ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Background: Post-COVID conditions (PCC) are common and have significant morbidity. Risk factors for PCC include advancing age, female sex, obesity, and diabetes mellitus. Little is known about early treatment, inflammation, and PCC. Methods: Among 883 individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection participating in a randomized trial of CCP vs. control plasma with available biospecimens and symptom data, the association between early COVID treatment, cytokine levels and PCC was evaluated. Cytokine and chemokine levels were assessed at baseline, day 14 and day 90 using a multiplexed sandwich immuosassay (Mesoscale Discovery). Presence of any self-reported PCC symptoms was assessed at day 90. Associations between COVID treatment, cytokine levels and PCC were examined using multivariate logistic regression models. Results: One-third of the 882 participants had day 90 PCC symptoms, with fatigue (14.5%) and loss of smell (14.5%) being most common. Cytokine levels decreased from baseline to day 90. In a multivariable analysis including diabetes, body mass index, race, and vaccine status, female sex (adjusted odds ratio[AOR]=2.70[1.93-3.81]), older age (AOR=1.32[1.17-1.50]), and elevated baseline levels of IL-6 (AOR=1.59[1.02-2.47]) were associated with development of PCC. There was a trend for decreased PCC in those with early CCP treatment (<5 days after symptom onset) compared to late CCP treatment. Conclusion: Increased IL-6 levels were associated with the development of PCC and there was a trend for decreased PCC with early CCP treatment in this predominately unvaccinated population. Future treatment studies should evaluate the effect of early treatment and anti-IL-6 therapies on PCC development.
Subject(s)
Fatigue , Diabetes Mellitus , Obesity , COVID-19 , InflammationABSTRACT
Background Results: from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. Methods We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. Results Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). Conclusions The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. We hypothesized that CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer ([≥]1:320) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged [≥]18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was development of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity at screening. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. There were 28 adverse events in CCP and 58 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs. 25.2 days; p=0.49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs. 25.9 days; p=0.35) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: In this trial, which enrolled persons with recent exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19, high titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis appeared safe, but did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrial.gov number NCT04323800.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Oral fluid (hereafter saliva) offers a non-invasive sampling method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, data comparing performance of salivary tests against commercially-available serologic and neutralizing antibody (nAb) assays are lacking. This study compared the performance of a multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay targeting antibodies to nucleocapsid (N), receptor binding domain (RBD) and spike (S) antigens to three commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 serology enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Ortho Vitros, Euroimmun, and BioRad) and nAb. Paired saliva and plasma samples were collected from 101 eligible COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors >14 days since PCR+ confirmed diagnosis. Concordance was evaluated using positive (PPA) and negative (NPA) percent agreement, overall percent agreement (PA), and Cohen’s kappa coefficient. The range between salivary and plasma EIAs for SARS-CoV-2-specific N was PPA: 54.4-92.1% and NPA: 69.2-91.7%, for RBD was PPA: 89.9-100% and NPA: 50.0-84.6%, and for S was PPA: 50.6-96.6% and NPA: 50.0-100%. Compared to a plasma nAb assay, the multiplex salivary assay PPA ranged from 62.3% (N) and 98.6% (RBD) and NPA ranged from 18.8% (RBD) to 96.9% (S). Combinations of N, RBD, and S and a summary algorithmic index of all three (N/RBD/S) in saliva produced ranges of PPA: 87.6-98.9% and NPA: 50-91.7% with the three EIAs and ranges of PPA: 88.4-98.6% and NPA: 21.9-34.4% with the nAb assay. A multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay demonstrated comparable performance to three commercially-available plasma EIAs and a nAb assay, and may be a viable alternative to assist in screening CCP donors and monitoring population-based seroprevalence and vaccine antibody response.