IMPORTANCEThe 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 PARTICIPANTSIn 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 MEASURESThe 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. RESULTSThe 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,; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among crit...

To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 .Methods: Critically 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. Results:We 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,

Background: Due to the substantial proportion of asymptomatic and mild courses many SARS-CoV-2 infections remain unreported. Therefore, assessment of seroprevalence may detect the real burden of disease. We aimed at determining and characterizing the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the resulting immunity in a defined population. Methods: CoNAN is a population-based cohort study in the previously quarantined community Neustadt-am-Rennsteig, Germany six weeks after a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with 49 cases identified by PCR screening of all 883 inhabitants. The primary objective of the study was to assess SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroconversion rate using six different IgG detecting immunoassays. Secondary objectives of the study were: i.) to determine the rate of seroconversion in children; ii.) to determine potential risk factors for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic Covid19 courses; iii.) to investigate the rate of virus persistence. Findings: We enrolled 626 participants (71% of the community population). All actual SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were negative; while a total of 8.4% (52 of 620 tested) had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in at least two independent tests. Twenty of the antibody positive participants had previously a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR. On the contrary, of those 38 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, only 20 (52.6%) were antibody positive. Interpretation: Several antibody tests conducted six weeks after an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 did not detect all previously PCR-positive tested individuals. Cautious evaluation of antibody testing strategies to assess immunity against the infection is warranted.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

The Co‐HCW study is a prospective cohort study among hospital staff, including healthcare workers (HCWs) and administration staff, at the Jena University Hospital (JUH), Germany. The objectives of this study were to assess SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG seroprevalence, individual exposure risk factors and compliance of HCWs to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). After the first nosocomial COVID‐19 outbreak at JUH, mandatory masking was implemented on 20th March 2020. We evaluated point seroprevalence using two IgG detecting immunoassays and issued a questionnaire to assess COVID‐19 exposure, clinical symptoms and compliance to wear PPE. Antibody retesting was offered to participants with a divergent result of both immunoassays 5–10 weeks after the first test. Between 19th May and 19th June 2020, we analysed 660 participants [out of 3,228; 20.4%]. Among them, 212 participants (32.1%) had received a previous COVID‐19 test. Four of them (1.9%) reported a positive test result. After recruitment, 18 participants (2.7%) had SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in at least one immunoassay. Overall, 21 participants (3.2%) had any evidence of a past or current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Among them, 13 (61.9%) were not aware of direct COVID‐19 exposure and 9 (42.9%) did not report any clinical symptoms. COVID‐19 exposure at home (adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI: 47.82 (5.49, 416.62)) was associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 seroprevalence. We observed no evidence for an association between seroprevalence and exposure at work (aOR 0.48 (0.13, 1.70)) or with COVID‐19 risk area according to the working place (aOR for intermediate‐risk vs. high‐risk: 1.97 (0.42, 9.22), aOR for low‐risk versus high‐risk: 2.10 (0.40, 11.06); p = .655). Reported compliance of HCWs to wear PPE differed ( p < .001) between working in high‐risk (98.3%) and in intermediate‐risk areas (69.8%). In conclusion, compared to administration staff, we observed no additional risk to acquire SARS‐CoV‐2 infections by patient care, probably due to high compliance to wear PPE.