Corticosteroid Resistance in Smokers—A Substudy Analysis of the CORTICO-COP Randomised Controlled Trial

From MDPI via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: accepted 2021-06-16, pub-electronic 2021-06-21Publication status: PublishedFunder: Danish Regions Medical Fund; Grant(s): 5894/16Funder: Sundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd; Grant(s): 6110-00268BThe CORTICO-COP trial showed that eosinophil-guided corticosteroid-sparing treatment for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was non-inferior to standard of care and decreased the accumulated dose of systemic corticosteroids that patients were exposed to by approximately 60%. Smoking status has been shown to affect corticosteroid responsiveness. This post hoc analysis investigated whether eosinophil-guided treatment is non-inferior to conventional treatment in current smokers. The main analysis of current smokers showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint, days alive, and out of hospital within 14 days between the control group (mean, 9.8 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), 8.7–10.8) and the eosinophil-guided group (mean, 8.7 days; 95% CI, 7.5–9.9; p = 0.34). Secondary analyses of the number of exacerbations or deaths, the number of intensive care unit admissions or deaths, lung function improvement, and change in health-related quality of life also showed no significant differences between the two groups. The results of a sensitivity analysis of ex-smokers are consistent with the main analysis. Our results suggest that eosinophil-guided treatment is non-inferior to standard of care in current smokers and ex-smokers. Because data on the impact of smoking status on eosinophil-guided treatments are sparse, more randomised trials are needed to confirm our results

SARS-CoV-2 and risk of psychiatric hospital admission and use of psychopharmaceuticals: A nationwide registry study of 4,585,083 adult Danish citizens

Abstract Background Current evidence on the risk of admission- or medication-requiring psychiatric sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is limited to selected populations, short durations, and loss to follow-up. This study examined if SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased long-term risk of psychiatric admissions and de novo prescription of psychoactive medication in the general population of Denmark. Methods Adults (≥18 years) were assigned to either the control or SARS-CoV-2 group based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests between 1 January 2020 and 27 November 2021. Infected subjects were matched 1:5 to control subjects by propensity score. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated. Adjusted Cox regression was applied to the unmatched population with SARS-CoV-2 infection as a time-dependent covariate. Follow-up time was 12 months or until the end of the study. Results A total of 4,585,083 adults were included in the study. Approximately 342,084 had a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were matched 1:5 with 1,697,680 controls. The IRR for psychiatric admission was 0.79 in the matched population (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73–0.85, p < 0.001). In the unmatched population, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for psychiatric admission were either below 1.00 or with a 95% CI lower limit of 1.01. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk of de novo prescription of psychoactive medication in both the matched (IRR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02–1.11, p < 0.01) and unmatched population (HR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.28–1.34, p < 0.001). Conclusions We found a signal of increased use of psychoactive medication, specifically benzodiazepines, among SARS-CoV-2-positive persons, but the risk of psychiatric admissions did not increase

Heart failure associated with imported malaria:a nationwide Danish cohort study

Abstract Aims Despite adequate treatment, recent studies have hypothesized that malaria may affect long‐term cardiovascular function. We aimed to investigate the long‐term risk of cardiovascular events and death in individuals with a history of imported malaria in Denmark. Methods Using nationwide Danish registries, we followed individuals with a history of malaria for the risk of incident heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death and all‐cause death (1 January 1994 to 1 January 2017). The population was age‐ and sex‐matched with individuals without a history of malaria from the Danish population (ratio 1:9). We excluded patients with known HF and ischaemic heart disease at inclusion. Results We identified 3912 cases with a history of malaria (mean age 33 ± 17 years, 57% male, 41% Plasmodium falciparum infections). The median follow‐up was 9.8 years (interquartile range 3.9–16.4 years). Event rates per 1000 person‐years for individuals with a history vs. no history of malaria were HF: 1.84 vs. 1.32; MI: 1.28 vs. 1.30; cardiovascular death: 1.40 vs. 1.77; and all‐cause death: 5.04 vs. 5.28. In Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, concomitant pharmacotherapy, region of origin, household income and educational level, malaria was associated with HF (HR: 1.59 [1.21–2.09], P = 0.001), but not MI (HR: 1.00 [0.72–1.39], P = 1.00), cardiovascular death (HR: 1.00 [0.74–1.35], P = 0.98) or all‐cause death (HR 1.11 [0.94–1.30], P = 0.21). Specifically, P. falciparum infection was associated with increased risk of HF (HR: 1.64 [1.14–2.36], P = 0.008). Conclusion Individuals with a history of imported malaria, specifically P. falciparum, may have an increased risk of incident HF

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS: In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS: From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). INTERPRETATION: When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health

Fraction of exhaled nitric oxide is higher in liver transplant recipients than in controls from the general population: a cohort study

BackgroundFraction of exhaled nitric oxide with an expiratory flow of 50 mL/s (FENO50) is a biomarker of eosinophilic airway inflammation. Liver transplant recipients have an increased risk of pulmonary infections, but little is known about the burden of chronic pulmonary diseases in this group. We aimed to assess the prevalence of elevated FENO50 in liver transplant recipients and compare it to controls from the general population.MethodsFENO50 was measured in 271 liver transplant recipients from The Danish Comorbidity in Liver Transplant Recipients (DACOLT) study and 1,018 age- and sex-matched controls from The Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS). Elevated FENO50 was defined as ≥25 or ≥50 parts per billion (ppb). The analyses were adjusted for known and suspected confounders.ResultsThe median age of the liver transplant recipients was 55 years (interquartile range (IQR) 46–64), and 58% were men. The liver transplant recipients had a higher median FENO50 than the controls [16 ppb (IQR 10–26) vs. 13 ppb (IQR 8–18.), p &lt; 0.001]. Furthermore, the liver transplant recipients had a higher prevalence of elevated FENO50 (for FENO50 ≥25 ppb 27% vs. 11%, p &lt; 0.001 and ≥50 ppb 4% vs. 2%, p = 0.02). The results were similar after adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, use of airway medication, and blood eosinophil counts [the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for FENO50 ≥25 ppb was 3.58 (95% CI: 2.50–5.15, p &lt; 0.0001) and the adjusted OR for FENO50 ≥50 ppb was 3.14 (95% CI: 1.37–7.20, p = 0.007)].ConclusionThe liver transplant recipients had elevated FENO50, implying increased eosinophilic airway inflammation. The clinical impact of this finding needs further investigation