Safety and immunogenicity of the protein-based PHH-1V compared to BNT162b2 as a heterologous SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccine in adults vaccinated against COVID-19: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority phase IIb trial.

Background: A SARS-CoV-2 protein-based heterodimer vaccine, PHH-1V, has been shown to be safe and well-tolerated in healthy young adults in a first-in-human, Phase I/IIa study dose-escalation trial. Here, we report the interim results of the Phase IIb HH-2, where the immunogenicity and safety of a heterologous booster with PHH-1V is assessed versus a homologous booster with BNT162b2 at 14, 28 and 98 days after vaccine administration. Methods: The HH-2 study is an ongoing multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority Phase IIb trial, where participants 18 years or older who had received two doses of BNT162b2 were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive a booster dose of vaccine-either heterologous (PHH-1V group) or homologous (BNT162b2 group)-in 10 centres in Spain. Eligible subjects were allocated to treatment stratified by age group (18-64 versus ≥65 years) with approximately 10% of the sample enrolled in the older age group. The primary endpoints were humoral immunogenicity measured by changes in levels of neutralizing antibodies (PBNA) against the ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 strain after the PHH-1V or the BNT162b2 boost, and the safety and tolerability of PHH-1V as a boost. The secondary endpoints were to compare changes in levels of neutralizing antibodies against different variants of SARS-CoV-2 and the T-cell responses towards the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein peptides. The exploratory endpoint was to assess the number of subjects with SARS-CoV-2 infections ≥14 days after PHH-1V booster. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05142553. Findings: From 15 November 2021, 782 adults were randomly assigned to PHH-1V (n = 522) or BNT162b2 (n = 260) boost vaccine groups. The geometric mean titre (GMT) ratio of neutralizing antibodies on days 14, 28 and 98, shown as BNT162b2 active control versus PHH-1V, was, respectively, 1.68 (p < 0.0001), 1.31 (p = 0.0007) and 0.86 (p = 0.40) for the ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 strain; 0.62 (p < 0.0001), 0.65 (p < 0.0001) and 0.56 (p = 0.003) for the Beta variant; 1.01 (p = 0.92), 0.88 (p = 0.11) and 0.52 (p = 0.0003) for the Delta variant; and 0.59 (p ≤ 0.0001), 0.66 (p < 0.0001) and 0.57 (p = 0.0028) for the Omicron BA.1 variant. Additionally, PHH-1V as a booster dose induced a significant increase of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells expressing IFN-γ on day 14. There were 458 participants who experienced at least one adverse event (89.3%) in the PHH-1V and 238 (94.4%) in the BNT162b2 group. The most frequent adverse events were injection site pain (79.7% and 89.3%), fatigue (27.5% and 42.1%) and headache (31.2 and 40.1%) for the PHH-1V and the BNT162b2 groups, respectively. A total of 52 COVID-19 cases occurred from day 14 post-vaccination (10.14%) for the PHH-1V group and 30 (11.90%) for the BNT162b2 group (p = 0.45), and none of the subjects developed severe COVID-19. Interpretation: Our interim results from the Phase IIb HH-2 trial show that PHH-1V as a heterologous booster vaccine, when compared to BNT162b2, although it does not reach a non-inferior neutralizing antibody response against the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain at days 14 and 28 after vaccination, it does so at day 98. PHH-1V as a heterologous booster elicits a superior neutralizing antibody response against the previous circulating Beta and the currently circulating Omicron BA.1 SARS-CoV-2 variants in all time points assessed, and for the Delta variant on day 98 as well. Moreover, the PHH-1V boost also induces a strong and balanced T-cell response. Concerning the safety profile, subjects in the PHH-1V group report significantly fewer adverse events than those in the BNT162b2 group, most of mild intensity, and both vaccine groups present comparable COVID-19 breakthrough cases, none of them severe. Funding: HIPRA SCIENTIFIC, S.L.U.

Impact of systemic corticosteroids on length of hospitalization among patients with COVID-19. / [Artículo traducido] Impacto de los corticoides sistémicos en el tiempo de hospitalización en pacientes con COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a threat to hospital capacity due to the high number of admissions, which has led to the development of various strategies to release and create new hospital beds. Due to the importance of systemic corticosteroids in this disease, we assessed their efficacy in reducing the length of stay (LOS) in hospitals and compared the effect of 3 different corticosteroids on this outcome. MéTHOD: We conducted a real-world, controlled, retrospective cohort study that analysed data from a hospital database that included 3934 hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in a tertiary hospital from April to May 2020. Hospitalised patients who received systemic corticosteroids (CG) were compared with a propensity score control group matched by age, sex and severity of disease who did not receive systemic corticosteroids (NCG). The decision to prescribe CG was at the discretion of the primary medical team. RESULTS: A total of 199 hospitalized patients in the CG were compared with 199 in the NCG. The LOS was shorter for the CG than for the NCG (median=3 [interquartile range=0-10] vs. 5 [2-8.5]; p=0.005, respectively), showing a 43% greater probability of being hospitalised ≤4 days than >4 days when corticosteroids were used. Moreover, this difference was only noticed in those treated with dexamethasone (76.3% hospitalised ≤4 days vs. 23.7% hospitalised >4 days [p<0.001]). Serum ferritin levels, white blood cells and platelet counts were higher in the CG. No differences in mortality or intensive care unit admission were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with systemic corticosteroids is associated with reduced LOS in hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19. This association is significant in those treated with dexamethasone, but no for methylprednisolone and prednisone.

Impact of systemic corticosteroids on hospital length of stay among patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a threat to hospital capacity due to the high number of admissions, which has led to the development of various strategies to release and create new hospital beds. Due to the importance of systemic corticosteroids in this disease, we assessed their efficacy in reducing the length of stay (LOS) in hospitals and compared the effect of 3 different corticosteroids on this outcome. METHODS: We conducted a real-world, controlled, retrospective cohort study that analysed data from a hospital database that included 3934 hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in a tertiary hospital from April to May 2020. Hospitalised patients who received systemic corticosteroids (CG) were compared with a propensity score control group matched by age, sex and severity of disease who did not receive systemic corticosteroids (NCG). The decision to prescribe CG was at the discretion of the primary medical team. RESULTS: A total of 199 hospitalized patients in the CG were compared with 199 in the NCG. The LOS was shorter for the CG than for the NCG (median = 3 [interquartile range = 0-10] vs. 5 [2-8.5]; p = 0.005, respectively), showing a 43% greater probability of being hospitalised ≤ 4 days than > 4 days when corticosteroids were used. Moreover, this difference was only noticed in those treated with dexamethasone (76.3% hospitalised ≤ 4 days vs. 23.7% hospitalised > 4 days [p < 0.001]). Serum ferritin levels, white blood cells and platelet counts were higher in the CG. No differences in mortality or intensive care unit admission were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with systemic corticosteroids is associated with reduced LOS in hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19. This association is significant in those treated with dexamethasone, but no for methylprednisolone and prednisone.

Impacto de los corticoides sistémicos en el tiempo de hospitalización en pacientes con COVID-19 Impact of systemic corticosteroids on length of hospitalization among patients with COVID-19

Introducción y objetivo: El COVID-19 supuso una amenaza para la capacidad hospitalaria por el elevado número de ingresos, lo que llevó al desarrollo de diversas estrategias para liberar y crear nuevas camas hospitalarias. Dada la importancia de los corticoides sistémicos en esta enfermedad, se evaluó la eficacia de estos en la reducción de la duración de la estancia hospitalaria (LOS) y se comparó el efecto de tres corticosteroides diferentes sobre este resultado. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio en vida real de cohorte retrospectivo, controlado que analizó una base de datos hospitalaria que incluyó 3.934 pacientes hospitalizados diagnosticados con COVID-19 en un hospital terciario de abril a mayo de 2020. Se comparó un grupo de enfermos que recibieron corticosteroides sistémicos (CG) frente a un grupo de control que no recibió corticosteroides sistémicos (NCG) emparejado por edad, sexo y gravedad de la enfermedad mediante una puntuación de propensión. La decisión de prescribir CG dependía principalmente del criterio del médico responsable. Resultados: Se compararon un total de 199 pacientes hospitalizados en el GC con 199 en el GNC. La LOS fue más corta para el GC que para el NCG (mediana = 3 [rango intercuartílico = 0-10] vs. 5 [2-8,5];p = 0,005, respectivamente), mostrando un 43% más de probabilidad de ser hospitalizado ≤ 4 días que > 4 días cuando se usaron corticosteroides. Además, esta diferencia solo la mostraron aquellos tratados con dexametasona (76,3% hospitalizados ≤ 4 días vs. 23,7% hospitalizados > 4 días [p < 0,001]). Los niveles de ferritina sérica, glóbulos blancos y plaquetas fueron más elevados en el GC. No se observaron diferencias en la mortalidad ni en el ingreso a la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Conclusiones: El tratamiento con corticosteroides sistémicos se asocia con una disminución de la estancia hospitalaria en pacientes hospitalizados con diagnóstico de COVID-19. Esta asociación es significativa en aquellos tratados con dexametasona, no así en metilprednisolona o prednisona.

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine and Baricitinib for Patients at High Risk of Severe COVID-19: The PANCOVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate if patients with high risk for severe COVID-19 would benefit from treatment with TDF/FTC followed by baricitinib in case of hypoxemia and systemic inflammation. METHODS: PANCOVID is an open-label, double-randomized, phase 3 pragmatic clinical trial including adults with symptomatic COVID-19 with ≥ 2 comorbidities or older than 60 years conducted between 10 October 2020 and 23 September 2021. In the first randomization patients received TDF/FTC or not TDF/FTC. In the second randomization patients with room-air O2 saturation <95% and at least one increased inflammatory biomarker received baricitinib plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Main secondary endpoint was 28-day disease progression or critical care unit admission or mortality. The trial was stopped before reaching planned sample size due to the decrease in the number of cases and a mortality rate substantially lower than expected EudraCT registration number: 2020-001156-18. RESULTS: Of the 355 included participants 97% were hospitalized at baseline. Overall, 28-day mortality was 3.1%. The 28-day mortality relative risk (RR) for participants treated with TDF/FTC was 1.76 (95% CI 0.52-5.91; p= 0.379); it was 0.42 (95% CI 0.11-1.59; p= 0.201) for those treated with baricitinib. The 28-day RR for the main secondary combined endpoint for participants treated with TDF/FTC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.66-1.40; p = 0.774); it was 0.90 (95%CI 0.61-1.33; p = 0.687) for those treated with baricitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not suggest a beneficial effect of TDF/FTC; nevertheless, they are compatible with the beneficial effect of baricitinib already established by other clinical trials.

No changes in hemostasis after COVID-19-heterologous vaccination schedule: A subanalysis of the phase 2 CombiVacS study.

Background: Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia were described after vaccination with recombinant adenoviral vectors encoding the spike protein antigen of SARS-CoV-2. Objectives: The objective of this study was to elucidate the impact of a COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedule, including priming with adenovirus vaccine, on hemostasis profiles. Methods: The present study is a subanalysis of the CombiVacS clinical trial initiated in April 2021 that included adult participants previously vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S. Between 8 and 12 weeks after vaccination, they were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 vaccine (intervention group, n = 99) or continue observation (control group, n = 50). Samples drawn before and 28 days after a vaccination with BNT162b2 were analyzed for platelet count and markers of hemostasis (D-dimer, anti-PF4 antibodies, cfDNA, PAI-1, thrombin generation, and serum capacity to activate platelets). Results: Platelet count from all participants after receiving BNT162b2 was within the normal range. Anti-PF4 antibodies were present in 26% and 18% of the subjects from the control and intervention groups, respectively, at day 28. In most cases, the levels of anti-PF4 antibodies were high before receiving BNT162b2. Serum from these participants did not activate platelets from healthy controls. There were no differences between the groups in PAI-1 and cfDNA plasma levels. According to the D-dimer plasma concentration, the thrombin generation test showed that none of the participants had a procoagulant profile. Conclusion: Our data suggest that the heterologous vaccination against COVID-19 with ChAdOx1-S and a second dose with BNT162b2 might be safe in terms of haemostasis.

Impact of systemic corticosteroids on hospital length of stay among patients with COVID-19 Impacto de los corticoides sistémicos en el tiempo de hospitalización en pacientes con COVID-19

Background and Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a threat to hospital capacity due to the high number of admissions, which has led to the development of various strategies to release and create new hospital beds. Due to the importance of systemic corticosteroids in this disease, we assessed their efficacy in reducing the length of stay (LOS) in hospitals and compared the effect of 3 different corticosteroids on this outcome. Methods: We conducted a real-world, controlled, retrospective cohort study that analysed data from a hospital database that included 3934 hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in a tertiary hospital from April to May 2020. Hospitalised patients who received systemic corticosteroids (CG) were compared with a propensity score control group matched by age, sex and severity of disease who did not receive systemic corticosteroids (NCG). The decision to prescribe CG was at the discretion of the primary medical team. Results: A total of 199 hospitalized patients in the CG were compared with 199 in the NCG. The LOS was shorter for the CG than for the NCG (median = 3 [interquartile range = 0–10] vs. 5 [2–8.5];p = 0.005, respectively), showing a 43% greater probability of being hospitalised ≤ 4 days than > 4 days when corticosteroids were used. Moreover, this difference was only noticed in those treated with dexamethasone (76.3% hospitalised ≤ 4 days vs. 23.7% hospitalised > 4 days [p < 0.001]). Serum ferritin levels, white blood cells and platelet counts were higher in the CG. No differences in mortality or intensive care unit admission were observed. Conclusions: Treatment with systemic corticosteroids is associated with reduced LOS in hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19. This association is significant in those treated with dexamethasone, but no for methylprednisolone and prednisone.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 booster in ChAdOx1-S-primed participants (CombiVacS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: To date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK). METHODS: We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18-60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8-12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84-85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53-8161·96) at day 14 (p<0·0001). IgG against trimeric spike protein increased from 98·40 BAU/mL (95% CI 85·69-112·99) to 3684·87 BAU/mL (3429·87-3958·83). The interventional:control ratio was 77·69 (95% CI 59·57-101·32) for RBD protein and 36·41 (29·31-45·23) for trimeric spike protein IgG. Reactions were mild (n=1210 [68%]) or moderate (n=530 [30%]), with injection site pain (n=395 [88%]), induration (n=159 [35%]), headache (n=199 [44%]), and myalgia (n=194 [43%]) the most commonly reported adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: BNT162b2 given as a second dose in individuals prime vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S induced a robust immune response, with an acceptable and manageable reactogenicity profile. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Immunogenic dynamics and SARS-CoV-2 variant neutralisation of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 vaccination: Secondary analysis of the randomised CombiVacS study.

Background: The CombiVacS study was designed to assess immunogenicity and reactogenicity of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 combination, and 14-day results showed a strong immune response. The present secondary analysis addresses the evolution of humoral and cellular response up to day 180. Methods: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 adults primed with ChAdOx1-S were enrolled in five hospitals in Spain, and randomised to receive BNT162b2 as second dose (interventional group [IG]) or no vaccine (control group [CG]). Individuals from CG received BNT162b2 as second dose and also on day 28, as planned based on favourable results on day 14. Humoral immunogenicity, measured by immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD), antibody functionality using pseudovirus neutralisation assays for the reference (G614), Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants, as well as cellular immune response using interferon-γ and IL-2 immunoassays were assessed at day 28 after BNT162b2 in both groups, at day 90 (planned only in the interventional group) and at day 180 (laboratory data cut-off on Nov 19, 2021). This study was registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739). Findings: In this secondary analysis, 664 individuals (441 from IG and 223 from CG) were included. At day 28 post vaccine, geometric mean titres (GMT) of RBD antibodies were 5616·91 BAU/mL (95% CI 5296·49-5956·71) in the IG and 7298·22 BAU/mL (6739·41-7903·37) in the CG (p < 0·0001). RBD antibodies titres decreased at day 180 (1142·0 BAU/mL [1048·69-1243·62] and 1836·4 BAU/mL [1621·62-2079·62] in the IG and CG, respectively; p < 0·0001). Neutralising antibodies also waned from day 28 to day 180 in both the IG (1429·01 [1220·37-1673·33] and 198·72 [161·54-244·47], respectively) and the CG (1503·28 [1210·71-1866·54] and 295·57 [209·84-416·33], respectively). The lowest variant-specific response was observed against Omicron-and Beta variants, with low proportion of individuals exhibiting specific neutralising antibody titres (NT50) >1:100 at day 180 (19% and 22%, respectively). Interpretation: Titres of RBD antibodies decay over time, similar to homologous regimes. Our findings suggested that delaying administration of the second dose did not have a detrimental effect after vaccination and may have improved the response obtained. Lower neutralisation was observed against Omicron and Beta variants at day 180. Funding: Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII).

Rapid, scalable assessment of SARS-CoV-2 cellular immunity by whole-blood PCR.

Fast, high-throughput methods for measuring the level and duration of protective immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are needed to anticipate the risk of breakthrough infections. Here we report the development of two quantitative PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell activation. The assays are rapid, internally normalized and probe-based: qTACT requires RNA extraction and dqTACT avoids sample preparation steps. Both assays rely on the quantification of CXCL10 messenger RNA, a chemokine whose expression is strongly correlated with activation of antigen-specific T cells. On restimulation of whole-blood cells with SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens, viral-specific T cells secrete IFN-γ, which stimulates monocytes to produce CXCL10. CXCL10 mRNA can thus serve as a proxy to quantify cellular immunity. Our assays may allow large-scale monitoring of the magnitude and duration of functional T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2, thus helping to prioritize revaccination strategies in vulnerable populations.

VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry: A European study participant database to facilitate clinical trial enrolment.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evidenced the key role of vaccine design, obtention, production and administration to successfully fight against infectious diseases and to provide efficient remedies for the citizens. Although clinical trials were rapidly established during this pandemic, identifying suitable study subjects can be challenging. For this reason, the University Hospital Cologne established a volunteer registry for participation in clinical trials first in Germany, which has now been incorporated into the European VACCELERATE clinical trials network and grew to a European Volunteer Registry. As such, VACCELERATE's Volunteer Registry aims to become a common entry point for potential volunteers in future clinical trials in Europe. METHODS: Interested volunteers who would like to register for clinical trials in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry can access the registration questionnaire via http://www.vaccelerate.eu/volunteer-registry. Potential volunteers are requested to provide their current country and area of residence, contact information, including first and last name and e-mail address, age, gender, comorbidities, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status, and maximum distance willing to travel to a clinical trial site. The registry is open to both adults and children, complying with national legal consent requirements. RESULTS: As of May 2022, the questionnaire is available in 12 countries and 14 languages. Up to date, more than 36,000 volunteers have registered, mainly from Germany. Within the first year since its establishment, the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry has matched more than 15,000 volunteers to clinical trials. The VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry will be launched in further European countries in the coming months. CONCLUSIONS: The VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry is an active single-entry point for European residents interested in COVID-19 clinical trials participation in 12 countries (i.e., Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Turkey). To date, more than 15,000 registered individuals have been connected to clinical trials in Germany alone. The registry is currently in the implementation phase in 5 additional countries (i.e., Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel and the Netherlands).

Melatonin in the Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers (MeCOVID): A Randomised Clinical Trial.

We evaluated in this randomised, double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Healthcare workers fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in five hospitals in Spain and were randomised 1:1 to receive melatonin 2 mg administered orally for 12 weeks or placebo. The main outcome was the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A total of 344 volunteers were screened, and 314 were randomised: 151 to placebo and 163 to melatonin; 308 received the study treatment (148 placebo; 160 melatonin). We detected 13 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 2.6% in the placebo arm and 5.5% in the melatonin arm (p = 0.200). A total of 294 adverse events were detected in 127 participants (139 in placebo; 155 in melatonin). We found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events related to treatment: 43 in the placebo arm and 67 in the melatonin arm (p = 0.040), and in the number of participants suffering from somnolence related to treatment: 8.8% (n = 14) in the melatonin versus 1.4% (n = 2) in the placebo arm (p = 0.008). No severe adverse events related to treatment were reported. We cannot confirm our hypothesis that administration of melatonin prevents the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

A Case-Control of Patients with COVID-19 to Explore the Association of Previous Hospitalisation Use of Medication on the Mortality of COVID-19 Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Data from several cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest that the most common comorbidities for severe COVID-19 disease are the elderly, high blood pressure, and diabetes; however, it is not currently known whether the previous use of certain drugs help or hinder recovery. This study aims to explore the association of previous hospitalisation use of medication on the mortality of COVID-19 disease. A retrospective case-control from two hospitals in Madrid, Spain, included all patients aged 18 years or above hospitalised with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A Propensity Score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Confounding variables were considered to be age, sex, and the number of comorbidities. Finally, 3712 patients were included. Of these, 687 (18.5%) patients died (cases). The 22,446 medicine trademarks used previous to admission were classified according to the ATC, obtaining 689 final drugs; all of them were included in PSM analysis. Eleven drugs displayed a reduction in mortality: azithromycin, bemiparine, budesonide-formoterol fumarate, cefuroxime, colchicine, enoxaparin, ipratropium bromide, loratadine, mepyramine theophylline acetate, oral rehydration salts, and salbutamol sulphate. Eight final drugs displayed an increase in mortality: acetylsalicylic acid, digoxin, folic acid, mirtazapine, linagliptin, enalapril, atorvastatin, and allopurinol. Medication associated with survival (anticoagulants, antihistamines, azithromycin, bronchodilators, cefuroxime, colchicine, and inhaled corticosteroids) may be candidates for future clinical trials. Drugs associated with mortality show an interaction with the underlying conditions.

Health Care Workers' Reasons for Choosing Between Two Different COVID-19 Prophylaxis Trials in an Acute Pandemic Context: Single-Center Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.

Characterisation of Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Patients with COVID-19 Detected by a Proactive Pharmacovigilance Program from Laboratory Signals.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. An elevation of liver damage markers has been observed in numerous cases, which could be related to the empirical use of potentially hepatotoxic drugs. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and analytical characteristics and perform a causality analysis from laboratory signals available of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) detected by a proactive pharmacovigilance program in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid (Spain) from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2020. The updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) was employed to assess DILI causality. A lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) was performed on 10 patients. Ultimately, 160 patients were included. The incidence of DILI (alanine aminotransferase >5, upper limit of normal) was 4.9%; of these, 60% had previous COVID-19 hepatitis, the stay was 8.1 days longer and 98.1% were being treated with more than 5 drugs. The most frequent mechanism was hepatocellular (57.5%), with mild severity (87.5%) and subsequent recovery (88.1%). The most commonly associated drugs were hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, tocilizumab and ceftriaxone. The highest incidence rate of DILI per 10,000 defined daily doses (DDD) was with remdesivir (992.7/10,000 DDD). Some 80% of the LTTs performed were positive, with a RUCAM score of ≥4. The presence of DILI after COVID-19 was associated with longer hospital stays. An immune mechanism has been demonstrated in a small subset of DILI cases.

Identification and validation of clinical phenotypes with prognostic implications in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. METHODS: In this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. FINDINGS: Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)-phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2·5% (95% CI 1·4-4·3) for patients with phenotype A, 30·5% (28·5-32·6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60·7% (53·7-67·2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0·0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5·3% [95% CI 3·4-8·1] for phenotype A, 31·3% [28·5-34·2] for phenotype B, and 59·5% [48·8-69·3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3·7% [2·0-6·4] for phenotype A, 23·7% [21·8-25·7] for phenotype B, and 51·4% [41·9-60·7] for phenotype C). INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three phenotypes that correlate with mortality. We developed and validated a simplified tool for the probabilistic assignment of patients into phenotypes. These results might help to better classify patients for clinical management, but the pathophysiological mechanisms of the phenotypes must be investigated. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Fundación SEIMC/GeSIDA.

Development and validation of a prediction model for 30-day mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the COVID-19 SEIMC score.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prediction model of mortality in patients with COVID-19 attending hospital emergency rooms. DESIGN: Multivariable prognostic prediction model. SETTING: 127 Spanish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Derivation (DC) and external validation (VC) cohorts were obtained from multicentre and single-centre databases, including 4035 and 2126 patients with confirmed COVID-19, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Prognostic variables were identified using multivariable logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Patients' characteristics in the DC and VC were median age 70 and 61 years, male sex 61.0% and 47.9%, median time from onset of symptoms to admission 5 and 8 days, and 30-day mortality 26.6% and 15.5%, respectively. Age, low age-adjusted saturation of oxygen, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, estimated glomerular filtration rate by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, dyspnoea and sex were the strongest predictors of mortality. Calibration and discrimination were satisfactory with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with a 95% CI for prediction of 30-day mortality of 0.822 (0.806-0.837) in the DC and 0.845 (0.819-0.870) in the VC. A simplified score system ranging from 0 to 30 to predict 30-day mortality was also developed. The risk was considered to be low with 0-2 points (0%-2.1%), moderate with 3-5 (4.7%-6.3%), high with 6-8 (10.6%-19.5%) and very high with 9-30 (27.7%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: A simple prediction score, based on readily available clinical and laboratory data, provides a useful tool to predict 30-day mortality probability with a high degree of accuracy among hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Incidence of Suspected Serious Adverse Drug Reactions in Corona Virus Disease-19 Patients Detected by a Pharmacovigilance Program by Laboratory Signals in a Tertiary Hospital in Spain: Cautionary Data.

BACKGROUND: From March to April 2020, Spain was the center of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, particularly Madrid with approximately 30% of the cases in Spain. The aim of this study is to report the suspected serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) in COVID-19 patients vs. non-COVID-19 patients detected by the prospective pharmacovigilance program based on automatic laboratory signals (ALSs) in the hospital (PPLSH) during that period. We also compared the results with the suspected SADRs detected during the same period for 2019. METHODS: All ALSs that reflected potential SADRs including neutropenia, pancytopenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, eosinophilia, leukocytes in cerebrospinal fluid, hepatitis, pancreatitis, acute kidney injury, rhabdomyolysis, and hyponatremia were prospectively monitored in hospitalized patients during the study periods. We analyzed the incidence and the distribution of causative drugs for the COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: The incidence rate of SADRs detected in the COVID-19 patients was 760.63 (95% CI 707.89-816.01) per 10,000 patients, 4.75-fold higher than the SADR rate for non-COVID-19 patients (160.15 per 10,000 patients, 95% CI 137.09-186.80), and 5.84-fold higher than the SADR rate detected for the same period in 2019 (130.19 per 10,000 patients, 95% CI 109.53-154.36). The most frequently related drugs were tocilizumab (59.84%), dexketoprofen (13.93%), azithromycin (8.43%), lopinavir-ritonavir (7.35%), dexamethasone (7.62%), and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (6.91%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rate of SADRs detected by the PPSLH in patients with COVID-19 was 4.75-fold higher than that of the non-COVID-19 patients. Caution is recommended when using medications for COVID-19 patients, especially drugs that are hepatotoxic, myotoxic, and those that induce thromboembolic events.

A phase II, single-center, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial to explore the efficacy and safety of intravenous melatonin in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (MelCOVID study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: • Primary objective: to evaluate the effect of intravenous melatonin (IVM) on mortality in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19. • Secondary objectives: ◦ To evaluate the effect of IVM on ICU length of stay. ◦ To evaluate the effect of IVM on the length of mechanical ventilation (MV). ◦ To evaluate if the use of IVM is associated with an increase in the number of ventilator-free days. ◦ To evaluate if the use of IVM is associated with a reduced number of failing organs as determined by the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scale. ◦ To evaluate if the use of IVM is associated with a reduction of the frequency and severity of COVID-19-associated thromboembolic phenomena. ◦ To evaluate if the use of IVM is associated with a decreased systemic inflammatory response assessed by plasma levels of ferritin, D-dimer, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin and interleukin-6. ◦ To evaluate if the use of IVM is associated with an improvement in hematologic parameters. ◦ To evaluate if the use of IVM is associated with an improvement in biochemical parameters. ◦ To evaluate if the use of IVM is associated with an improvement in blood gas analysis parameters. ◦ To evaluate adverse events during the 28 day study period. TRIAL DESIGN: Phase II, single center, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial with a two-arm parallel group design and 2:1 allocation ratio. PARTICIPANTS: Only critically ill adult patients that fulfill all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria will be included. The study will be conducted in a mixed ICU of a publicly funded tertiary referral center in Madrid, Spain with a 30-bed capacity and 1100 admissions per year. • Inclusion criteria: ◦ Patient, family member or legal guardian has provided written Informed Consent. ◦ Age ε 18 years. ◦ Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with compatible symptoms AND a positive RT-PCR. ◦ Admission to the ICU with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ◦ ICU length of stay of less than 7 days prior to randomization with or without MV and without signs of improvement in respiratory failure (MURRAY score at randomization greater or equal to the MURRAY score at ICU admission). • Exclusion criteria: ◦ Participant in a different COVID-19 study in which the study drug is under clinical development and hasn't been previously authorized for commercialization. ◦ Liver enzymes > 5 times the upper normal range. ◦ Chronic kidney disease with GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (stage 4 or greater) or need for hemodialysis. ◦ Pregnancy. A pregnancy test will be performed on every woman younger than 55 years of age prior to inclusion. ◦ Terminal surgical or medical illness. ◦ Autoimmune disease. ◦ Any patient condition that can prevent the study procedures to be carried out at the treating physician's judgement. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: All patients will receive standard-of-care treatment according to the current institutional protocols. In addition, patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive: • Experimental group (12 patients): 7 days of 5 mg per Kg of actual body weight per day of intravenous melatonin every 6 hours. Maximum daily dose 500 mg per day. • Control group (6 patients): 7 days of 5 mg per Kg of actual body weight per day of intravenous identically-looking placebo every 6 hours. After 3 days of treatment, 3 intensive care physicians will evaluate the participant and decide whether or not to complete the treatment based on their clinical assessment: • If objective or subjective signs of improvement or no worsening of the general clinical condition, respiratory failure, inflammatory state or multi-organ failure are observed, the participant will continue the treatment until completion. • If an adverse effect or clinical impairment is observed that is objectively or subjectively attributable to the study drug the treatment will be stopped. MAIN OUTCOME: Mortality in each study group represented in frequency and time-to-event at day 28 after randomization RANDOMIZATION: The randomization sequence was created using SAS version 9.4 statistical software (programmed and validated macros) with a 2:1 allocation. No randomization seed was pre-specified. The randomization seed was generated using the time on the computer where the program was executed. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants, caregivers and study groups will be blinded to arm allocation. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 18 patients will be randomized in this trial: 12 to the experimental arm and 6 to the control arm. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 2.0, June 5th 2020. Trial status: recruitment not started. The first patient is expected to be recruited in October 2020. The last patient is anticipated to be recruited in August 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register. Date of trial registration: 10 July 2020. URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001808-42/ES FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.