Rare Variants in Primary Immunodeficiency Genes and Their Functional Partners in Severe COVID-19

The development of severe COVID-19, which is a complex multisystem disease, is thought to be associated with many genes whose action is modulated by numerous environmental and genetic factors. In this study, we focused on the ideas of the omnigenic model of heritability of complex traits, which assumes that a small number of core genes and a large pool of peripheral genes expressed in disease-relevant tissues contribute to the genetics of complex traits through interconnected networks. We hypothesized that primary immunodeficiency disease (PID) genes may be considered as core genes in severe COVID-19, and their functional partners (FPs) from protein–protein interaction networks may be considered as peripheral near-core genes. We used whole-exome sequencing data from patients aged ≤ 45 years with severe (n = 9) and non-severe COVID-19 (n = 11), and assessed the cumulative contribution of rare high-impact variants to disease severity. In patients with severe COVID-19, an excess of rare high-impact variants was observed at the whole-exome level, but maximal association signals were detected for PID + FP gene subsets among the genes intolerant to LoF variants, haploinsufficient and essential. Our exploratory study may serve as a model for new directions in the research of host genetics in severe COVID-19

Serial Changes in Blood-Cell-Count-Derived and CRP-Derived Inflammatory Indices of COVID-19 Patients

The aim of the study was to investigate the serial changes in inflammatory indices derived from blood cell counts and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in COVID-19 patients with good and poor outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed the serial changes in the inflammatory indices in 169 COVID-19 patients. Comparative analyses were performed on the first and last days of a hospital stay or death and serially from day 1 to day 30 from the symptom onset. On admission, non-survivors had higher CRP to lymphocytes ratio (CLR) and multi-inflammatory index (MII) values than survivors, while at the time of discharge/death, the largest differences were found for the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), systemic inflammation response index (SIRI), and MII. A significant decrease in NLR, CLR, and MII by the time of discharge was documented in the survivors, and a significant increase in NLR was documented in the non-survivors. The NLR was the only one that remained significant from days 7–30 of disease in intergroup comparisons. The correlation between the indices and the outcome was observed starting from days 13–15. The changes in the index values over time proved to be more helpful in predicting COVID-19 outcomes than those measured on admission. The values of the inflammatory indices could reliably predict the outcome no earlier than days 13–15 of the disease

Continuous vs Intermittent Meropenem Administration in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The MERCY Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Meropenem is a widely prescribed β-lactam antibiotic. Meropenem exhibits maximum pharmacodynamic efficacy when given by continuous infusion to deliver constant drug levels above the minimal inhibitory concentration. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous administration of meropenem may improve clinical outcomes. Objective: To determine whether continuous administration of meropenem reduces a composite of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria compared with intermittent administration in critically ill patients with sepsis. Design, setting, and participants: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock who had been prescribed meropenem by their treating clinicians at 31 intensive care units of 26 hospitals in 4 countries (Croatia, Italy, Kazakhstan, and Russia). Patients were enrolled between June 5, 2018, and August 9, 2022, and the final 90-day follow-up was completed in November 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive an equal dose of the antibiotic meropenem by either continuous administration (n = 303) or intermittent administration (n = 304). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. There were 4 secondary outcomes, including days alive and free from antibiotics at day 28, days alive and free from the intensive care unit at day 28, and all-cause mortality at day 90. Seizures, allergic reactions, and mortality were recorded as adverse events. Results: All 607 patients (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years; 203 were women [33%]) were included in the measurement of the 28-day primary outcome and completed the 90-day mortality follow-up. The majority (369 patients, 61%) had septic shock. The median time from hospital admission to randomization was 9 days (IQR, 3-17 days) and the median duration of meropenem therapy was 11 days (IQR, 6-17 days). Only 1 crossover event was recorded. The primary outcome occurred in 142 patients (47%) in the continuous administration group and in 149 patients (49%) in the intermittent administration group (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.81-1.13], P = .60). Of the 4 secondary outcomes, none was statistically significant. No adverse events of seizures or allergic reactions related to the study drug were reported. At 90 days, mortality was 42% both in the continuous administration group (127 of 303 patients) and in the intermittent administration group (127 of 304 patients). Conclusions and relevance: In critically ill patients with sepsis, compared with intermittent administration, the continuous administration of meropenem did not improve the composite outcome of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03452839

High dose esomeprazole as an anti-inflammatory agent in sepsis: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Sepsis is caused by dysregulated immune responses due to infection and still presents high mortality rate and limited efficacious therapies, apart from antibiotics. Recent evidence suggests that very high dose proton pump inhibitors might regulate major sepsis mediators' secretion by monocytes, which might attenuate excessive host reactions and improve clinical outcomes. This effect is obtained with doses which are approximately 50 times higher than prophylactic esomeprazole single daily administration and 17 times higher than the cumulative dose of a three day prophylaxis. We aim to perform a randomized trial to investigate if high dose esomeprazole reduces organ dysfunction in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Methods: This study, called PPI-SEPSIS, is a multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on critically ill septic patients admitted to the emergency department or intensive care unit. A total of 300 patients will be randomized to receive high dose esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 12 mg/h for 72 h and a second 80 mg bolus 12 h after the first one) or equivolume placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%), with 1:1 allocation. The primary endpoint of the study will be mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score over 10 days. Secondary outcomes will include antibiotic-free days, single organ failure severity, intensive care unit-free days at day 28, and mortality. Discussion: This trial aims to test the efficacy of high dose esomeprazole to reduce acute organ dysfunction in patients with septic shock. Trial registration: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial identification NCT03452865 in March 2018

Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in hospitalised medically ill patients The ENDORSE Global Survey

Limited data are available regarding the risk for venous thromboembolism (VIE) and VIE prophylaxis use in hospitalised medically ill patients. We analysed data from the global ENDORSE survey to evaluate VTE risk and prophylaxis use in this population according to diagnosis, baseline characteristics, and country. Data on patient characteristics, VIE risk, and prophylaxis use were abstracted from hospital charts. VTE risk and prophylaxis use were evaluated according to the 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with use of ACCP-recommended prophylaxis. Data were evaluated for 37,356 hospitalised medical patients across 32 countries. VIE risk varied according to medical diagnosis, from 31.2% of patients with gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary diseases to 100% of patients with acute heart failure, active noninfectious respiratory disease, or pulmonary infection (global rate, 41.5%). Among those at risk for VTE, ACCP-recommended prophylaxis was used in 24.4% haemorrhagic stroke patients and 40-45% of cardiopulmonary disease patients (global rate, 39.5%). Large differences in prophylaxis use were observed among countries. Markers of disease severity, including central venous catheters, mechanical ventilation, and admission to intensive care units, were strongly associated with use of ACCP-recommended prophylaxis. In conclusion, VIE risk varies according to medical diagnosis. Less than 40% of at-risk hospitalised medical patients receive ACCP-recommended prophylaxis. Prophylaxis use appears to be associated with disease severity rather than medical diagnosis. These data support the necessity to improve implementation of available guidelines for evaluating VIE risk and providing prophylaxis to hospitalised medical patients