A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 respiratory distress: immune biomarker and clinical findings

BackgroundCytokine release triggered by a hyperactive immune response is thought to contribute to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2)–related respiratory failure. Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) is involved in innate immunity, and BTK inhibitors block cytokine release. We assessed the next-generation BTK inhibitor zanubrutinib in SARS-CoV-2–infected patients with respiratory distress.MethodCohort 1 had a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design; cohort 2 had a single-arm design. Adults with SARS-CoV-2 requiring hospitalization (without mechanical ventilation) were randomized in cohort 1. Those on mechanical ventilation ≤24 hours were enrolled in cohort 2. Patients were randomized 1:1 to zanubrutinib 320 mg once daily or placebo (cohort 1), or received zanubrutinib 320 mg once daily (cohort 2). Co-primary endpoints were respiratory failure-free survival rate and time to return to breathing room air at 28 days. Corollary studies to assess zanubrutinib’s impact on immune response were performed.ResultsSixty-three patients in cohort 1 received zanubrutinib (n=30) or placebo (n=33), with median treatment duration of 8.5 and 7.0 days, respectively. The median treatment duration in cohort 2 (n=4) was 13 days; all discontinued treatment early. In cohort 1, respiratory failure-free survival and the estimated rates of not returning to breathing room air by day 28 were not significantly different between treatments. Importantly, serological response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was not impacted by zanubrutinib. Lower levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, interleukin (IL)-10, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, IL-4, and IL-13 were observed in zanubrutinib-treated patients. Moreover, single-cell transcriptome analysis showed significant downregulation of inflammatory mediators (IL-6, IL-8, macrophage colony-stimulating factor, macrophage inflammatory protein-1α, IL-1β) and signaling pathways (JAK1, STAT3, TYK2), and activation of gamma-delta T cells in zanubrutinib-treated patients.ConclusionsMarked reduction in inflammatory signaling with preserved SARS-CoV-2 serological response was observed in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 respiratory distress receiving zanubrutinib. Despite these immunological findings, zanubrutinib did not show improvement over placebo in clinical recovery from respiratory distress. Concurrent administration of steroids and antiviral therapy to most patients may have contributed to these results. Investigation of zanubrutinib may be warranted in other settings where cytokine release and immune cell exhaustion are important.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04382586, identifier NCT04382586

Do Positive Anaerobic Culture Results Affect Physicians\u27 Clinical Management Decisions?

BACKGROUND: Aerobic and anaerobic cultures from body fluids, abscesses, and wounds are ordered routinely. Prior studies have shown that the results of anaerobic blood cultures do not frequently lead to changes in patient management. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review to determine whether positive results of anaerobic tissue and fluid cultures (excluding blood) affect physicians\u27 treatment approaches. Of 3234 anaerobic cultures, 174 unique patient admissions had positive cultures and met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Only 18% (n = 31) of patient charts with positive cultures had documented physician acknowledgment (90.3% of acknowledgments by infectious diseases physicians), with 9% (n = 15) leading to change in antibiotic regimens based on results. Seventy percent of all patients received initial empiric antibiotics active against anaerobes. Of the remaining 30% (inappropriate, unknown, or no empiric coverage), 1 regimen change was documented after culture results were known. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of management change based on results of anaerobic wound cultures, the value of routine anaerobic culturing is of questionable utility

Compassionate Use of Remdesivir in Pregnant Women With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019

AbstractBackgroundRemdesivir is efficacious for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults, but data in pregnant women are limited. We describe outcomes in the first 86 pregnant women with severe COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir.MethodsThe reported data span 21 March to 16 June 2020 for hospitalized pregnant women with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and room air oxygen saturation ≤94% whose clinicians requested remdesivir through the compassionate use program. The intended remdesivir treatment course was 10 days (200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg for days 2–10, given intravenously).ResultsNineteen of 86 women delivered before their first dose and were reclassified as immediate “postpartum” (median postpartum day 1 [range, 0–3]). At baseline, 40% of pregnant women (median gestational age, 28 weeks) required invasive ventilation, in contrast to 95% of postpartum women (median gestational age at delivery 30 weeks). By day 28 of follow-up, the level of oxygen requirement decreased in 96% and 89% of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. Among pregnant women, 93% of those on mechanical ventilation were extubated, 93% recovered, and 90% were discharged. Among postpartum women, 89% were extubated, 89% recovered, and 84% were discharged. Remdesivir was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) (16%). Most AEs were related to pregnancy and underlying disease; most laboratory abnormalities were grade 1 or 2. There was 1 maternal death attributed to underlying disease and no neonatal deaths.ConclusionsAmong 86 pregnant and postpartum women with severe COVID-19 who received compassionate-use remdesivir, recovery rates were high, with a low rate of serious AEs.</jats:sec

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health