A Case of Novel Coronavirus Disease 19 in a Chronic Hemodialysis Patient Presenting with Gastroenteritis and Developing Severe Pulmonary Disease.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious, rapidly spreading viral disease with an alarming case fatality rate up to 5%. The risk factors for severe presentations are concentrated in patients with chronic kidney disease, particularly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are dialysis dependent. We report the first US case of a 56-year-old nondiabetic male with ESRD secondary to IgA nephropathy undergoing thrice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis for 3 years, who developed COVID-19 infection. He has hypertension controlled with angiotensin receptor blocker losartan 100 mg/day and coronary artery disease status-post stent placement. During the first 5 days of his febrile disease, he presented to an urgent care, 3 emergency rooms, 1 cardiology clinic, and 2 dialysis centers in California and Utah. During this interval, he reported nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and low-grade fevers but was not suspected of COVID-19 infection until he developed respiratory symptoms and was admitted to the hospital. Imaging studies upon admission were consistent with bilateral interstitial pneumonia. He was placed in droplet-eye precautions while awaiting COVID-19 test results. Within the first 24 h, he deteriorated quickly and developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring intubation and increasing respiratory support. Losartan was withheld due to hypotension and septic shock. COVID-19 was reported positive on hospital day 3. He remained in critical condition being treated with hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab in addition to the standard medical management for septic shock and ARDS. Our case is unique in its atypical initial presentation and highlights the importance of early testing

High frequencies of alpha common cold coronavirus/SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive functional CD4+ and CD8+ memory T cells are associated with protection from symptomatic and fatal SARS-CoV-2 infections in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2-specific memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are present in up to 50% of unexposed, pre-pandemic, healthy individuals (UPPHIs). However, the characteristics of cross-reactive memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells associated with subsequent protection of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients (i.e., unvaccinated individuals who never develop any COVID-19 symptoms despite being infected with SARS-CoV-2) remains to be fully elucidated. METHODS: This study compares the antigen specificity, frequency, phenotype, and function of cross-reactive memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells between common cold coronaviruses (CCCs) and SARS-CoV-2. T-cell responses against genome-wide conserved epitopes were studied early in the disease course in a cohort of 147 unvaccinated COVID-19 patients who were divided into six groups based on the severity of their symptoms. RESULTS: Compared to severely ill COVID-19 patients and patients with fatal COVID-19 outcomes, the asymptomatic COVID-19 patients displayed significantly: (i) higher rates of co-infection with the 229E alpha species of CCCs (α-CCC-229E); (ii) higher frequencies of cross-reactive functional CD134+CD137+CD4+ and CD134+CD137+CD8+ T cells that cross-recognized conserved epitopes from α-CCCs and SARS-CoV-2 structural, non-structural, and accessory proteins; and (iii) lower frequencies of CCCs/SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive exhausted PD-1+TIM3+TIGIT+CTLA4+CD4+ and PD-1+TIM3+TIGIT+CTLA4+CD8+ T cells, detected both ex vivo and in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: These findings (i) support a crucial role of functional, poly-antigenic α-CCCs/SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, induced following previous CCCs seasonal exposures, in protection against subsequent severe COVID-19 disease and (ii) provide critical insights into developing broadly protective, multi-antigen, CD4+, and CD8+ T-cell-based, universal pan-Coronavirus vaccines capable of conferring cross-species protection

Genome-Wide B Cell, CD4+, and CD8+ T Cell Epitopes That Are Highly Conserved between Human and Animal Coronaviruses, Identified from SARS-CoV-2 as Targets for Preemptive Pan-Coronavirus Vaccines

Over the last two decades, there have been three deadly human outbreaks of coronaviruses (CoVs) caused by SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2, which has caused the current COVID-19 global pandemic. All three deadly CoVs originated from bats and transmitted to humans via various intermediate animal reservoirs. It remains highly possible that other global COVID pandemics will emerge in the coming years caused by yet another spillover of a bat-derived SARS-like coronavirus (SL-CoV) into humans. Determining the Ag and the human B cells, CD4+ and CD8+ T cell epitope landscapes that are conserved among human and animal coronaviruses should inform in the development of future pan-coronavirus vaccines. In the current study, using several immunoinformatics and sequence alignment approaches, we identified several human B cell and CD4+ and CD8+ T cell epitopes that are highly conserved in 1) greater than 81,000 SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences identified in 190 countries on six continents; 2) six circulating CoVs that caused previous human outbreaks of the common cold; 3) nine SL-CoVs isolated from bats; 4) nine SL-CoV isolated from pangolins; 5) three SL-CoVs isolated from civet cats; and 6) four MERS strains isolated from camels. Furthermore, the identified epitopes: 1) recalled B cells and CD4+ and CD8+ T cells from both COVID-19 patients and healthy individuals who were never exposed to SARS-CoV-2, and 2) induced strong B cell and T cell responses in humanized HLA-DR1/HLA-A*02:01 double-transgenic mice. The findings pave the way to develop a preemptive multiepitope pan-coronavirus vaccine to protect against past, current, and future outbreaks

A Case of Novel Coronavirus Disease 19 in a Chronic Hemodialysis Patient Presenting with Gastroenteritis and Developing Severe Pulmonary Disease.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious, rapidly spreading viral disease with an alarming case fatality rate up to 5%. The risk factors for severe presentations are concentrated in patients with chronic kidney disease, particularly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are dialysis dependent. We report the first US case of a 56-year-old nondiabetic male with ESRD secondary to IgA nephropathy undergoing thrice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis for 3 years, who developed COVID-19 infection. He has hypertension controlled with angiotensin receptor blocker losartan 100 mg/day and coronary artery disease status-post stent placement. During the first 5 days of his febrile disease, he presented to an urgent care, 3 emergency rooms, 1 cardiology clinic, and 2 dialysis centers in California and Utah. During this interval, he reported nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and low-grade fevers but was not suspected of COVID-19 infection until he developed respiratory symptoms and was admitted to the hospital. Imaging studies upon admission were consistent with bilateral interstitial pneumonia. He was placed in droplet-eye precautions while awaiting COVID-19 test results. Within the first 24 h, he deteriorated quickly and developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring intubation and increasing respiratory support. Losartan was withheld due to hypotension and septic shock. COVID-19 was reported positive on hospital day 3. He remained in critical condition being treated with hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab in addition to the standard medical management for septic shock and ARDS. Our case is unique in its atypical initial presentation and highlights the importance of early testing

Infection prevention strategies are highly protective in COVID-19 units while main risks to healthcare professionals come from coworkers and the community.

BackgroundEarly evaluations of healthcare professional (HCP) COVID-19 risk occurred during insufficient personal protective equipment and disproportionate testing, contributing to perceptions of high patient-care related HCP risk. We evaluated HCP COVID-19 seropositivity after accounting for community factors and coworker outbreaks.MethodsPrior to universal masking, we conducted a single-center retrospective cohort plus cross-sectional study. All HCP (1) seen by Occupational Health for COVID-like symptoms (regardless of test result) or assigned to (2) dedicated COVID-19 units, (3) units with a COVID-19 HCP outbreak, or (4) control units from 01/01/2020 to 04/15/2020 were offered serologic testing by an FDA-authorized assay plus a research assay against 67 respiratory viruses, including 11 SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Multivariable models assessed the association of demographics, job role, comorbidities, care of a COVID-19 patient, and geocoded socioeconomic status with positive serology.ResultsOf 654 participants, 87 (13.3%) were seropositive; among these 60.8% (N = 52) had never cared for a COVID-19 patient. Being male (OR 1.79, CI 1.05-3.04, p = 0.03), working in a unit with a HCP-outbreak unit (OR 2.21, CI 1.28-3.81, p < 0.01), living in a community with low owner-occupied housing (OR = 1.63, CI = 1.00-2.64, p = 0.05), and ethnically Latino (OR 2.10, CI 1.12-3.96, p = 0.02) were positively-associated with COVID-19 seropositivity, while working in dedicated COVID-19 units was negatively-associated (OR 0.53, CI = 0.30-0.94, p = 0.03). The research assay identified 25 additional seropositive individuals (78 [12%] vs. 53 [8%], p < 0.01).ConclusionsPrior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission. Prior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BackgroundAlthough several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only.ResultsA total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%).ConclusionsOur data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.)

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19-Final Report

BackgroundAlthough several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. ResultsA total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). ConclusionsOur data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.) In this randomized, double-blind trial in 1062 adults hospitalized with Covid-19, remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery (10 days, vs. 15 days with placebo). The estimates of mortality by day 29 were 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo. The benefit of remdesivir was most apparent in patients who were receiving low-flow oxygen at baseline

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BackgroundSevere coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15.ResultsA total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003).ConclusionsBaricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.)

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.)