COVID-19 in cancer patients: clinical characteristics and outcome—an analysis of the LEOSS registry

Introduction Since the early SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, cancer patients have been assumed to be at higher risk for severe COVID-19. Here, we present an analysis of cancer patients from the LEOSS (Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients) registry to determine whether cancer patients are at higher risk. Patients and methods We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 435 cancer patients and 2636 non-cancer patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, enrolled between March 16 and August 31, 2020. Data on socio-demographics, comorbidities, cancer-related features and infection course were collected. Age-, sex- and comorbidity-adjusted analysis was performed. Primary endpoint was COVID-19-related mortality. Results In total, 435 cancer patients were included in our analysis. Commonest age category was 76–85 years (36.5%), and 40.5% were female. Solid tumors were seen in 59% and lymphoma and leukemia in 17.5% and 11% of patients. Of these, 54% had an active malignancy, and 22% had recently received anti-cancer treatments. At detection of SARS-CoV-2, the majority (62.5%) presented with mild symptoms. Progression to severe COVID-19 was seen in 55% and ICU admission in 27.5%. COVID-19-related mortality rate was 22.5%. Male sex, advanced age, and active malignancy were associated with higher death rates. Comparing cancer and non-cancer patients, age distribution and comorbidity differed significantly, as did mortality (14% vs 22.5%, p value < 0.001). After adjustments for other risk factors, mortality was comparable. Conclusion Comparing cancer and non-cancer patients, outcome of COVID-19 was comparable after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidity. However, our results emphasize that cancer patients as a group are at higher risk due to advanced age and pre-existing conditions

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Covid-19 triage in the emergency department 2.0: how analytics and AI transform a human-made algorithm for the prediction of clinical pathways

The Covid-19 pandemic has pushed many hospitals to their capacity limits. Therefore, a triage of patients has been discussed controversially primarily through an ethical perspective. The term triage contains many aspects such as urgency of treatment, severity of the disease and pre-existing conditions, access to critical care, or the classification of patients regarding subsequent clinical pathways starting from the emergency department. The determination of the pathways is important not only for patient care, but also for capacity planning in hospitals. We examine the performance of a human-made triage algorithm for clinical pathways which is considered a guideline for emergency departments in Germany based on a large multicenter dataset with over 4,000 European Covid-19 patients from the LEOSS registry. We find an accuracy of 28 percent and approximately 15 percent sensitivity for the ward class. The results serve as a benchmark for our extensions including an additional category of palliative care as a new label, analytics, AI, XAI, and interactive techniques. We find significant potential of analytics and AI in Covid-19 triage regarding accuracy, sensitivity, and other performance metrics whilst our interactive human-AI algorithm shows superior performance with approximately 73 percent accuracy and up to 76 percent sensitivity. The results are independent of the data preparation process regarding the imputation of missing values or grouping of comorbidities. In addition, we find that the consideration of an additional label palliative care does not improve the results

Susceptibility of BAFF-var allele carriers to severe SLE with occurrence of lupus nephritis.

Dysregulation of the B-cell activating factor (BAFF) system is involved in the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Increased serum concentrations of BAFF are related to lupus nephritis and disease activity among SLE patients. Recently, a variant of the BAFF-encoding gene, BAFF-var, was identified to be associated with autoimmune diseases, in particular SLE, and to promote the production of soluble BAFF. The present study aimed to assess the prevalence of BAFF-var in a cohort of 195 SLE patients and to analyze the association of the BAFF-var genotype (TNSF13B) with various manifestations of SLE. A cohort of 195 SLE patients from Central Europe, including 153 patients from the Swiss SLE Cohort Study and 42 patients from the University Hospital Essen, Germany, underwent genotyping for detection of BAFF-var allele. Of the 195 patients, 18 (9.2%) tested positive for BAFF-var variant according to the minor allele frequency of 4.6%. The presence of BAFF-var was associated with the occurrence of lupus nephritis (p = 0.038) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.003). Among various organ manifestations of SLE, the presence of BAFF-var was associated with the occurrence of lupus nephritis (p = 0.038; odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-6.34) and renal activity markers such as proteinuria and hematuria (p = 0.03; OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 0.9-6.4 for proteinuria; p = 0.003; OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.43-10.76 for hematuria). SLE patients carrying the BAFF-var allele exhibited increased disease activity at study entry, as determined by the physician's global assessment (PGA: p = 0.002; OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.54-14.93) and the SLE Disease Activity Index (p = 0.012; OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.12-11.18). Consistent with that, the percentage of patients treated with immunosuppressive agents at study entry was higher among those carrying the BAFF-var allele than among those tested negative for BAFF-var (p = 0.006; OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.27-10.84). Our results indicate an association between the BAFF-var genotype and increased severity of SLE. Determining the BAFF-var status of SLE patients may improve the risk stratification of patients for whom the development of lupus nephritis is more likely and thus may be helpful in the follow-up care and treatment of SLE patients

CD134 expression on CD4(+) T cells is associated with nephritis and disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is characterized by a deviation of the immune system that involves T cell-dependent autoantibody production. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of co-stimulatory markers on T cells in this disease. Twenty-eight patients with SLE as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and 11 healthy controls were included into the study. Eleven patients had biopsy-proven lupus nephritis while 17 patients had no clinical evidence of lupus nephritis. Clinical disease activity was assessed according to the systemic lupus erythematosus disease index (SLEDAI). CD4(+) T cell populations in the peripheral blood were analysed for the expression of co-stimulatory markers CD45RO, CD70, CD80, CD86, CD137, CD137L, CD134, CD152, CD154 and ICOS. SLE patients showed an increased frequency of peripheral CD4(+) T cells expressing high levels of CD80, CD86 and CD134 compared to healthy controls (7·1 ± 1·5% versus 1·7 ± 0·9%; P < 0·005; 2·3 ± 0·4% versus 1·0 ± 0·2%; P = 0·008, 20·2 ± 2·0% versus 10·6 ± 1·9%; P < 0·005, respectively). Significantly higher levels of CD80 on CD4(+) T cells were detected in SLE patients with lupus nephritis compared to patients without nephritis (11·9 ± 3·3% versus 4·0 ± 0·7%; P < 0·005). There was an increased presence of CD134(+) CD4(+) cells in SLE patients with lupus nephritis (27·5 ± 4·0%versus 15·5 ± 1·3%; P < 0·005). CD80 and CD134 expression was significantly correlated with SLEDAI (r = 0·42, P = 0·03; r = 0·56, P < 0·005). Co-stimulatory molecules on CD4(+) T cells are associated with renal disease and disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus