Cytokine profile in plasma of severe COVID-19 does not differ from ARDS and sepsis

BACKGROUND Elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines have been associated with poor outcomes among COVID-19 patients. It is unknown, however, how these levels compare with those observed in critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or sepsis due to other causes.METHODS We used a Luminex assay to determine expression of 76 cytokines from plasma of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and banked plasma samples from ARDS and sepsis patients. Our analysis focused on detecting statistical differences in levels of 6 cytokines associated with cytokine storm (IL-1β, IL-1RA, IL-6, IL-8, IL-18, and TNF-α) between patients with moderate COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and ARDS or sepsis.RESULTS Fifteen hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 9 of whom were critically ill, were compared with critically ill patients with ARDS (n = 12) or sepsis (n = 16). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline levels of IL-1β, IL-1RA, IL-6, IL-8, IL-18, and TNF-α between patients with COVID-19 and critically ill controls with ARDS or sepsis.CONCLUSION Levels of inflammatory cytokines were not higher in severe COVID-19 patients than in moderate COVID-19 or critically ill patients with ARDS or sepsis in this small cohort. Broad use of immunosuppressive therapies in ARDS has failed in numerous Phase 3 studies; use of these therapies in unselected patients with COVID-19 may be unwarranted.FUNDING Funding was received from NHLBI K23 HL125663 (AJR); The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1113682 (AJR and CAB); Burroughs Wellcome Fund Investigators in the Pathogenesis of Infectious Diseases #1016687 NIH/NIAID U19AI057229-16; Stanford Maternal Child Health Research Institute; and Chan Zuckerberg Biohub (CAB)

SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia predicts clinical deterioration and extrapulmonary complications from COVID-19

BackgroundThe determinants of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease severity and extrapulmonary complications (EPCs) are poorly understood. We characterized relationships between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNAemia and disease severity, clinical deterioration, and specific EPCs.MethodsWe used quantitative and digital polymerase chain reaction (qPCR and dPCR) to quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNA from plasma in 191 patients presenting to the emergency department with COVID-19. We recorded patient symptoms, laboratory markers, and clinical outcomes, with a focus on oxygen requirements over time. We collected longitudinal plasma samples from a subset of patients. We characterized the role of RNAemia in predicting clinical severity and EPCs using elastic net regression.ResultsOf SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, 23.0% (44 of 191) had viral RNA detected in plasma by dPCR, compared with 1.4% (2 of 147) by qPCR. Most patients with serial measurements had undetectable RNAemia within 10 days of symptom onset, reached maximum clinical severity within 16 days, and symptom resolution within 33 days. Initially RNAemic patients were more likely to manifest severe disease (odds ratio, 6.72 [95% confidence interval, 2.45-19.79]), worsening of disease severity (2.43 [1.07-5.38]), and EPCs (2.81 [1.26-6.36]). RNA loads were correlated with maximum severity (r = 0.47 [95% confidence interval, .20-.67]).ConclusionsdPCR is more sensitive than qPCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, which is a robust predictor of eventual COVID-19 severity and oxygen requirements, as well as EPCs. Because many COVID-19 therapies are initiated on the basis of oxygen requirements, RNAemia on presentation might serve to direct early initiation of appropriate therapies for the patients most likely to deteriorate

Using a 29-mRNA Host Response Classifier To Detect Bacterial Coinfections and Predict Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department

Clinicians in the emergency department (ED) face challenges in concurrently assessing patients with suspected COVID-19 infection, detecting bacterial coinfection, and determining illness severity since current practices require separate workflows. Here, we explore the accuracy of the IMX-BVN-3/IMX-SEV-3 29 mRNA host response classifiers in simultaneously detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and bacterial coinfections and predicting clinical severity of COVID-19. A total of 161 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 (52.2% female; median age, 50.0 years; 51% hospitalized; 5.6% deaths) were enrolled at the Stanford Hospital ED. RNA was extracted (2.5 mL whole blood in PAXgene blood RNA), and 29 host mRNAs in response to the infection were quantified using Nanostring nCounter. The IMX-BVN-3 classifier identified SARS-CoV-2 infection in 151 patients with a sensitivity of 93.8%. Six of 10 patients undetected by the classifier had positive COVID tests more than 9 days prior to enrollment, and the remaining patients oscillated between positive and negative results in subsequent tests. The classifier also predicted that 6 (3.7%) patients had a bacterial coinfection. Clinical adjudication confirmed that 5/6 (83.3%) of the patients had bacterial infections, i.e., Clostridioides difficile colitis (n = 1), urinary tract infection (n = 1), and clinically diagnosed bacterial infections (n = 3), for a specificity of 99.4%. Two of 101 (2.8%) patients in the IMX-SEV-3 "Low" severity classification and 7/60 (11.7%) in the "Moderate" severity classification died within 30 days of enrollment. IMX-BVN-3/IMX-SEV-3 classifiers accurately identified patients with COVID-19 and bacterial coinfections and predicted patients' risk of death. A point-of-care version of these classifiers, under development, could improve ED patient management, including more accurate treatment decisions and optimized resource utilization. IMPORTANCE We assay the utility of the single-test IMX-BVN-3/IMX-SEV-3 classifiers that require just 2.5 mL of patient blood in concurrently detecting viral and bacterial infections as well as predicting the severity and 30-day outcome from the infection. A point-of-care device, in development, will circumvent the need for blood culturing and drastically reduce the time needed to detect an infection. This will negate the need for empirical use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and allow for antibiotic use stewardship. Additionally, accurate classification of the severity of infection and the prediction of 30-day severe outcomes will allow for appropriate allocation of hospital resources

Deconvoluting complex correlates of COVID-19 severity with a multi-omic pandemic tracking strategy

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has differentially impacted populations across race and ethnicity. A multi-omic approach represents a powerful tool to examine risk across multi-ancestry genomes. We leverage a pandemic tracking strategy in which we sequence viral and host genomes and transcriptomes from nasopharyngeal swabs of 1049 individuals (736 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 313 SARS-CoV-2 negative) and integrate them with digital phenotypes from electronic health records from a diverse catchment area in Northern California. Genome-wide association disaggregated by admixture mapping reveals novel COVID-19-severity-associated regions containing previously reported markers of neurologic, pulmonary and viral disease susceptibility. Phylodynamic tracking of consensus viral genomes reveals no association with disease severity or inferred ancestry. Summary data from multiomic investigation reveals metagenomic and HLA associations with severe COVID-19. The wealth of data available from residual nasopharyngeal swabs in combination with clinical data abstracted automatically at scale highlights a powerful strategy for pandemic tracking, and reveals distinct epidemiologic, genetic, and biological associations for those at the highest risk

Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Adults Aged ≥65 Years — United States, January–March 2021

Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were identified as a priority group to receive the first COVID-19 vaccines approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (1-3). In an evaluation at 24 hospitals in 14 states,* the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination† with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 417 hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years (including 187 case-patients and 230 controls), the median age was 73 years, 48% were female, 73% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 4% lived in a long-term care facility. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years was estimated to be 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49%-99%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI = 28%-82%) for partial vaccination. These findings are consistent with efficacy determined from clinical trials in the subgroup of adults aged ≥65 years (4,5). This multisite U.S. evaluation under real-world conditions suggests that vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. Vaccination is a critical tool for reducing severe COVID-19 in groups at high risk

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

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. 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. 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. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee