Background The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of remdesivir plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, with indication of oxygen or ventilator support. Methods DisCoVeRy was a phase 3, open-label, adaptive, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted in 48 sites in Europe (France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Luxembourg). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness of any duration were eligible if they had clinical evidence of hypoxaemic pneumonia, or required oxygen supplementation. Exclusion criteria included elevated liver enzymes, severe chronic kidney disease, any contraindication to one of the studied treatments or their use in the 29 days before random assignment, or use of ribavirin, as well as pregnancy or breastfeeding. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive standard of care alone or in combination with remdesivir, lopinavir–ritonavir, lopinavir–ritonavir and interferon beta-1a, or hydroxychloroquine. Randomisation used computer-generated blocks of various sizes; it was stratified on severity of disease at inclusion and on European administrative region. Remdesivir was administered as 200 mg intravenous infusion on day 1, followed by once daily, 1-h infusions of 100 mg up to 9 days, for a total duration of 10 days. It could be stopped after 5 days if the participant was discharged. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population and was one of the secondary outcomes. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT2020-000936-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04315948 . Findings Between March 22, 2020, and Jan 21, 2021, 857 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to remdesivir plus standard of care (n=429) or standard of care only (n=428). 15 participants were excluded from analysis in the remdesivir group, and ten in the control group. At day 15, the distribution of the WHO ordinal scale was: (1) not hospitalised, no limitations on activities (61 [15%] of 414 in the remdesivir group vs 73 [17%] of 418 in the control group); (2) not hospitalised, limitation on activities (129 [31%] vs 132 [32%]); (3) hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen (50 [12%] vs 29 [7%]); (4) hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen (76 [18%] vs 67 [16%]); (5) hospitalised, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (15 [4%] vs 14 [3%]); (6) hospitalised, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporea...

In this trial, subclavian-vein catheterization was associated with a lower risk of bloodstream infection and symptomatic thrombosis and a higher risk of pneumothorax than jugular-vein or femoral-vein catheterization. (Funded by the Hospital Program for Clinical Research, French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01479153.).

No abstract

IMPORTANCE High-flow nasal oxygen therapy is increasingly used for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). OBJECTIVE To determine whether high-flow oxygen therapy decreases mortality among immunocompromised patients with AHRF compared with standard oxygen therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The HIGH randomized clinical trial enrolled 776 adult immunocompromised patients with AHRF (PaO 2 <60 mm Hg or SpO 2 <90% on room air, or tachypnea >30/min or labored breathing or respiratory distress, and need for oxygen Ն6 L/min) at 32 intensive care units (ICUs) in France between May 19, 2016, and December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to continuous high-flow oxygen therapy (n = 388) or to standard oxygen therapy (n = 388). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was day-28 mortality. Secondary outcomes included intubation and mechanical ventilation by day 28, PaO 2 :FIO 2 ratio over the 3 days after intubation, respiratory rate, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, ICU-acquired infections, and patient comfort and dyspnea. RESULTS Of 778 randomized patients (median age, 64 [IQR, 54-71] years; 259 [33.3%] women), 776 (99.7%) completed the trial. At randomization, median respiratory rate was 33/min (IQR, 28-39) vs 32 (IQR, 27-38) and PaO 2 :FIO 2 was 136 (IQR, 96-187) vs 128 (IQR, 92-164) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Median SOFA score was 6 (IQR, 4-8) in both groups. Mortality on day 28 was not significantly different between groups (35.6% vs 36.1%; difference, −0.5% [95% CI, −7.3% to +6.3%]; hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.24]; P = .94). Intubation rate was not significantly different between groups (38.7% vs 43.8%; difference, −5.1% [95% CI, −12.3% to +2.0%]). Compared with controls, patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy had a higher PaO 2 :FIO 2 (150 vs 119; difference, 19.5 [95% CI, 4.4 to 34.6]) and lower respiratory rate after 6 hours (25/min vs 26/min; difference, −1.8/min [95% CI, −3.2 to −0.2]). No significant difference was observed in ICU length of stay (8 vs 6 days; difference, 0.6 [95% CI, −1.0 to +2.2]), ICU-acquired infections (10.0% vs 10.6%; difference, −0.6% [95% CI, −4.6 to +4.1]), hospital length of stay (24 vs 27 days; difference, −2 days [95% CI, −7.3 to +3.3]), or patient comfort and dyspnea scores. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, high-flow oxygen therapy did not significantly decrease day-28 mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02739451.

HFNC has an effect on intubation but not on mortality rates. Failure to identify ARF etiology is associated with higher rates of both intubation and mortality. This suggests that in addition to selecting the appropriate oxygenation device, clinicians should strive to identify the etiology of ARF.