Phase Ib study of poly-epitope peptide vaccination to thymidylate synthase (TSPP) and GOLFIG chemo-immunotherapy for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients

ABSTRACT: Thymidylate synthase (TS) is a tumor-associated enzyme critical for DNA replication and main 5′-fluorouracil (5′-FU) target. TSPP/VAC1 is a multi-arm trial phase-Ib trial program aimed to investigate the toxicity and biomodulatory activity of a poly-epitope-peptide vaccine to TS (TSPP) in cancer patients (pts). Here, we present the results of the TSPP/VAC1/arm C trial aimed to evaluate TSPP in combination with chemo-immunotherapy in pretreated metastatic colo-rectal cancer (mCRC) pts. Twenty-nine pts, 14 males and 15 females, received poly-chemotherapy with gemcitabine [GEM; 1,000 mg/sqm, day-1], oxaliplatin [OX; 80 mg/sqm, day-2], levofolinate [100 mg/sqm, days 1–2], bolus/infusional 5′-FU [400 mg/800 mg/sqm, days 1–2], sargramostim [50 μg, days 3–7/q30], and interleukin-2 [sc. 0.5 MIU twice a day, days 8–14/18–30] [GOLFIG-regimen]. Seventeen pts received sc. TSPP injections at escalating dosage [3 pts, 100 µg (DL-1); 3 pts, 200 µg (DL-2) and 11pts, 300 µg (DL-3)] one week after each chemotherapy cycle (concomitant module), while 10 out 12 pts received TSPP (300 µg) after 12 GOLFIG courses [dose level (DL)-0] (sequential module). TSPP MTD was not achieved. Adverse events consisted in swelling/erythema at injection sites (17 cases), G1–2 haematological (16 cases) and gastro-enteric events (12), fever, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, and poly-arthralgia and rise in auto-antibodies [ANA, ENA, c-ANCA, p-ANCA in the DL1–3 pts]. Both treatment-modules showed immunomodulating and antitumor activity (disease-control-rate, DL1–3 and DL0 were 70.6% and 83.3%, respectively) with a better survival recorded in the second group [median OS DL1–3 vs. DL0 = 8 vs. 16 mo, p = 0.049]. The promising long-term survival produced by the sequential treatment module deserves further phase II evaluation

Erratum to: One-year follow-up of mud-bath therapy in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, single-blind controlled trial

The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00484-14-0943-0

Association of Toll-like receptor 7 variants with life-threatening COVID-19 disease in males: findings from a nested case-control study

Background: Recently, loss-of-function variants in TLR7 were identified in two families in which COVID-19 segregates like an X-linked recessive disorder environmentally conditioned by SARS-CoV-2. We investigated whether the two families represent the tip of the iceberg of a subset of COVID-19 male patients.Methods: This is a nested case-control study in which we compared male participants with extreme phenotype selected from the Italian GEN-COVID cohort of SARS-CoV-2-infected participants (<60y, 79 severe cases versus 77 control cases). We applied the LASSO Logistic Regression analysis, considering only rare variants on young male subsets with extreme phenotype, picking up TLR7 as the most important susceptibility gene.Results: Overall, we found TLR7 deleterious variants in 2.1% of severely affected males and in none of the asymptomatic participants. The functional gene expression profile analysis demonstrated a reduction in TLR7-related gene expression in patients compared with controls demonstrating an impairment in type I and II IFN responses.Conclusion: Young males with TLR7 loss-of-function variants and severe COVID-19 represent a subset of male patients contributing to disease susceptibility in up to 2% of severe COVID-19

Ultra-rare RTEL1 gene variants associate with acute severity of COVID-19 and evolution to pulmonary fibrosis as a specific long COVID disorder

Background: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel coronavirus that caused an ongoing pandemic of a pathology termed Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19). Several studies reported that both COVID-19 and RTEL1 variants are associated with shorter telomere length, but a direct association between the two is not generally acknowledged. Here we demonstrate that up to 8.6% of severe COVID-19 patients bear RTEL1 ultra-rare variants, and show how this subgroup can be recognized. Methods: A cohort of 2246 SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, collected within the GEN-COVID Multicenter study, was used in this work. Whole exome sequencing analysis was performed using the NovaSeq6000 System, and machine learning methods were used for candidate gene selection of severity. A nested study, comparing severely affected patients bearing or not variants in the selected gene, was used for the characterisation of specific clinical features connected to variants in both acute and post-acute phases. Results: Our GEN-COVID cohort revealed a total of 151 patients carrying at least one RTEL1 ultra-rare variant, which was selected as a specific acute severity feature. From a clinical point of view, these patients showed higher liver function indices, as well as increased CRP and inflammatory markers, such as IL-6. Moreover, compared to control subjects, they present autoimmune disorders more frequently. Finally, their decreased diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide after six months of COVID-19 suggests that RTEL1 variants can contribute to the development of SARS-CoV-2-elicited lung fibrosis. Conclusion: RTEL1 ultra-rare variants can be considered as a predictive marker of COVID-19 severity, as well as a marker of pathological evolution in pulmonary fibrosis in the post-COVID phase. This notion can be used for a rapid screening in hospitalized infected people, for vaccine prioritization, and appropriate follow-up assessment for subjects at risk. Trial Registration NCT04549831 (www.clinicaltrial.org

An explainable model of host genetic interactions linked to COVID-19 severity

We employed a multifaceted computational strategy to identify the genetic factors contributing to increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection from a Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) dataset of a cohort of 2000 Italian patients. We coupled a stratified k-fold screening, to rank variants more associated with severity, with the training of multiple supervised classifiers, to predict severity based on screened features. Feature importance analysis from tree-based models allowed us to identify 16 variants with the highest support which, together with age and gender covariates, were found to be most predictive of COVID-19 severity. When tested on a follow-up cohort, our ensemble of models predicted severity with high accuracy (ACC = 81.88%; AUCROC = 96%; MCC = 61.55%). Our model recapitulated a vast literature of emerging molecular mechanisms and genetic factors linked to COVID-19 response and extends previous landmark Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). It revealed a network of interplaying genetic signatures converging on established immune system and inflammatory processes linked to viral infection response. It also identified additional processes cross-talking with immune pathways, such as GPCR signaling, which might offer additional opportunities for therapeutic intervention and patient stratification. Publicly available PheWAS datasets revealed that several variants were significantly associated with phenotypic traits such as “Respiratory or thoracic disease”, supporting their link with COVID-19 severity outcome

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