Outcome of early treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with haematological disorders.

Outcome of early treatment of COVID-19 with antivirals or anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (MABs) in patients with haematological malignancies (HM) is unknown. A retrospective study of HM patients treated for mild/moderate COVID-19 between March 2021 and July 2022 was performed. The main composite end-point was treatment failure (severe COVID-19 or COVID-19-related death). We included 328 consecutive patients who received MABs (n = 120, 37%; sotrovimab, n = 73) or antivirals (n = 208, 63%; nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, n = 116) over a median of two days after symptoms started; 111 (33.8%) had non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); 89 (27%) were transplant/CAR-T (chimaeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) recipients. Most infections (n = 309, 94%) occurred during the Omicron period. Failure developed in 31 patients (9.5%). Its independent predictors were older age, fewer vaccine doses, and treatment with MABs. Rate of failure was lower in the Omicron versus the pre-Omicron period (7.8% versus 36.8%, p < 0.001). During the Omicron period, predictors of failure were age, fewer vaccine doses and diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS). Independent predictors of longer viral shedding were age, comorbidities, hospital admission at diagnosis, NHL/CLL, treatment with MABs. COVID-19-associated mortality was 3.4% (n = 11). The mortality in those who developed severe COVID-19 after early treatment was 26% in the Omicron period. Patients with HM had a significant risk of failure of early treatment, even during the Omicron period, with high mortality rate.

Risk factors associated with bacteremia in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care unit: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: This multicenter observational study was done to evaluate risk factors related to the development of BSI in patients admitted to ICU for COVID-19. METHODS: All patients with COVID-19 admitted in two COVID-19 dedicated ICUs in two different hospital between 02-2020 and 02-2021 were recruited. RESULT: 537 patients were included of whom 265 (49.3%) experienced at least one BSI. Patients who developed bacteremia had a higher SOFA score [10 (8-12) vs 9 (7-10), p < 0.001], had been intubated more frequently [95.8% vs 75%, p < 0.001] and for a median longer time [16 days (9-25) vs 8 days (5-14), p < 0.001]. Patients with BSI had a median longer ICU stay [18 days (12-31.5) vs 9 days (5-15), p < 0.001] and higher mortality [54% vs 42.3%, p < 0.001] than those who did not develop it. Development of BSI resulted in a higher SOFA score [aHR 1.08 (95% CI 1.03-1.12)] and a higher Charlson score [csAHR 1.15 (95% CI 1.05-1.25)]. CONCLUSION: A high SOFA score and a high Charlson score resulted associated with BSI's development. Conversely, immunosuppressive therapy like steroids and tocilizumab, has no role in increasing the risk of bacteremia.

Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for early treatment of hospital‐acquired SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in hematologic patients

Efficacy of early treatment with anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for nosocomial SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in hematologic patients is unknown. Retrospective, cohort study conducted in four Italian teaching hospitals. We included adult patients with hematologic malignancies and hospital‐acquired SARS‐CoV‐2 infection diagnosed between November 2020 and December 2021. The principal exposure variable was administration of mAbs. The primary endpoint was clinical failure dea composite outcome of mortality and/or invasive and noninvasive ventilation within 90 days from infection onset. We included 52 patients with hospital‐acquired SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Males were 29 (60%), median age was 62 (interquartile range [IQR] 48–70). Forty‐five (86%) patients were on chemotherapy or had received chemotherapy within 30 days. MAbs were administered in 19/52 (36%) patients. Clinical failure occurred in 22 (42%) patients;21% (4/19) in mAbs group versus 54% (18/33) in non‐mAbs group (p = 0.03). Other predictors of clinical failure were older age (median [IQR] 69 [61–72] versus 58 [46–66], p = 0.001), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (median [IQR], 5 [3.25‐5] versus 3 [2–5], p = 0.002). At multivariable Cox regression model, mAbs were independently associated with a significantly lower rate of clinical failure (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01–0.85, p = 0.01), after adjusting for confounders. In conclusion, mAbs are promising for early treatment of hematologic patients with healthcare‐related SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

Predictive model for bacterial co-infection in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a multicenter observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to build a predictive model able to stratify the risk of bacterial co-infection at hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Multicenter observational study of adult patients hospitalized from February to December 2020 with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Endpoint was microbiologically documented bacterial co-infection diagnosed within 72 h from hospitalization. The cohort was randomly split into derivation and validation cohort. To investigate risk factors for co-infection univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Predictive risk score was obtained assigning a point value corresponding to ß-coefficients to the variables in the multivariable model. ROC analysis in the validation cohort was used to estimate prediction accuracy. RESULTS: Overall, 1733 patients were analyzed: 61.4% males, median age 69 years (IQR 57-80), median Charlson 3 (IQR 2-6). Co-infection was diagnosed in 110 (6.3%) patients. Empirical antibiotics were started in 64.2 and 59.5% of patients with and without co-infection (p = 0.35). At multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort: WBC ≥ 7.7/mm3, PCT ≥ 0.2 ng/mL, and Charlson index ≥ 5 were risk factors for bacterial co-infection. A point was assigned to each variable obtaining a predictive score ranging from 0 to 5. In the validation cohort, ROC analysis showed AUC of 0.83 (95%CI 0.75-0.90). The optimal cut-point was ≥2 with sensitivity 70.0%, specificity 75.9%, positive predictive value 16.0% and negative predictive value 97.5%. According to individual risk score, patients were classified at low (point 0), intermediate (point 1), and high risk (point ≥ 2). CURB-65 ≥ 2 was further proposed to identify patients at intermediate risk who would benefit from early antibiotic coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Our score may be useful in stratifying bacterial co-infection risk in COVID-19 hospitalized patients, optimizing diagnostic testing and antibiotic use.

High-dose ivermectin for early treatment of COVID-19 (COVER study): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial.

High concentrations of ivermectin demonstrated antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of high-dose ivermectin in reducing viral load in individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial. Participants were adults recently diagnosed with asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exclusion criteria were: pregnant or lactating women; CNS disease; dialysis; severe medical condition with prognosis <6 months; warfarin treatment; and antiviral/chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine treatment. Participants were assigned (ratio 1:1:1) according to a randomised permuted block procedure to one of the following arms: placebo (arm A); single-dose ivermectin 600 µg/kg plus placebo for 5 days (arm B); and single-dose ivermectin 1200 µg/kg for 5 days (arm C). Primary outcomes were serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) and change in viral load at Day 7. From 31 July 2020 to 26 May 2021, 32 participants were randomised to arm A, 29 to arm B and 32 to arm C. Recruitment was stopped on 10 June because of a dramatic drop in cases. The safety analysis included 89 participants and the change in viral load was calculated in 87 participants. No SADRs were registered. Mean (S.D.) log10 viral load reduction was 2.9 (1.6) in arm C, 2.5 (2.2) in arm B and 2.0 (2.1) in arm A, with no significant differences (P = 0.099 and 0.122 for C vs. A and B vs. A, respectively). High-dose ivermectin was safe but did not show efficacy to reduce viral load.

Severe neonatal COVID-19: Challenges in management and therapeutic approach.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may manifest as a life-threatening respiratory infection with systemic complications. Clinical manifestations among children are generally less severe than those seen in adults, but critical cases have increasingly been reported in infants less than 1 year of age. We report a severe case of neonatal COVID-19 requiring intensive care and mechanical ventilation, further complicated by a multidrug-resistant Enterobacter asburiae super-infection. Chest X-rays, lung ultrasound, and chest computed tomography revealed extensive interstitial pneumonia with multiple consolidations, associated with persistent increased work of breathing and feeding difficulties. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in respiratory specimens and stools, but not in other biological samples, with a rapid clearance in stools. Serological tests demonstrated a specific SARS-CoV-2 antibody response mounted by the neonate and sustained over time. The therapeutic approach included the use of enoxaparin and steroids which may have contributed to the bacterial complication, underlying the challenges in managing neonatal COVID-19, where the balance between viral replication and immunomodulation maybe even more challenging than in older ages.

Development and validation of a prediction model for severe respiratory failure in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicentre cohort study (PREDI-CO study).

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and validate a risk score to predict severe respiratory failure (SRF) among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed a multicentre cohort study among hospitalized (>24 hours) patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 22 February to 3 April 2020, at 11 Italian hospitals. Patients were divided into derivation and validation cohorts according to random sorting of hospitals. SRF was assessed from admission to hospital discharge and was defined as: Spo2 <93% with 100% Fio2, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min or respiratory distress. Multivariable logistic regression models were built to identify predictors of SRF, ß-coefficients were used to develop a risk score. Trial Registration NCT04316949. RESULTS: We analysed 1113 patients (644 derivation, 469 validation cohort). Mean (±SD) age was 65.7 (±15) years, 704 (63.3%) were male. SRF occurred in 189/644 (29%) and 187/469 (40%) patients in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. At multivariate analysis, risk factors for SRF in the derivation cohort assessed at hospitalization were age ≥70 years (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.66-4.50), obesity (OR 4.62; 95% CI 2.78-7.70), body temperature ≥38°C (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.30-2.29), respiratory rate ≥22 breaths/min (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.01-7.01), lymphocytes ≤900 cells/mm3 (OR 2.69; 95% CI 1.60-4.51), creatinine ≥1 mg/dL (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.59-3.56), C-reactive protein ≥10 mg/dL (OR 5.91; 95% CI 4.88-7.17) and lactate dehydrogenase ≥350 IU/L (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.11-5.11). Assigning points to each variable, an individual risk score (PREDI-CO score) was obtained. Area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.89 (0.86-0.92). At a score of >3, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 71.6% (65%-79%), 89.1% (86%-92%), 74% (67%-80%) and 89% (85%-91%), respectively. PREDI-CO score showed similar prognostic ability in the validation cohort: area under the receiver-operator curve 0.85 (0.81-0.88). At a score of >3, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 80% (73%-85%), 76% (70%-81%), 69% (60%-74%) and 85% (80%-89%), respectively. CONCLUSION: PREDI-CO score can be useful to allocate resources and prioritize treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic.