Prediction of unfavorable outcomes in West Nile virus neuroinvasive infection – Result of a multinational ID-IRI study

Background: WNV causes 1.4% of all central nervous system infections and is the most common cause of epidemic neuro-invasive disease in humans. Objectives: Our main objective was to investigate retrospectively West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease (WNND) cases hospitalized during 2010–2017 and identified factors that can influence prognosis. Study design: We documented the demographic, epidemiologic, clinical and laboratory data of WNND and identified factors that can influence prognosis. The data were recruited through Infectious Diseases International Research Initiative (ID-IRI), which serves as a network for clinical researches. Results: We investigated 165 patients with WNND in 10 countries from three continents. 27 patients died and the mortality rate was 16.4%. In an univariate analysis age, congestive heart failure, neoplasm and ischemic heart disease (p < 0.001), neuropsychiatric disorders (p = 0.011), chronic hepatitis (p = 0.024) and hypertension (p = 0.043) were risk factors for death. Fatal evolution was also correlated with ICU addmission, disorientation, speech disorders, change in consciousnes, coma, a low Glasgow coma score, obtundation, confusion (p < 0.001), history of syncope (p = 0.002) and history of unconsciousness (p = 0.037). In a binomial logistic regresssion analysis only age and coma remained independent prediction factors for death. We created an equation that was calculated according to age, co-morbidities and clinical manifestations that may be used to establish the prognosis of WNND patients. Conclusions: WNND remain an important factor for morbidity and mortality worldwide, evolution to death or survival with sequelae are not rare. Our study creates an equation that may be used in the future to establish the prognosis of WNND patients

Clinical efficacy of different monoclonal antibody regimens among non-hospitalised patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression: a prospective cohort study

This study aimed to compare the clinical progression of COVID-19 in high-risk outpatients treated with the monoclonal antibodies (mAb) bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. This is an observational, multi-centre, prospective study conducted from 18 March to 15 July 2021 in eight Italian tertiary-care hospitals including mild-to-moderate COVID-19 outpatients receiving bamlanivimab (700 mg), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (700–1400 mg) or casirivimab-imdevimab (1200–1200 mg). All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to Italian Medicines Agency definitions. In a patient subgroup, SARS-CoV-2 variant and anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology were analysed at baseline. Factors associated with 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were identified using multivariable multilevel logistic regression (MMLR) and summarised with adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 635 outpatients received mAb: 161 (25.4%) bamlanivimab, 396 (62.4%) bamlanivimab-etesevimab and 78 (12.2%) casirivimab-imdevimab. Ninety-five (15%) patients received full or partial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant was detected in 99% of patients. Baseline serology showed no significant differences among the three mAb regimen groups. Twenty-eight-day all-cause hospitalisation was 11.3%, with a significantly higher proportion (p 0.001) in the bamlanivimab group (18.6%), compared to the bamlanivimab-etesevimab (10.1%) and casirivimab-imdevimab (2.6%) groups. On MMLR, aORs for 28-day all-cause hospitalisation were significantly lower in patients receiving bamlanivimab-etesevimab (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30–0.88 p 0.015) and casirivimab-imdevimab (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03–0.61, p 0.009) compared to those receiving bamlanivimab. No patients with a history of vaccination were hospitalised. The study suggests differences in clinical outcomes among the first available mAb regimens for treating high-risk COVID-19 outpatients. Randomised trials are needed to compare efficacy of mAb combination regimens in high-risk populations and according to circulating variants

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to prioritize hospital admission of patients affected by COVID-19 in low-resource settings with hospital-bed shortage

To use Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to determine weights for eleven criteria in order to prioritize COVID-19 non-critical patients for admission to hospital in healthcare settings with limited resources