalisation (median 10 days vs. 10 days) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (70% vs. 70%; rate ratio 0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.03; p=0.44). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (25% vs. 25%; risk ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.96-1.09; p=0.47). InterpretationIn adults hospitalised with COVID-19, colchicine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056). Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref: 222406/Z/20/Z) through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

BackgroundLow-dose corticosteroids have been shown to reduce mortality for hypoxic COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen or ventilatory support (non-invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation). We evaluated the use of a higher dose of corticosteroids in this patient group. MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adult patients with clinical evidence of hypoxia (i.e. receiving oxygen or with oxygen saturation <92% on room air) were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual care with higher dose corticosteroids (dexamethasone 20 mg once daily for 5 days followed by 10 mg once daily for 5 days or until discharge if sooner) or usual standard of care alone (which includes dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for 10 days or until discharge if sooner). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. On 11 May 2022, the independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended stopping recruitment of patients receiving no oxygen or simple oxygen only to this comparison due to safety concerns. We report the results for these participants only. Recruitment of patients receiving ventilatory support continues. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsBetween 25 May 2021 and 12 May 2022, 1272 COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and receiving no oxygen (1%) or simple oxygen only (99%) were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus higher dose corticosteroids versus usual care alone (of whom 87% received low dose corticosteroids during the follow-up period). Of those randomised, 745 (59%) were in Asia, 512 (40%) in the UK and 15 (1%) in Africa. 248 (19%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall, 121 (18%) of 659 patients allocated to higher dose corticosteroids versus 75 (12%) of 613 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 1{middle dot}56; 95% CI 1{middle dot}18-2{middle dot}06; p=0{middle dot}0020). There was also an excess of pneumonia reported to be due to non-COVID infection (10% vs. 6%; absolute difference 3.7%; 95% CI 0.7-6.6) and an increase in hyperglycaemia requiring increased insulin dose (22% vs. 14%; absolute difference 7.4%; 95% CI 3.2-11.5). InterpretationIn patients hospitalised for COVID-19 with clinical hypoxia but requiring either no oxygen or simple oxygen only, higher dose corticosteroids significantly increased the risk of death compared to usual care, which included low dose corticosteroids. The RECOVERY trial continues to assess the effects of higher dose corticosteroids in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who require non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health and Care Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056), and Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref: 222406/Z/20/Z).

BACKGROUNDThe objective is to determine the impact of the Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine compared to placebo or no vaccine on COVID-19 infections and hospitalisations in healthcare workers. We are using a living and prospective approach to Individual-Participant-Data (IPD) meta-analysis of ongoing studies based on the Anytime Live and Leading Interim (ALL-IN) meta-analysis statistical methodology. METHODSPlanned and ongoing randomised controlled trials were identified from trial registries and by snowballing (final elicitation: Oct 3 2022). The methodology was specified prospectively - with no trial results available - for trial inclusion as well as statistical analysis. Inclusion decisions were made collaboratively based on a risk-of-bias assessment by an external protocol review committee (Cochrane risk-of-bias tool adjusted for use on protocols), expected homogeneity in treatment effect, and agreement with the predetermined event definitions. The co-primary endpoints were incidence of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Accumulating IPD from included trials was analysed sequentially using the exact e-value logrank test (at level = 0.5% for infections and level = 4.5% for hospitalisations) and anytime-valid 95%-confidence intervals (CIs) for the hazard ratio (HR) for a predetermined fixed-effects approach to meta-analysis (no measures of statistical heterogeneity). Infections were included if demonstrated by PCR tests, antigen tests or suggestive lung CTs. Participants were censored at date of first COVID-19-specific vaccination and two-stage analyses were performed in calendar time, with a stratification factor per trial. RESULTSSix trials were included in the primary analysis with 4 433 participants in total. The e-values showed no evidence of a favourable effect of minimal clinically relevance (HR < 0.8) in comparison to the null (HR = 1) for COVID-19 infections, nor for COVID-19 hospitalisations (HR < 0.7 vs HR = 1). COVID-19 infection was observed in 251 participants receiving BCG and 244 participants not receiving BCG, HR 1.02 (anytime-valid 95%-CI 0.78-1.35). COVID-19 hospitalisations were observed in 13 participants receiving BCG and 7 not receiving BCG, resulting in an uninformative estimate (HR 1.88; anytime-valid 95%-CI 0.26-13.40). DISCUSSIONIt is highly unlikely that BCG has a clinically relevant effect on COVID-19 infections in healthcare workers. With only limited observations, no conclusion could be drawn for COVID-19 related hospitalisation. Due to the nature of ALL-IN meta-analysis, emerging data from new trials can be included without violating type-I error rates or interval coverage. We intend to keep this meta-analysis alive and up-to-date, as more trials report. For COVID-19 related hospitalisations, we do not expect enough future observations for a meaningful analysis. For BCG-mediated protection against COVID-19 infections, on the other hand, more observations could lead to a more precise estimate that concludes the meta-analysis for futility, meaning that the current interval excludes the HR of 0.8 predetermined as effect size of minimal clinical relevance. OTHERNo external funding. Preregistered at PROSPERO: CRD42021213069.

Immune correlates of protection from COVID-19 are incompletely understood. 2,826 keyworkers had T-SPOT(R) Discovery SARS-CoV-2 tests (measuring interferon-{gamma} secreting, SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cells, Oxford Immunotec Ltd), and anti-Spike S1 domain IgG antibody levels (EuroImmun AG) performed on recruitment into a cohort study. 285/2,826 (10.1%) of participants had positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests, predominantly associated with symptomatic illness, during 200 days followup. T cell responses to Spike, Nucleoprotein and Matrix proteins (SNM responses) were detected in some participants at recruitment, as were anti-Spike S1 IgG antibodies; higher levels of both were associated with protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. In volunteers with moderate antibody responses, who represented 39% (252/654) of those with detectable anti-Spike IgG, protection was partial, and higher with higher circulating T cell SNM responses. SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cell numbers predict protection in individuals with low anti-Spike IgG responses; serology alone underestimates the proportion of the population protected after infection.

BackgroundWe explored the efficacy of AS01E-adjuvanted respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein-based vaccine (adjuvanted RSVPreF3) in subpopulations of participants with underlying medical conditions in the multi-country, phase 3 AReSVi-006 trial (conducted May/2021-May/2024). MethodsMedically stable [&ge;]60-year-olds were 1:1-randomised to receive one adjuvanted RSVPreF3 or placebo dose pre-RSV season 1. In exploratory post-hoc analyses in subgroups of participants with underlying conditions (including COPD, asthma, diabetes, obesity [BMI[&ge;]30 kg/m2]), we evaluated efficacy of one vaccine dose against RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease (RSV-LRTD), acute respiratory illness (RSV-ARI), and RSV-ARI-related complications (e.g., pneumonia, COPD/asthma exacerbation, cardiovascular events). We also evaluated (post-hoc) RSV-ARI-related systemic corticosteroid and antibiotics use in participants with COPD or asthma. ResultsThe efficacy analyses comprised 12,468 vaccine and 12,498 placebo recipients. Efficacy against RSV-LRTD over three RSV seasons was similar among participants with COPD (75.1%, 95% CI: 40.2-91.4), asthma (65.8%, 31.0-84.7), diabetes (69.8%, 37.5-87.1), and obesity (74.1%, 56.4-85.5) as in the overall study population (62.9%, 97.5% CI: 46.7-74.8). Efficacy was also observed against RSV-ARI in these subgroups. Efficacy against RSV-ARI-related complications was 74.4% (95% CI: 11.2-95.2) in participants with COPD and 60.8% (-9.9-88.7) in those with asthma. Among participants with COPD, 15.4% (1.9-45.4) of RSV-ARI episodes in vaccine vs 22.4% (12.5-35.3) in placebo recipients were treated with systemic corticosteroids, and 46.2% (19.2-74.9) vs 56.9% (43.2-69.8) with antibiotics. ConclusionsPost-hoc analyses of the AReSVi-006 trial suggest that adjuvanted RSVPreF3 may help prevent RSV-ARI, RSV-LRTD, and RSV-related complications in medically stable older adults with underlying medical conditions like COPD and asthma. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04886596 SummaryPost-hoc analyses of the AReSVi-006 trial suggest that 1 dose of adjuvanted RSVPreF3 may help prevent RSV-related illness and complications over 3 consecutive RSV seasons in subgroups of [&ge;]60-year-olds with chronic medical conditions, e.g., COPD and asthma.

BackgroundWe assessed the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of VLA2001 is a whole-virion inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine adsorbed to alum with a toll-like receptor 9 agonist adjuvant in healthy volunteers aged 18-55. MethodsThe first 15 participants were enrolled, in groups of 5, to receive two doses, separated by 21 days, of one of three dose concentrations, administered intramuscularly. 138 further participants were randomised 1:1:1 to receive the same 3 dose concentrations, in a double blinded manner. Primary outcomes were solicited adverse reactions 7 days after each vaccination and neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMT) against SARS-CoV-2, 2 weeks after the second vaccination (day 36), measured by live microneutralisation assay against wild-type virus (MNA50). Secondary outcomes included unsolicited adverse events, and humoral and cellular responses at day 36, measured by IgG ELISA against Spike protein and interferon-{gamma} secreting T-cells by ELISpot stimulated with multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04671017, ISRCTN 82411169) FindingsBetween December 16, 2020 and January 21, 2021, 153 participants were enrolled and randomised evenly between the dose groups. The rates of solicited reactions were similar after the first and second doses and between the three dose groups. The most frequent local reactions were tenderness (58{middle dot}2%) and pain (41{middle dot}8%) and systemic reactions were headache (46%) and fatigue (39{middle dot}2%). In the high dose group, two weeks following the second dose, the geometric mean titres were 530.4 (95% CI: 421{middle dot}49, 667{middle dot}52) for neutralizing antibodies and 2147{middle dot}9 (95% CI: 1705{middle dot}98, 2704{middle dot}22) for S-binding antibodies. There was a dose dependent response with 90{middle dot}0% (95% CI:78{middle dot}0%.,97{middle dot}0%) seroconversion (4-fold rise) at day 36 in the high dose group, which was significantly higher than rates in both the medium (73.5%; 95% CI: 59%,85%), CIs) and low dose (51%; 95%CI: 37%,65%) rate, CIs) groups (both p < 0.001). Antigen-specific interferon-{gamma} T-cells reactive against the S, M and N proteins were observed in 76, 36 and 49% of high dose recipients, respectively. InterpretationVLA2001-201 was well tolerated and produced both humoral and cellular immune responses, with a clear dose-response effect. FundingThis study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK The funder had no role in the study design, implementation or analysis.

BackgroundThe oral, selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor baricitinib demonstrated efficacy in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in critically ill adults with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). MethodsCOV-BARRIER was a global, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04421027). This addendum trial added a critically ill cohort not included in the main COV-BARRIER trial. Participants on baseline IMV/ECMO were randomly assigned 1:1 to baricitinib 4-mg (n=51) or placebo (n=50) for up to 14 days in combination with standard of care (SOC). Prespecified endpoints included all-cause mortality through days 28 and 60, and number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery through day 28. Efficacy and safety analyses included the intent-to-treat and safety populations, respectively. FindingsSOC included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 86% of participants. Treatment with baricitinib significantly reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared to placebo (39{middle dot}2% vs 58{middle dot}0%; hazard ratio [HR]=0{middle dot}54 [95%CI 0{middle dot}31-0{middle dot}96]; p=0{middle dot}030). One additional death was prevented for every six baricitinib-treated participants. Significant reduction in 60-day mortality was also observed (45{middle dot}1% vs 62{middle dot}0%; HR=0{middle dot}56 [95%CI 0{middle dot}33-0{middle dot}97]; p=0{middle dot}027). Baricitinib-treated participants showed numerically more ventilator-free days (8.1 vs 5.5 days, p=0.21) and spent over 2 days less in the hospital than placebo-treated participants (23{middle dot}7 vs 26{middle dot}1 days, p=0{middle dot}050). The rates of infections, blood clots, and adverse cardiovascular events were similar between treatment arms. InterpretationIn critically ill patients with COVID-19 already receiving IMV/ECMO, treatment with baricitinib as compared to placebo (in combination with SOC, including corticosteroids) showed mortality HR of 0{middle dot}56, corresponding to a 44% relative reduction at 60 days. This is consistent with the mortality reduction observed in less severely ill hospitalised primary COV-BARRIER study population. FundingEli Lilly and Company. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe evaluated current and prior studies assessing the efficacy and safety of interventions in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and searched current PubMed using the terms "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "treatment", "critical illness", "invasive mechanical ventilation", "baricitinib", and "JAK inhibitor" for articles in English, published until December 1, 2020, regardless of article type. We also reviewed the NIH and IDSA COVID-19 guidelines and reviewed similar terms on clinicaltrials.gov. When the critical illness addendum study to COV-BARRIER study was designed, there was only one open-label study of dexamethasone showing mortality benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring IMV. Small studies of interleukin-6 inhibitors had shown no effect and larger trials were underway. Guidelines recommended use of dexamethasone with or without remdesivir and recommended against the use of interleukin-6 inhibitors, except in a clinical trial. Overall, there were no reported double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials which included corticosteroids as part of SOC investigating the efficacy and safety of novel treatments in the NIAID-OS 7 population. Baricitinibs mechanism of action as a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor was identified as a potential intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 given its known anti-cytokine properties and potential antiviral mechanism for targeting host proteins mediating viral endocytosis Data from the NIAID sponsored ACTT-2 trial showed that baricitinib when added to remdesivir improved time to recovery and other outcomes including mortality compared to placebo plus remdesivir. A numerically larger proportion of participants who received baricitinib plus remdesivir showed an improvement in ordinal scale compared to those who received placebo plus remdesivir at day 15 in participants requiring IMV (NIAID-OS score of 7) at baseline. We designed COV-BARRIER, a phase 3, global, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with SOC (including corticosteroids) for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 who did not require mechanical ventilation (i.e., NIAID-OS 4-6). A significant reduction in mortality was found after 28 days between baricitinib and placebo (HR 0{middle dot}57, corresponding to a 43% relative reduction, p=0{middle dot}0018); one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. In the more severely ill NIAID-OS 6 subgroup, one additional death was prevented per nine baricitinib-treated participants (HR 0{middle dot}52, corresponding to a 48% relative reduction, p=0{middle dot}0065). We therefore implemented an addendum to the COV-BARRIER trial to evaluate the benefit/risk of baricitinib in the critically ill NIAID-OS 7 population and considered the sample size of 100 participants sufficient for this trial. Added value of this studyThis was the first phase 3 study to evaluate baricitinib in addition to the current standard of care (SOC), including antivirals, anticoagulants, and corticosteroids, in patients who were receiving IMV or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at enrolment. This was a multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in regions with high COVID-19 hospitalisation rates. Treatment with baricitinib reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared to placebo (HR 0{middle dot}54, 95% CI 0{middle dot}31-0{middle dot}96; nominal p=0{middle dot}030), corresponding to a 46% relative reduction, and significantly reduced 60-day all-cause mortality (HR 0{middle dot}56, 95% CI 0{middle dot}33-0{middle dot}97; p=0{middle dot}027); overall, one additional death was prevented per six baricitinib-treated participants. Numerical improvements in endpoints such as number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery were demonstrated. The frequency of serious adverse events, serious infections, and venous thromboembolic events was similar between baricitinib and placebo, respectively. The COV-BARRIER study overall trial results plus these COV-BARRIER addendum study data in mechanically ventilated and ECMO patients provide important information in context of other large, phase 3 randomised trials in participants with invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline. The RECOVERY study reported mortality of 29{middle dot}3% following treatment with dexamethasone compared to 41{middle dot}4% for usual care (rate ratio of 0{middle dot}64, corresponding to a 36% relative reduction) and 49% mortality in participants who received tocilizumab compared to 51% for usual care (rate ratio of 0.93, corresponding to a 7% relative reduction). The ACTT-2 study reported 28-day mortality of 23{middle dot}1% and 22{middle dot}6% in the baricitinib plus remdesivir and placebo plus remdesivir groups, respectively, in this critically ill patient population; however, the primary outcome of this trial was time to recovery, so was not powered to detect a change in mortality. Implications of all the available evidenceIn this phase 3 addendum trial, baricitinib given in addition to SOC (which predominantly included corticosteroids) had a significant effect on mortality reduction by 28 days in critically ill patients, an effect which was maintained by 60 days. These data were comparable with those seen in the COV-BARRIER primary study population of hospitalised patients, but which excluded patients who required IMV or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at enrolment. These findings suggest that baricitinib has synergistic effects to other SOC treatment modalities including remdesivir and dexamethasone. Based on the available evidence, baricitinib is a novel treatment option to decrease mortality in hospitalised, critically ill patients with COVID-19 even when started late in the disease process after steroids, mechanical ventilation, and ECMO have already been implemented.

BackgroundImmune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in severe Covid-19. Immunomodulators targeting various pathways have improved outcomes. We investigated whether infliximab provides benefit over standard of care. MethodsWe conducted a master protocol investigating immunomodulators for potential benefit in treatment of participants hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia. We report results for infliximab (single dose infusion) versus shared placebo both with standard of care. Primary outcome was time to recovery by day 29 (28 days after randomization). Key secondary endpoints included 14-day clinical status and 28-day mortality. ResultsA total of 1033 participants received study drug (517 infliximab, 516 placebo). Mean age was 54.8 years, 60.3% were male, 48.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 14% Black. No statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint was seen with infliximab compared with placebo (recovery rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.29; p=0.063). Median (IQR) time to recovery was 8 days (7, 9) for infliximab and 9 days (8, 10) for placebo. Participants assigned to infliximab were more likely to have an improved clinical status at day 14 (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 10.1% with infliximab versus 14.5% with placebo, with 41% lower odds of dying in those receiving infliximab (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90). No differences in risk of serious adverse events including secondary infections. ConclusionsInfliximab did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement in time to recovery. It was associated with improved 14-day clinical status and substantial reduction in 28- day mortality compared with standard of care. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04593940).

BackgroundCOVID-19 outcomes, in the context of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), are incompletely understood. Reported outcomes vary considerably depending on the patient population studied. It is essential to analyse data for a large population, while considering the effects of the pandemic time period, comorbidities, long term use of immunomodulatory medications (IMMs), and vaccination status. MethodsIn this retrospective case-control study, patients of all ages with IMIDs were identified from a large U.S. healthcare system. COVID-19 infections were identified based on SARS-CoV-2 NAAT test results. Controls without IMIDs were selected from the same database. Severe outcomes were hospitalisation, mechanical ventilation (MV), and death. We analysed data from 1 March 2020 to 30 August 2022, looking separately at both pre-Omicron and Omicron predominant periods. Factors including IMID diagnoses, comorbidities, long term use of IMMs, and vaccination and booster status were analysed using multivariable logistic regression (LR) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). FindingsOut of 2 167 656 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, there were 290 855 with confirmed COVID-19 infection: 15 397 patients with IMIDs and 275 458 controls (patients without IMIDs). Age and most chronic comorbidities were risk factors for worse outcomes, whereas vaccination and boosters were protective. Patients with IMIDs had higher rates of hospitalisation and mortality compared with controls. However, in multivariable analyses, few IMIDs were rarely risk factors for worse outcomes. Further, asthma, psoriasis and spondyloarthritis were associated with reduced risk. Most IMMs had no significant association, but less frequently used IMM drugs were limited by sample size. XGB outperformed LR, with the AUROCs for models across different time periods and outcomes ranging from 0{middle dot}77 to 0{middle dot}92. InterpretationFor patients with IMIDs, as for controls, age and comorbidities were risk factors for worse COVID-19 outcomes, whereas vaccinations were protective. Most IMIDs and immunomodulatory therapies were not associated with more severe outcomes. Interestingly, asthma, psoriasis and spondyloarthritis were associated with less severe COVID-19 outcomes than those expected for the population overall. These results can help inform clinical, policy and research decisions. FundingPfizer, Novartis, Janssen, NIH MeSHD001327, D000086382, D025241, D012306, D000071069

BackgroundThe Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial evaluated the effects of sixteen potential treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Dexamethasone (at a dose of 6mg daily), tocilizumab, baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab were shown to reduce 28-day mortality in all or specific groups of patients. Here we report the long-term efficacy and safety of all sixteen therapies. MethodsPatients hospitalised with COVID-19 were potentially eligible to join this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial. Participants were randomly allocated to receive each trial treatment, or not, on top of usual care. Analyses were by intention to treat comparing each treatment with its own usual care control group. The pre-specified primary long-term follow-up outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality, presented as mortality rate ratios adjusted for baseline age and ventilation status. The key safety outcomes were major non-COVID infection and non-COVID death at 6 months. ISRCTN50189673 and NCT04381936. FindingsBetween 19 March 2020 and 19 March 2024, 48,402 patients were included in RECOVERY COVID-19 treatment comparisons. For each of the treatments previously demonstrated to be effective at 28 days, the early mortality benefit was preserved up to 6 months. Among 6425 patients in the dexamethasone (6mg daily) comparison, 6-month mortality was 34.3% vs 44.4% in the invasive mechanical ventilation group (rate ratio [RR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.85; p=0.0006); 27.7% vs 29.2% in the oxygen or non-invasive ventilation group (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.99; p=0.034); and 26.1% vs 22.5% in the no oxygen group (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.89-1.36; p=0.39); test for trend p=0.0024. Among 4116 patients in the tocilizumab comparison, 34.3% vs 38.9% died within 6 months (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.79-0.96; p=0.0077). Among 8156 patients in the baricitinib comparison, 15.7% vs. 16.6% died (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80-0.99; p=0.032). Among 3153 anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum antibody negative patients (the primary analysis population) in the casirivimab-imdevimab comparison, 29.3% vs. 34.7% died (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98; p=0.024). Among 720 patients with high serum nucleocapsid antigen concentration (the primary analysis population) in the sotrovimab comparison, 33.0% vs. 38.6% died (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.61-1.00; p=0.050). In line with the 28-day results, aspirin, azithromycin, colchicine, convalescent plasma, dimethyl fumarate, empagliflozin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir did not reduce 6-month mortality. Mortality at 6 months was higher with hydroxychloroquine therapy (33.3% vs. 30.2%; RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27; p=0.018) and, among hypoxic patients not requiring ventilatory support, with higher dose dexamethasone (initial dose 20mg daily, 22.0% vs. 17.6%, RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.04-1.72; p=0.021). Allocation to dexamethasone 6mg once daily resulted in a small increase in major non-COVID infection within 6 months compared with usual care (21.4% vs. 19.1%; absolute difference 2.2%; 95% CI 0.2-4.5%). We found no evidence that any other treatments increased the risk of major non-COVID infection. InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, dexamethasone (at a dose of 6mg daily in hypoxic patients), tocilizumab (in hypoxic patients with CRP [&ge;]75 mg/L), baricitinib, casirivimab-imdevimab (in seronegative patients), and sotrovimab (in high antigen patients) reduced 6-month mortality. Dexamethasone at a dose of 6mg daily was associated with an increase in major non-COVID infection but there was no evidence of other later emerging harms. Other treatments tested in RECOVERY did not reduce 6-month mortality. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056), and Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref: 222406/Z/20/Z).

BackgroundEmpagliflozin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-inflammatory, metabolic and haemodynamic effects. MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, several possible treatments are compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus empagliflozin 10mg once daily for 28 days or until discharge using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. On 3 March the independent data monitoring committee recommended that the investigators review the data and recruitment was consequently stopped on 7 March. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsBetween 8 July 2021 and 6 March 2023, 4271 patients were randomly allocated to receive either empagliflozin (2113 patients) or usual care alone (2158 patients). Overall, 289 (14%) patients allocated to empagliflozin and 307 (14%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.13; p=0.64). There was no evidence of significant differences in duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days vs. 8 days) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (79% vs. 78%; rate ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.96-1.10; p=0.44). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no evidence of a significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (16% vs. 17%; risk ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.84-1.08; p=0.44). InterpretationIn adults hospitalised with COVID-19, empagliflozin was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056), and Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref: 222406/Z/20/Z). Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04381936 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04381936 ISRCTN50189673 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN50189673

BackgroundWe evaluated the use of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital because of COVID-19. MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus baricitinib 4 mg once daily by mouth for 10 days or until discharge if sooner (baricitinib group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A meta-analysis was conducted that included the results from the RECOVERY trial and all previous randomised controlled trials of baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsBetween 2 February 2021 and 29 December 2021, 8156 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus baricitinib versus usual care alone. At randomisation, 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids and 23% receiving tocilizumab (with planned use within the next 24 hours recorded for a further 9%). Overall, 513 (12%) of 4148 patients allocated to baricitinib versus 546 (14%) of 4008 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio 0{middle dot}87; 95% CI 0{middle dot}77-0{middle dot}98; p=0{middle dot}026). This 13% proportional reduction in mortality was somewhat smaller than that seen in a meta-analysis of 8 previous trials of a JAK inhibitor (involving 3732 patients and 425 deaths) in which allocation to a JAK inhibitor was associated with a 43% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.45-0.72). Including the results from RECOVERY into an updated meta-analysis of all 9 completed trials (involving 11,888 randomised patients and 1484 deaths) allocation to baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor was associated with a 20% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.71-0.89; p<0.001). In RECOVERY, there was no significant excess in death or infection due to non-COVID-19 causes and no excess of thrombosis, or other safety outcomes. InterpretationIn patients hospitalised for COVID-19, baricitinib significantly reduced the risk of death but the size of benefit was somewhat smaller than that suggested by previous trials. The total randomised evidence to date suggests that JAK inhibitors (chiefly baricitinib) reduce mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 by about one-fifth. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056).

ObjectivesTo determine differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and presence and duration of symptoms between adults with and without established SARS-CoV-2 moderately severe lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in the 12 months following their primary care visit. DesignProspective cohort study Setting35 general practices in the provinces Noord-Brabant and Utrecht, the Netherlands. ParticipantsIndividuals aged [&ge;]18 years who presented to their general practitioner (GP) with a moderately severe LRTI during the first COVID-19 waive in The Netherlands (March-June 2021) underwent serology testing (participants, GPs and study personnel remained blinded for serology outcomes during study conduct) and completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires. Of the 315 participants who gave consent, 277 (88%) were suitable for inclusion in the analyses. Complete follow-up date was available in 97% of participants. Main outcome measures1) Scores of SF-36; physical component summary (PCS), mental component summary (MCS) and subscales. 2) Risk of any and individual persisting symptoms (of cough, dyspnea, chest pain, fatigue, brain fog, headache, and anosmia/ageusia) over time. ResultsThe change in SF-36 PSC (p=0.13), MCS (p=0.30), as well as subscale scores, over time did not differ between SARS-CoV-2 serology positive and negative participants after adjusting for sex, age, BMI, diabetes and chronic pulmonary conditions. The risk of any persisting symptom over time did not significantly differ between the groups (aHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.15), nor did the risk of individual symptoms. ConclusionsIn the 12 months following their moderately severe LRTI, primary care patients with and without confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection had a comparable HRQoL profile. Albeit a considerable proportion of patients reported persistent symptoms, there was no evidence of a difference in the course of symptoms over time between patients with and without confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial registrationDutch Trial Register (NTR) number NL8729

To understand the immune correlates of protection to COVID-19, we ran a longitudinal prospective multicentre study recruiting 425 patients with COVID-19 from the start of the UK pandemic in April 2020 through the first 3 waves with study completing in 2022. Here we identify the demographic factors and pre-admission symptoms impacting on COVID-19 disease severity, acute clinical course and long-term recovery to be considered in subsequent serological analysis. Preadmission symptom cluster and duration of symptoms associated with risk of thrombosis/renal disease and pneumothorax respectively. Renal complications were more likely to be seen in the first wave compared to the second wave of the pandemic. Survival to discharge was independently associated with ethnicity, age (<40YRSVS >60yrs) and absence of comorbidities however hazard of death was increased for all hospitalised patients who had received at least one COVID vaccine (as high-risk patient) pre-admission, had shorter time from symptom onset to admission, or had comorbidities. Most patients reported long term sequelae with neuromuscular and cognitive effects dominating early on and mood disturbance and breathlessness persisted to 12 months. Whilst COVID-19 severity score was the dominant risk factor for persistent dyspnoea, gender was the dominant risk factor for persistent mood disorder and associated with a greater risk of persistent gastrointestinal and cognitive problems.

BackgroundWe investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. MethodsWe conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. ResultsBetween October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). ConclusionsAddition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04593940).

BackgroundTreatment of COVID-19 patients with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) several possible treatments are being compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to receive either usual care plus high titre convalescent plasma or usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. FindingsBetween 28 May 2020 and 15 January 2021, 5795 patients were randomly allocated to receive convalescent plasma and 5763 to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1398 (24%) of 5795 patients allocated convalescent plasma and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 1{middle dot}00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0{middle dot}93 to 1{middle dot}07; p=0{middle dot}93). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (66% vs. 67%; rate ratio 0{middle dot}98; 95% CI 0{middle dot}94-1{middle dot}03, p=0{middle dot}50). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (28% vs. 29%; rate ratio 0{middle dot}99; 95% CI 0{middle dot}93-1{middle dot}05, p=0{middle dot}79). InterpretationAmong patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant refs: MC_PC_19056; COV19-RECPLA).

BackgroundElevated proinflammatory cytokines have been associated with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity. We assessed efficacy and safety of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal canula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. MethodsThis was a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial in patients hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomised 2:2:1 to intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was time to [&ge;]2-point clinical improvement (7-point scale; range: 1 [death] to 7 [not hospitalised]). The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04327388). FindingsBetween March 28 and July 3, 2020, 420 patients were randomised; 416 received treatment (placebo, n=84; sarilumab 200 mg, n=159; sarilumab 400 mg, n=173). At day 29, there were no significant differences in median (95% CI) time to [&ge;]2-point improvement between placebo (12{middle dot}0 [9{middle dot}0-15{middle dot}0] days) and sarilumab groups (200 mg: 10{middle dot}0 [9{middle dot}0-12{middle dot}0] days, p=0.96, log-rank test; 400 mg: 10{middle dot}0 [9{middle dot}0-13{middle dot}0] days, p=0.34) or in proportions of patients alive (placebo, 91{middle dot}7%; sarilumab 200 mg, 89{middle dot}9%, p=0{middle dot}63; sarilumab 400 mg, 91{middle dot}9%, p=0{middle dot}85). At day 29, there were numerical, nonsignificant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +9%, 95% CI -7{middle dot}7 to 25{middle dot}5, p=0{middle dot}25) for critical patients. There were no unexpected safety signals. InterpretationThis trial did not demonstrate efficacy of sarilumab in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. FundingSanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.