The protective effect of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Scottish healthcare workers

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW) are believed to be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is not known to what extent the natural production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is protective against re-infection. METHODS: A prospective observational study of HCW's in Scotland (UK) from May to September 2020. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general local population, were studied for comparison. New infections (up to 2/12/2020) post antibody testing were recorded to determine if the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies protect against re-infection. RESULTS: A total of 2063 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. At enrolment 300 HCW had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11/231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). HCW therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (Odds ratio 3.4 95% CI 1.85–6.16, p<0.0001). Dentists were most likely to test positive. 97.3% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR had positive antibodies. 18.7% had an asymptomatic infection. There were 38 new infections with SARS-CoV-2 in HCW who were previously antibody negative and one symptomatic RT-PCR positive re-infection. The presence of antibodies was therefore associated with an 85% reduced risk of re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.35, p=0.026). CONCLUSION: HCW were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. Almost all infected individuals developed an antibody response which was 85% effective in protecting against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2

SFX-01 in hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic : a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

We acknowledge the members of the STAR-COVID data monitoring committee: Aran Singanayagam (Imperial College, London, UK), Timothy Hinks (University of Oxford, Oxford, UK), Oriol Sibila (Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain), Alex McConnachie (University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK) and Petra Rauchhaus (University of Dundee, Dundee, UK). This trial was delivered by Tayside Clinical Trials Unit, a UKCRC registered clinical trials unit. Thanks to Clare Clarke, Jennifer Taylor, Angela Strachan, Heather Loftus and Jodie Strachan (Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK) and Diane Cassidy (University of Dundee). We thank all study participants and their families.Peer reviewe

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19:a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

This study was funded by an investigator-initiated research grant from Insmed (Bridgewater, NJ, USA). The authors acknowledge the funding and logistical support from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.Background: Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods: In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings: Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57-0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation: Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19

Inflammatory Endotypes, Microbiome and Exacerbation Risk in Bronchiectasis:A European Multicentre Study

Introduction: Inflammation is believed to be central to the pathophysiology of bronchiectasis. This study aimed to perform inflammatory endotyping in bronchiectasis and examine the validity of identified inflammatory clusters by comparing the microbiome profiles and exacerbation risk among endotypes of bronchiectasis.Methods: Patients with stable bronchiectasis were enrolled at three European centres. K-means cluster analysis was used to stratify the patients according to the levels of 33 sputum and serum inflammatory markers. Sputum microbiome composition was determined through 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Endotypes were compared for their risk of exacerbations over 12 months follow-up.Results: 199 patients were enrolled, and using cluster analysis, four endotypes were defined according to their inflammatory profiles: cluster 1 (milder neutrophilic inflammation), cluster 2 (mixed-neutrophilic and type 2 inflammation), cluster 3 (most severe neutrophilic), and cluster 4 (mixed-epithelial and type 2). In the sputum microbiome, Proteobacteria and Pseudomonas at phylum and genus levels, respectively, were more dominant in clusters 2 and 3 than in clusters 1 and 4. Although the four clusters were indistinguishable by clinical characteristics at baseline, patients in clusters 2 (rate ratio [RR] 1.53, 95% CI 1.19–1.97) and 3 (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02–2.09) were at higher risk of exacerbation and severe exacerbation over 12 months follow-up compared to cluster 1.Conclusion: Bronchiectasis inflammatory endotypes are associated with distinct microbiome profiles and future exacerbation risk

Inflammatory Molecular Endotypes in Bronchiectasis:A European Multicenter Cohort Study

RATIONALE: Although inflammation and infection are key disease drivers in bronchiectasis, few studies have integrated host inflammatory and microbiome data to guide precision medicine.OBJECTIVES: To identify clusters among bronchiectasis patients based on inflammatory markers and assess the association between inflammatory endotypes, microbiome characteristics, and exacerbation risk.METHODS: Stable bronchiectasis patients were enrolled at three European centers and cluster analysis was used to stratify the patients according to the levels of 33 sputum and serum inflammatory markers. Clusters were compared in terms of microbiome composition (16S rRNA sequencing) and exacerbation risk over 12 months follow-up.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 199 patients were enrolled (109 [54.8%] female, median age 69 years). Four clusters of patients were defined according to their inflammatory profiles: cluster 1 (milder neutrophilic inflammation), cluster 2 (mixed-neutrophilic and type 2), cluster 3 (most severe neutrophilic), and cluster 4 (mixed-epithelial and type 2). Lower microbiome diversity was associated with more severe inflammatory clusters (P&lt;0.001), and beta-diversity analysis demonstrated distinct microbiome profiles associated with each inflammatory cluster (P=0.001). Proteobacteria and Pseudomonas at phylum and genus levels, respectively, were more enriched in clusters 2 and 3 than in clusters 1 and 4. Furthermore, patients in clusters 2 (rate ratio [RR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.16-1.92) and 3 (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.12-2.32) were at higher risk of exacerbation over 12 months follow-up compared to cluster 1 even after adjustment for prior exacerbation history.CONCLUSION: Bronchiectasis inflammatory endotypes are associated with distinct microbiome profiles and future exacerbation risk.</p