Background A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, was caused by a novel betacoronavirus, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). We report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and treatment and clinical outcomes of these patients. MethodsAll patients with suspected 2019-nCoV were admitted to a designated hospital in Wuhan. We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing. Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. Researchers also directly communicated with patients or their families to ascertain epidemiological and symptom data. Outcomes were also compared between patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those who had not. Findings By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0-58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0-13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα.Interpretation The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies.

Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. MethodsIn this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients).Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03-1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61-12·23; p<0·0001), and d-dimer greater than 1 µg/mL (18·42, 2·64-128·55; p=0·0033) on admission. Median duration of viral shedding was 20·0 days (IQR 17·0-24·0) in survivors, but SARS-CoV-2 was detectable until death in non-survivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days.Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 µg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future.

BACKGROUNDNo therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODSWe conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao 2 ) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao 2 ) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio 2 ) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTSA total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.72). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, −5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS

No abstract

To face SARS-CoV-2 pandemic various attempts are made to identify potential effective treatments by repurposing available drugs. Among them, indomethacin, an anti-inflammatory drug, was shown to have potent in-vitro antiviral properties on human SARS-CoV-1, canine CCoV, and more recently on human SARS-CoV-2 at low micromolar range. Our objective was to show that indomethacin could be considered as a promising candidate for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and to provide criteria for comparing benefits of alternative dosage regimens using a model-based approach. A multi-stage model-based approach was developed to characterize % of recovery and viral load in CCoVinfected dogs, to estimate the PK of indomethacin in dog and human using published data after administration of immediate (IR) and sustained-release (SR) formulations, and to estimate the expected antiviral activity as a function of different assumptions on the effective exposure in human. Different dosage regimens were evaluated for IR formulation (25 mg and 50 mg three-times-a-day, and 25 mg four-times-a-day), and SR formulation (75 mg once and twice-a-day). The best performing dosing regimens were: 50 mg three-times-a-day for the IR formulation, and 75 mg twice-a-day for the SR formulation. The treatment with the SR formulation at the dose of 75 mg twice-a-day is expected to achieve a complete response in three days for the treatment in patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. These results suggest that indomethacin could be considered as a promising candidate for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 whose potential therapeutic effect needs to be further assessed in a prospective clinical trial.

Background The full range of long-term health consequences of COVID-19 in patients who are discharged from hospital is largely unclear. The aim of our study was to comprehensively compare consequences between 6 months and 12 months after symptom onset among hospital survivors with COVID-19. MethodsWe undertook an ambidirectional cohort study of COVID-19 survivors who had been discharged from Jin Yin-tan Hospital (Wuhan, China) between Jan 7 and May 29, 2020. At 6-month and 12-month follow-up visit, survivors were interviewed with questionnaires on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and received a physical examination, a 6-min walking test, and laboratory tests. They were required to report their health-care use after discharge and work status at the 12-month visit. Survivors who had completed pulmonary function tests or had lung radiographic abnormality at 6 months were given the corresponding tests at 12 months. Non-COVID-19 participants (controls) matched for age, sex, and comorbidities were interviewed and completed questionnaires to assess prevalent symptoms and HRQoL. The primary outcomes were symptoms, modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) score, HRQoL, and distance walked in 6 min (6MWD). Multivariable adjusted logistic regression models were used to evaluate the risk factors of 12-month outcomes. Findings 1276 COVID-19 survivors completed both visits. The median age of patients was 59•0 years (IQR 49•0-67•0) and 681 (53%) were men. The median follow-up time was 185•0 days (IQR 175•0-198•0) for the 6-month visit and 349•0 days (337•0-361•0) for the 12-month visit after symptom onset. The proportion of patients with at least one sequelae symptom decreased from 68% (831/1227) at 6 months to 49% (620/1272) at 12 months (p<0•0001). The proportion of patients with dyspnoea, characterised by mMRC score of 1 or more, slightly increased from 26% (313/1185) at 6-month visit to 30% (380/1271) at 12-month visit (p=0•014). Additionally, more patients had anxiety or depression at 12-month visit (26% [331/1271] at 12-month visit vs 23% [274/1187] at 6-month visit; p=0•015). No significant difference on 6MWD was observed between 6 months and 12 months. 88% (422/479) of patients who were employed before COVID-19 had returned to their original work at 12 months. Compared with men, women had an odds ratio of 1•43 (95% CI 1•04-1•96) for fatigue or muscle weakness, 2•00 (1•48-2•69) for anxiety or depression, and 2•97 (1•50-5•88) for diffusion impairment. Matched COVID-19 survivors at 12 months had more problems with mobility, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, and had more prevalent symptoms than did controls.Interpretation Most COVID-19 survivors had a good physical and functional recovery during 1-year follow-up, and had returned to their original work and life. The health status in our cohort of COVID-19 survivors at 12 months was still lower than that in the control population.

No abstract

BackgroundUse of existing disease severity scores would greatly contribute to risk stratification and rationally resource allocation in COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these scores in COVID-19 hospitalised patients with pneumonia was still unknown.MethodsIn this single center, retrospective study, all hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia from Wuhan Jin Yin-tan Hospital who had discharged or died as of February 15, 2020 were enrolled. Performance of PSI, CURB-65, A-DROP, CRB-65, SMART-COP, qSOFA and NEWS2 were validated. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were also estimated.ResultsAmong the 654 patients enrolled, 133 patients died and 521 were discharged. Areas of under curves (AUCs) of A-DROP, CURB-65, PSI, SMART-COP, NEWS2, CRB-65 and qSOFA in the prediction of in-hospital death were 0.87, 0.85, 0.85, 0.84, 0.81, 0.80 and 0.73 respectively.ConclusionADROP is a reliable tool for risk stratification of death in COVID-19 hospitalised patients on admission.