3 research outputs found
FcγR-mediated SARS-CoV-2 infection of monocytes activates inflammation
SARS-CoV-2 can cause acute respiratory distress and death in some patients1. Although severe COVID-19 disease is linked to exuberant inflammation, how SARS-CoV-2 triggers inflammation is not understood2. Monocytes and macrophages are sentinel cells that sense invasive infection to form inflammasomes that activate caspase-1 and gasdermin D (GSDMD), leading to inflammatory death (pyroptosis) and release of potent inflammatory mediators3. Here we show that about 6% of blood monocytes in COVID-19 patients are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Monocyte infection depends on uptake of antibody-opsonized virus by Fcγ receptors. Vaccine recipient plasma does not promote antibody-dependent monocyte infection. SARS-CoV-2 begins to replicate in monocytes, but infection is aborted, and infectious virus is not detected in infected monocyte culture supernatants. Instead, infected cells undergo inflammatory cell death (pyroptosis) mediated by activation of NLRP3 and AIM2 inflammasomes, caspase-1 and GSDMD. Moreover, tissue-resident macrophages, but not infected epithelial and endothelial cells, from COVID-19 lung autopsies have activated inflammasomes. These findings taken together suggest that antibody-mediated SARS-CoV-2 uptake by monocytes/macrophages triggers inflammatory cell death that aborts production of infectious virus but causes systemic inflammation that contributes to COVID-19 pathogenesis
Diagnostic and therapeutic considerations in cases of civilian intravascular ballistic embolism: a review of case reports
Background Ballistic embolism (BE) is a rare complication of firearm injuries notoriously associated with a vexing clinical picture in the trauma bay. Unless considered early, the associated confusion can lead to needless delay in the management of the patient with a gunshot wound. Despite this known entity, there is a relative paucity of high-grade evidence regarding complications, management, and follow-up in these patients.Methods An electronic database literature search was conducted to identify cases of acute intravascular BE in pediatric and adult civilians occurring during index hospitalization, filtered to publications during the past 10 years. Exclusion criteria included non-vascular embolization, injuries occurring in the military setting, and delayed migration defined as occurring after discharge from the index hospitalization.Results A total of 136 cases were analyzed. Nearly all cases of BE occurred within 48 hours of presentation. Compared with venous emboli, arterial emboli were significantly more likely to be symptomatic (71% vs. 7%, p<0.001), and 43% of patients developed symptoms attributable to BE in the trauma bay. In addition, arterial emboli were significantly less likely to be managed non-invasively (19% vs. 49%, p<0.001). Open retrieval was significantly more likely to be successful compared with endovascular attempts (91% vs. 29%, p<0.001). Patients with arterial emboli were more likely to receive follow-up (52% vs. 39%) and any attempt at retrieval during the hospitalization was significantly associated with outpatient follow-up (p=0.034). All but one patient remained stable or had clinically improved symptoms after discharge.Conclusion Consideration for BE is reasonable in any patient with new or persistent unexplained signs or symptoms, especially during the first 48 hours after a penetrating firearm injury. Although venous BE can often be safely observed, arterial BE generally necessitates urgent retrieval. Patients who are managed non-invasively may benefit from follow-up in the first year after injury
Recommended from our members
Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial
We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.
In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.
Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.
Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.
US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee