Specific Cellular and Humoral Immune Responses to the Neoantigen RBD of SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Primary and Secondary Immunodeficiency and Healthy Donors.

Patients with antibody deficiency disorders, such as primary immunodeficiency (PID) or secondary immunodeficiency (SID) to B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder (B-CLPD), are two groups vulnerable to developing the severe or chronic form of coronavirus disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). The data on adaptive immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 are well described in healthy donors, but still limited in patients with antibody deficiency of a different cause. Herein, we analyzed spike-specific IFN-γ and anti-spike IgG antibody responses at 3 to 6 months after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 derived from vaccination and/or infection in two cohorts of immunodeficient patients (PID vs. SID) compared to healthy controls (HCs). Pre-vaccine anti-SARS-CoV-2 cellular responses before vaccine administration were measured in 10 PID patients. Baseline cellular responses were detectable in 4 out of 10 PID patients who had COVID-19 prior to vaccination, perceiving an increase in cellular responses after two-dose vaccination (p < 0.001). Adequate specific cellular responses were observed in 18 out of 20 (90%) PID patients, in 14 out of 20 (70%) SID patients and in 74 out of 81 (96%) HCs after vaccination (and natural infection in some cases). Specific IFN-γ response was significantly higher in HC with respect to PID (1908.5 mUI/mL vs. 1694.1 mUI/mL; p = 0.005). Whereas all SID and HC patients mounted a specific humoral immune response, only 80% of PID patients showed positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. The titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was significantly lower in SID compared with HC patients (p = 0.040), without significant differences between PID and HC patients (p = 0.123) and between PID and SID patients (p =0.683). High proportions of PID and SID patients showed adequate specific cellular responses to receptor binding domain (RBD) neoantigen, with a divergence between the two arms of the adaptive immune response in PID and SID patients. We also focused on the correlation of protection of positive SARS-CoV-2 cellular response to omicron exposure: 27 out of 81 (33.3%) HCs referred COVID-19 detected by PCR or antigen test, 24 with a mild course, 1 with moderate symptoms and the remaining 2 with bilateral pneumonia that were treated in an outpatient basis. Our results might support the relevance of these immunological studies to determine the correlation of protection with severe disease and for deciding the need for additional boosters on a personalized basis. Follow-up studies are required to evaluate the duration and variability in the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or infection.

Plitidepsin in adult patients with COVID-19 requiring hospital admission: A long-term follow-up analysis

Introduction The APLICOV-PC study assessed the safety and preliminary efficacy of plitidepsin in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. In this follow-up study (E-APLICOV), the incidence of post-COVID-19 morbidity was evaluated and any long-term complications were characterized. Methods Between January 18 and March 16, 2022, 34 of the 45 adult patients who received therapy with plitidepsin in the APLICOV-PC study were enrolled in E-APLICOV (median time from plitidepsin first dose to E-APLICOV enrollment, 16.8 months [range, 15.2–19.5 months]). All patients were functionally autonomous with regard to daily living (Barthel index: 100) and had normal physical examinations. Results From the APLICOV-PC date of discharge to the date of the extension visit, neither Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5) grade 3-4 complications nor QT prolongation or significant electrocardiogram (EKG) abnormalities were reported. Five (14.7%) patients had another COVID-19 episode after initial discharge from APLICOV-PC, and in 2 patients (5.9%), previously unreported chest X-ray findings were documented. Spirometry and lung-diffusion tests were normal in 29 (85.3%) and 27 (79.4%) patients, respectively, and 3 patients needed additional oxygen supplementation after initial hospital discharge. None of these patients required subsequent hospital readmission for disease-related complications. Discussion In conclusion, plitidepsin has demonstrated a favorable long-term safety profile in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19. With the constraints of a low sample size and a lack of control, the rate of post-COVID-19 complications after treatment with plitidepsin is in the low range of published reports. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05121740;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05121740).

TRPC6 inhibitor (BI 764198) to reduce risk and severity of ARDS due to COVID-19: a phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations, there remains a need to investigate treatments to reduce the risk or severity of potentially fatal complications of COVID-19, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the transient receptor potential channel C6 (TRPC6) inhibitor, BI 764198, in reducing the risk and/or severity of ARDS in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and requiring non-invasive, supplemental oxygen support (oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, oxygen by non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen). METHODS: Multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase II trial comparing once-daily oral BI 764198 (n=65) with placebo (n=64) for 28 days (+2-month follow-up). PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation at day 29. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients alive and discharged without oxygen (day 29); occurrence of either in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation (day 29); time to first response (clinical improvement/recovery); ventilator-free days (day 29); and mortality (days 15, 29, 60 and 90). RESULTS: No difference was observed for the primary endpoint: BI 764198 (83.1%) versus placebo (87.5%) (estimated risk difference -5.39%; 95% CI -16.08 to 5.30; p=0.323). For secondary endpoints, a longer time to first response (rate ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.99; p=0.045) and longer hospitalisation (+3.41 days; 95% CI 0.49 to 6.34; p=0.023) for BI 764198 versus placebo was observed; no other significant differences were observed. On-treatment adverse events were similar between trial arms and more fatal events were reported for BI 764198 (n=7) versus placebo (n=2). Treatment was stopped early based on an interim observation of a lack of efficacy and an imbalance of fatal events (Data Monitoring Committee recommendation). CONCLUSIONS: TRPC6 inhibition was not effective in reducing the risk and/or severity of ARDS in patients with COVID-19 requiring non-invasive, supplemental oxygen support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04604184.

Plitidepsin in adult patients with COVID-19 requiring hospital admission: A long-term follow-up analysis.

Introduction: The APLICOV-PC study assessed the safety and preliminary efficacy of plitidepsin in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. In this follow-up study (E-APLICOV), the incidence of post-COVID-19 morbidity was evaluated and any long-term complications were characterized. Methods: Between January 18 and March 16, 2022, 34 of the 45 adult patients who received therapy with plitidepsin in the APLICOV-PC study were enrolled in E-APLICOV (median time from plitidepsin first dose to E-APLICOV enrollment, 16.8 months [range, 15.2-19.5 months]). All patients were functionally autonomous with regard to daily living (Barthel index: 100) and had normal physical examinations. Results: From the APLICOV-PC date of discharge to the date of the extension visit, neither Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5) grade 3-4 complications nor QT prolongation or significant electrocardiogram (EKG) abnormalities were reported. Five (14.7%) patients had another COVID-19 episode after initial discharge from APLICOV-PC, and in 2 patients (5.9%), previously unreported chest X-ray findings were documented. Spirometry and lung-diffusion tests were normal in 29 (85.3%) and 27 (79.4%) patients, respectively, and 3 patients needed additional oxygen supplementation after initial hospital discharge. None of these patients required subsequent hospital readmission for disease-related complications. Discussion: In conclusion, plitidepsin has demonstrated a favorable long-term safety profile in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19. With the constraints of a low sample size and a lack of control, the rate of post-COVID-19 complications after treatment with plitidepsin is in the low range of published reports. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05121740; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05121740).

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.

Use of Monoclonal Antibodies in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized with Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the safety and efficacy of sotrovimab in severe cases of COVID-19 in immunocompromised hosts. METHODS: We used a retrospective multicenter cohort including immunocompromised hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab between October 2021 and December 2021. RESULTS: We included 32 patients. The main immunocompromising conditions were solid organ transplantation (46.9%) and hematological malignancy (37.5%). Seven patients (21.9%) had respiratory progression: 12.5% died and 9.4% required mechanical ventilation. Patients treated within the first 14 days of their symptoms had a lower progression rate: 12.0% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.029. No adverse event was attributed to sotrovimab. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab was safe and may be effective in its use for immunocompromised patients with severe COVID-19. More studies are needed to confirm these preliminary data.

Chronic Oral Anticoagulation Therapy and Prognosis of Patients Admitted to Hospital for COVID-19: Insights from the HOPE COVID-19 Registry.

Background: Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Results: 7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59-2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92-4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM. Conclusion: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

[Atrial fibrillation in patients with COVID-19. Usefulness of the CHA2DS2-VASc score: an analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 registry]. / Fibrilación auricular en pacientes con COVID-19. Utilidad de la puntuación CHA2DS2-VASc: un análisis del registro internacional HOPE COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in acute situations, where it is associated with more complications and higher mortality. METHODS: Analysis of the international HOPE registry (NCT04334291). The objective was to assess the prognostic information of AF in COVID-19 patients. A multivariate analysis and propensity score matching were performed to assess the relationship between AF and mortality. We also evaluated the impact on mortality and embolic events of the CHA2DS2-VASc score in these patients. RESULTS: Among 6217 patients enrolled in the HOPE registry, 250 had AF (4.5%). AF patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. After propensity score matching, these differences were attenuated. Despite this, patients with AF had a higher incidence of in-hospital complications such as heart failure (19.3% vs 11.6%, P = .021) and respiratory insufficiency (75.9% vs 62.3%, P = .002), as well as a higher 60-day mortality rate (43.4% vs 30.9%, P = .005). On multivariate analysis, AF was independently associated with higher 60-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.234; 95%CI, 1.003-1.519). CHA2DS2-VASc score acceptably predicts 60-day mortality in COVID-19 patients (area ROC, 0.748; 95%CI, 0.733-0.764), but not its embolic risk (area ROC, 0.411; 95%CI, 0.147-0.675). CONCLUSIONS: AF in COVID-19 patients is associated with a higher number of complications and 60-day mortality. The CHA2DS2-VASc score may be a good risk marker in COVID patients but does not predict their embolic risk.

Thalassaemia is paradoxically associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital complications and mortality in COVID-19: Data from an international registry.

Although numerous patient-specific co-factors have been shown to be associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19, the prognostic value of thalassaemic syndromes in COVID-19 patients remains poorly understood. We studied the outcomes of 137 COVID-19 patients with a history of transfusion-dependent thalassaemia (TDT) and transfusion independent thalassaemia (TIT) extracted from a large international cohort and compared them with the outcomes from a matched cohort of COVID-19 patients with no history of thalassaemia. The mean age of thalassaemia patients included in our study was 41 ± 16 years (48.9% male). Almost 81% of these patients suffered from TDT requiring blood transfusions on a regular basis. 38.7% of patients were blood group O. Cardiac iron overload was documented in 6.8% of study patients, whereas liver iron overload was documented in 35% of study patients. 40% of thalassaemia patients had a history of splenectomy. 27.7% of study patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection. Amongst the hospitalized patients, one patient died (0.7%) and one patient required intubation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was required in almost 5% of study patients. After adjustment for age-, sex- and other known risk factors (cardiac disease, kidney disease and pulmonary disease), the rate of in-hospital complications (supplemental oxygen use, admission to an intensive care unit for CPAP therapy or intubation) and all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the thalassaemia group compared to the matched cohort with no history of thalassaemia. Amongst thalassaemia patients in general, the TIT group exhibited a higher rate of hospitalization compared to the TDT group (p = 0.001). In addition, the rate of complications such as acute kidney injury and need for supplemental oxygen was significantly higher in the TIT group compared to the TDT group. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, age and history of heart or kidney disease were all found to be independent risk factors for increased in-hospital, all-cause mortality, whereas the presence of thalassaemia (either TDT or TIT) was found to be independently associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The presence of thalassaemia in COVID-19 patients was independently associated with lower in-hospital, all-cause mortality and few in-hospital complications in our study. The pathophysiology of this is unclear and needs to be studied in vitro and in animal models.

Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Treated with Remdesivir-NEAT ID 909REM Study

Background There are few real-world data on the use of remdesivir (RDV) looking at timing of initiation in relation to symptom onset and severity of presenting disease. Methods We conducted multi-country retrospective study of clinical practice and use of RDV in COVID-19 patients. De-identified medical records data were entered into an e-CRF. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at day 28 and hospitalization duration. We assessed time from symptom onset to RDV start and re-admission. We included adults with PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 who were hospitalized after Aug 31, 2020 and received at least 1 dose of RDV. Descriptive analyses were conducted. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the mortality rate, LogRank test to compare groups defined by severity of disease. Competing risk regression with discharge and death as competing events was used to estimate duration of hospitalization, and Gray’s test to compare the groups. Results 448 patients in 5 countries (12 sites) were included. Demographics are summarized (table) by 3 disease severity groups at baseline: no supplemental oxygen (NSO), low flow oxygen ≤6 L/min (LFO), and high-flow oxygen > 6L/min (HFO). No demographic differences were found between groups except for the higher percentage of cancer/chemotherapy patients in NSO group. Corticosteroids use was HFO 73.6%, LFO 62.7%, NSO 58.0%. Mortality rate was significantly lower in NSO, and LFO groups compared with HFO (6.2%, 10.2%, 23.6%, respectively;Fig1). Median duration of hospitalization was 9 (95%CI 8-10), 9 (8-9), 13 (10-15) days, respectively (Fig2). Median time from first symptom to RDV start was 7 days in all 3 groups. Patients started RDV on day 1 of hospitalization in HFO and LFO and day 2 on NSO groups. And received a 5 day course (median). Readmission within 28-days of discharge was < 5% and similar across all 3 groups. Table 1. Patients baseline characteristics and primary and secondary outcomes Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality Figure 2. Competing-risks regression of discharge from hospital Conclusion In this real-world cohort of COVID-19 positive hospitalized patients, RDV use was consistent across countries. RDV was started within a median of 7 days from symptom within 2 days of admission and given for a median of 5 days. Higher mortality rate and duration of hospitalization was seen in the HFO group and similar rates seen in the LFO and NSO groups. Readmission was consistently low across all 3 groups. Disclosures François Raffi, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Consultant)MSD (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Roche (Consultant)Theratechnologies (Advisor or Review Panel member)ViiV (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Nadir Arber, MD, MSc, MHA, Check cap (Consultant)Coved cd 24 (Board Member)Israel Innovation Authority (Research Grant or Support)Nucleix (Advisor or Review Panel member)Zion Pharmaceuticals (Advisor or Review Panel member) Casper Rokx, MD PhD, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Ameet Bakhai, MBBS, MD, FRCP, FESC, Bayer AG (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Boehringer Ingelheim (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Daiichi-Sankyo Europe (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Johnson & Johnson (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)MSD (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Novartis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Roche (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor)Sanofi (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau, Independent Contractor) Alex Soriano, MD, Angelini (Speaker's Bureau)Gilead Sciences (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Menarini (Speaker's Bureau)MSD (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Pfizer (Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Shionogi (Speaker's Bureau) Carlos Lumbreras, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support)MSD (Consultant) Vicente Estrada, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member)MSD (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Theratechnologies (Consultant)ViiV (Consultant) Adrian Curran, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)MSD (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support) Essy Mozaffari, PharmD, MPH, MBA, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Richard Haubrich, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Paul Hodgkins, PhD, MSc, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Anton Pozniak, MD, FRCP, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member)Theratec (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)ViiV (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 (COV-BARRIER): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company. TRANSLATIONS: For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Sepsis of Patients Infected by SARS-CoV-2: Real-World Experience From the International HOPE-COVID-19-Registry and Validation of HOPE Sepsis Score.

Background: Patients with sepsis with a concomitant coronavirus (COVID-19) infection are related to a high morbidity and mortality rate. We investigated a large cohort of patients with sepsis with a concomitant COVID-19, and we developed a risk score for the estimation of sepsis risk in COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a sub-analysis from the international Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation Registry for COVID-19 (HOPE-COVID-19-Registry, NCT04334291). Out of 5,837 patients with COVID-19, 624 patients were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 International Consensus. Results: In multivariable analysis, the following risk factors were identified as independent predictors for developing sepsis: current smoking, tachypnoea (>22 breath per minute), hemoptysis, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) <92%, blood pressure (BP) (systolic BP <90 mmHg and diastolic BP <60 mmHg), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15, elevated procalcitonin (PCT), elevated troponin I (TnI), and elevated creatinine >1.5 mg/dl. By assigning odds ratio (OR) weighted points to these variables, the following three risk categories were defined to develop sepsis during admission: low-risk group (probability of sepsis 3.1-11.8%); intermediate-risk group (24.8-53.8%); and high-risk-group (58.3-100%). A score of 1 was assigned to current smoking, tachypnoea, decreased SpO2, decreased BP, decreased GCS, elevated PCT, TnI, and creatinine, whereas a score of 2 was assigned to hemoptysis. Conclusions: The HOPE Sepsis Score including nine parameters is useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients to develop sepsis. Sepsis in COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate.

In-vivo evidence of systemic endothelial vascular dysfunction in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Endothelial dysfunction is one of the underlying mechanisms to vascular and cardiac complications in patients with COVID-19. We sought to investigate the systemic vascular endothelial function and its temporal changes in COVID-19 patients from a non-invasive approach with reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT). METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, case-control and blinded study. The population was comprised by 3 groups: patients investigated during acute COVID-19 (group 1), patients investigated during past COVID-19 (group 2), and controls 1:1 matched to COVID-19 patients by demographics and cardiovascular risk factors (group 3). The natural logarithmic scaled reactive hyperemia index (LnRHI), a measure of endothelium-mediated dilation of peripheral arteries, was obtained in all the participants and compared between study groups. RESULTS: 144 participants were enrolled (72 COVID-19 patients and 72 matched controls). Median time from COVID-19 symptoms to PAT assessment was 9.5 and 101.5 days in groups 1 and 2, respectively. LnRHI was significantly lower in group 2 compared to both group 1 and controls (0.53 ± 0.23 group 2 vs. 0.72 ± 0.26 group 1, p = 0.0043; and 0.79 ± 0.23 in group 3, p < 0.0001). In addition, within group 1, it was observed a markedly decrease in LnRHI from acute COVID-19 to post infection stage (0.73 ± 0.23 vs. 0.42 ± 0.26, p = 0.0042). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a deleterious effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on systemic vascular endothelial function. These findings open new venues to investigate the clinical implication and prognostic role of vascular endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19 patients and post-COVID syndrome using non-invasive techniques.

Predictors of poor prognosis in healthy, young, individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of poor prognosis in previously healthy young individuals admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We studied a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. All patients without co-morbidities, without usual treatments and ≤65 years old were selected from an international registry (HOPE-COVID-19, NCT04334291). We focused on baseline variables-symptoms and signs at admission-to analyse risk factors for poor prognosis. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse clinical events during hospitalization including mortality, mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, prone, sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and embolic events. RESULTS: Overall, 773 healthy young patients were included. The primary composite end point was observed in 29% (225/773) and the overall mortality rate was 3.6% (28/773). In the combined event group, 75% (168/225) of patients were men and the mean age was 49 (±11) years, whereas in the non-combined event group, the prevalence of male gender was 43% (238/548) and the mean age was 42 (±13) years (p < 0.001 for both). On admission, respiratory insufficiency and cough were described in 51.4% (114/222) and 76% (170/223) of patients, respectively, in the combined event group, versus 7.9% (42/533) and 56% (302/543) of patients in the other group (p < 0.001 for both). The strongest independent predictor for the combined end point was desaturation (Spo2 <92%) (OR 5.40; 95% CI 3.34-8.75; p < 0.001), followed by tachypnoea (OR 3.17; 95% CI 1.93-5.21; p < 0.001), male gender (OR 3.01; 95% CI 1.96-4.61; p < 0.001) and pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-ray at admission (OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.18-4.16; p 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Major adverse clinical events were unexpectedly high considering the baseline characteristics of the cohort. Signs of respiratory compromise at admission and male gender, were predictive for poor prognosis among young healthy patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

COVID-19 and the impact of arterial hypertension-An analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 Registry (Italy-Spain-Germany).

BACKGROUND: A systematic analysis of concomitant arterial hypertension in COVID-19 patients and the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have not been studied in a large multicentre cohort yet. We conducted a subanalysis from the international HOPE Registry (https://hopeprojectmd.com, NCT04334291) comparing COVID-19 in presence and absence of arterial hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of 5837 COVID-19 patients, 2850 (48.8%) patients had the diagnosis arterial hypertension. 1978/2813 (70.3%) patients were already treated with ACEI or ARBs. The clinical outcome of the present subanalysis included all-cause mortality over 40 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with arterial hypertension suffered significantly more from different complications including respiratory insufficiency (60.8% vs 39.5%), heart failure (9.9% vs 3.1%), acute kidney injury (25.3% vs 7.3%), pneumonia (90.6% vs 86%), sepsis (14.7% vs 7.5%), and bleeding events (3.6% vs 1.6%). The mortality rate was 29.6% in patients with concomitant arterial hypertension and 11.3% without arterial hypertension (P < .001). Invasive and non-invasive respiratory supports were significantly more required in presence of arterial hypertension as compared without it. In the multivariate cox regression analysis, while age≥65, benzodiazepine, antidepressant at admission, elevated LDH or creatinine, respiratory insufficiency and sepsis might be a positive independent predictors of mortality, antiviral drugs, interferon treatment, ACEI or ARBs at discharge or oral anticoagulation at discharge might be an independent negative predictor of the mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and in-hospital complications might be increased in COVID-19 patients with a concomitant history of arterial hypertension. The history of ACEI or ARBs treatments does not seem to impact the outcome of these patients.

Impact of smoking on COVID-19 outcomes: a HOPE Registry subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking has been associated with poorer outcomes in relation to COVID-19. Smokers have higher risk of mortality and have a more severe clinical course. There is paucity of data available on this issue, and a definitive link between smoking and COVID-19 prognosis has yet to be established. METHODS: We included 5224 patients with COVID-19 with an available smoking history in a multicentre international registry Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19 (NCT04334291). Patients were included following an in-hospital admission with a COVID-19 diagnosis. We analysed the outcomes of patients with a current or prior history of smoking compared with the non-smoking group. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital death. RESULTS: Finally, 5224 patients with COVID-19 with available smoking status were analysed. A total of 3983 (67.9%) patients were non-smokers, 934 (15.9%) were former smokers and 307 (5.2%) were active smokers. The median age was 66 years (IQR 52.0-77.0) and 58.6% were male. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (48.5%) and dyslipidaemia (33.0%). A relevant lung disease was present in 19.4%. In-hospital complications such sepsis (23.6%) and embolic events (4.3%) occurred more frequently in the smoker group (p<0.001 for both). All cause-death was higher among smokers (active or former smokers) compared with non-smokers (27.6 vs 18.4%, p<0.001). Following a multivariate analysis, current smoking was considered as an independent predictor of mortality (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.82, p=0.017) and a combined endpoint of severe disease (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.43, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Smoking has a negative prognostic impact on patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

Gender Differences in the Presentation and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Gender-related differences in COVID-19 clinical presentation, disease progression, and mortality have not been adequately explored. We analyzed the clinical profile, presentation, treatments, and outcomes of patients according to gender in the HOPE-COVID-19 International Registry. Among 2,798 enrolled patients, 1,111 were women (39.7%). Male patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and more comorbidities at baseline. After propensity score matching, 876 men and 876 women were selected. Male patients more often reported fever, whereas female patients more often reported vomiting, diarrhea, and hyposmia/anosmia. Laboratory tests in men presented alterations consistent with a more severe COVID-19 infection (eg, significantly higher C-reactive protein, troponin, transaminases, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and ferritin). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, bilateral pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, and renal failure were significantly more frequent in men. Men more often required pronation, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab administration. A significantly higher 30-day mortality was observed in men vs women (23.4% vs 19.2%; P = .039). Trial Numbers: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Viewpoint of a WHO Advisory Group Tasked to Consider Establishing a Closely-monitored Challenge Model of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthy Volunteers.

WHO convened an Advisory Group (AG) to consider the feasibility, potential value, and limitations of establishing a closely-monitored challenge model of experimental severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthy adult volunteers. The AG included experts in design, establishment, and performance of challenges. This report summarizes issues that render a COVID-19 model daunting to establish (the potential of SARS-CoV-2 to cause severe/fatal illness, its high transmissibility, and lack of a "rescue treatment" to prevent progression from mild/moderate to severe clinical illness) and it proffers prudent strategies for stepwise model development, challenge virus selection, guidelines for manufacturing challenge doses, and ways to contain SARS-CoV-2 and prevent transmission to household/community contacts. A COVID-19 model could demonstrate protection against virus shedding and/or illness induced by prior SARS-CoV-2 challenge or vaccination. A limitation of the model is that vaccine efficacy in experimentally challenged healthy young adults cannot per se be extrapolated to predict efficacy in elderly/high-risk adults.

Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From a Multicenter International Prospective Registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019 [HOPE-COVID19]).

OBJECTIVES: No standard therapy, including anticoagulation regimens, is currently recommended for coronavirus disease 2019. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. DESIGN: Multicenter international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019). SETTING: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Five thousand eight hundred thirty-eight consecutive coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Anticoagulation therapy, including prophylactic and therapeutic regimens, was obtained for each patient. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred eighty patients (94%) did not receive any anticoagulation before hospitalization. Two-thousand six-hundred one patients (44%) during hospitalization received anticoagulation therapy and it was not associated with better survival rate (81% vs 81%; p = 0.94) but with higher risk of bleeding (2.7% vs 1.8%; p = 0.03). Among patients admitted with respiratory failure (49%, n = 2,859, including 391 and 583 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive ventilation, respectively), anticoagulation started during hospitalization was associated with lower mortality rates (32% vs 42%; p < 0.01) and nonsignificant higher risk of bleeding (3.4% vs 2.7%; p = 0.3). Anticoagulation therapy was associated with lower mortality rates in patients treated with invasive ventilation (53% vs 64%; p = 0.05) without increased rates of bleeding (9% vs 8%; p = 0.88) but not in those with noninvasive ventilation (35% vs 38%; p = 0.40). At multivariate Cox' analysis mortality relative risk with anticoagulation was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in patients admitted with respiratory failure, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in those requiring invasive ventilation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.51-1.01) in noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation therapy in general population with coronavirus disease 2019 was not associated with better survival rates but with higher bleeding risk. Better results were observed in patients admitted with respiratory failure and requiring invasive ventilation.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors effect before and during hospitalization in COVID-19 outcomes: Final analysis of the international HOPE COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19) registry.

BACKGROUND: The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. METHODS: HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. RESULTS: We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p<0.05 for all). However, we did not find differences regarding the hospital use of RASi and the development of heart failure. CONCLUSION: RASi historic use, at admission, is not related to an adjusted worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, although it points out a high-risk population. In this setting, the in-hospital prescription of RASi is associated with improved survival and fewer short-term complications.