Systematic comparison of published host gene expression signatures for bacterial/viral discrimination.

BACKGROUND: Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another. METHODS: This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies. RESULTS: Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation.

Differential chromatin accessibility in peripheral blood mononuclear cells underlies COVID-19 disease severity prior to seroconversion.

SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers profound and variable immune responses in human hosts. Chromatin remodeling has been observed in individuals severely ill or convalescing with COVID-19, but chromatin remodeling early in disease prior to anti-spike protein IgG seroconversion has not been defined. We performed the Assay for Transposase-Accessible Chromatin using sequencing (ATAC-seq) and RNA-seq on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from outpatients with mild or moderate symptom severity at different stages of clinical illness. Early in the disease course prior to IgG seroconversion, modifications in chromatin accessibility associated with mild or moderate symptoms were already robust and included severity-associated changes in accessibility of genes in interleukin signaling, regulation of cell differentiation and cell morphology. Furthermore, single-cell analyses revealed evolution of the chromatin accessibility landscape and transcription factor motif accessibility for individual PBMC cell types over time. The most extensive remodeling occurred in CD14+ monocytes, where sub-populations with distinct chromatin accessibility profiles were observed prior to seroconversion. Mild symptom severity was marked by upregulation of classical antiviral pathways, including those regulating IRF1 and IRF7, whereas in moderate disease, these classical antiviral signals diminished, suggesting dysregulated and less effective responses. Together, these observations offer novel insight into the epigenome of early mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and suggest that detection of chromatin remodeling in early disease may offer promise for a new class of diagnostic tools for COVID-19.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Prospective Validation of a Rapid Host Gene Expression Test to Discriminate Bacterial From Viral Respiratory Infection.

Importance: Bacterial and viral causes of acute respiratory illness (ARI) are difficult to clinically distinguish, resulting in the inappropriate use of antibacterial therapy. The use of a host gene expression-based test that is able to discriminate bacterial from viral infection in less than 1 hour may improve care and antimicrobial stewardship. Objective: To validate the host response bacterial/viral (HR-B/V) test and assess its ability to accurately differentiate bacterial from viral infection among patients with ARI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolled 755 children and adults with febrile ARI of 7 or fewer days' duration from 10 US emergency departments. Participants were enrolled from October 3, 2014, to September 1, 2019, followed by additional enrollment of patients with COVID-19 from March 20 to December 3, 2020. Clinical adjudication of enrolled participants identified 616 individuals as having bacterial or viral infection. The primary analysis cohort included 334 participants with high-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator concordance and the presence of an identified pathogen confirmed by microbiological testing). A secondary analysis of the entire cohort of 616 participants included cases with low-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator discordance or the absence of an identified pathogen in microbiological testing). Thirty-three participants with COVID-19 were included post hoc. Interventions: The HR-B/V test quantified the expression of 45 host messenger RNAs in approximately 45 minutes to derive a probability of bacterial infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance characteristics for the HR-B/V test compared with clinical adjudication were reported as either bacterial or viral infection or categorized into 4 likelihood groups (viral very likely [probability score <0.19], viral likely [probability score of 0.19-0.40], bacterial likely [probability score of 0.41-0.73], and bacterial very likely [probability score >0.73]) and compared with procalcitonin measurement. Results: Among 755 enrolled participants, the median age was 26 years (IQR, 16-52 years); 360 participants (47.7%) were female, and 395 (52.3%) were male. A total of 13 participants (1.7%) were American Indian, 13 (1.7%) were Asian, 368 (48.7%) were Black, 131 (17.4%) were Hispanic, 3 (0.4%) were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 297 (39.3%) were White, and 60 (7.9%) were of unspecified race and/or ethnicity. In the primary analysis involving 334 participants, the HR-B/V test had sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI, 77.8%-96.2%), specificity of 82.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-86.6%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.3%-99.1%) for bacterial infection. In comparison, the sensitivity of procalcitonin measurement was 28.6% (95% CI, 16.2%-40.9%; P < .001), the specificity was 87.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-90.7%; P = .006), and the NPV was 87.6% (95% CI, 85.5%-89.5%; P < .001). When stratified into likelihood groups, the HR-B/V test had an NPV of 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1%-100%) for bacterial infection in the viral very likely group and a positive predictive value of 63.4% (95% CI, 47.2%-77.9%) for bacterial infection in the bacterial very likely group. The HR-B/V test correctly identified 30 of 33 participants (90.9%) with acute COVID-19 as having a viral infection. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the HR-B/V test accurately discriminated bacterial from viral infection among patients with febrile ARI and was superior to procalcitonin measurement. The findings suggest that an accurate point-of-need host response test with high NPV may offer an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and patient outcomes.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Rationale and design of the Prone Position and Respiratory Outcomes in Non-intubated COVID-19 PatiEnts: The "PRONE" Study.

While benefits of prone position in mechanically-ventilated patients have been well-described, a randomized-control trial to determine the effects of prone positioning in awake, spontaneously-breathing patients with an acute pneumonia has not been previously conducted. Prone Position and Respiratory Outcomes in Non-Intubated COVID-19 PatiEnts: the "PRONE" Study (PRONE) was conducted in non-intubated hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia as defined by respiratory rate ≥ 20/min or an oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2) ≤ 93% without supplemental oxygen [1]. The PRONE trial was designed to investigate the effects of prone positioning on need for escalation in respiratory support, as defined by need for transition to a higher acuity level of care, increased fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), or the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary objectives were to assess the duration of effect of prone positioning on respiratory parameters such as respiratory rate and SpO2, as well as other outcomes such as time to discharge or transition in level of care.

Mucosal-associated invariant T cell responses differ by sex in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dimorphisms in immune responses contribute to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, but the mechanisms governing this disparity remain incompletely understood. METHODS: We carried out sex-balanced sampling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from hospitalized and non-hospitalized individuals with confirmed COVID-19, uninfected close contacts, and healthy control individuals for 36-color flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequencing. FINDINGS: Our results revealed a pronounced reduction of circulating mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells in infected females. Integration of published COVID-19 airway tissue datasets suggests that this reduction represented a major wave of MAIT cell extravasation during early infection in females. Moreover, MAIT cells from females possessed an immunologically active gene signature, whereas cells from males were pro-apoptotic. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings uncover a female-specific protective MAIT cell profile, potentially shedding light on reduced COVID-19 susceptibility in females. FUNDING: This work was supported by NIH/NIAID (U01AI066569 and UM1AI104681), the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA; N66001-09-C-2082 and HR0011-17-2-0069), the Veterans Affairs Health System, and Virology Quality Assurance (VQA; 75N93019C00015). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 samples were processed under Biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) with aerosol management enhancement or BSL-3 in the Duke Regional Biocontainment Laboratory, which received partial support for construction from NIH/NIAID (UC6AI058607).

An atlas connecting shared genetic architecture of human diseases and molecular phenotypes provides insight into COVID-19 susceptibility.

BACKGROUND: While genome-wide associations studies (GWAS) have successfully elucidated the genetic architecture of complex human traits and diseases, understanding mechanisms that lead from genetic variation to pathophysiology remains an important challenge. Methods are needed to systematically bridge this crucial gap to facilitate experimental testing of hypotheses and translation to clinical utility. RESULTS: Here, we leveraged cross-phenotype associations to identify traits with shared genetic architecture, using linkage disequilibrium (LD) information to accurately capture shared SNPs by proxy, and calculate significance of enrichment. This shared genetic architecture was examined across differing biological scales through incorporating data from catalogs of clinical, cellular, and molecular GWAS. We have created an interactive web database (interactive Cross-Phenotype Analysis of GWAS database (iCPAGdb)) to facilitate exploration and allow rapid analysis of user-uploaded GWAS summary statistics. This database revealed well-known relationships among phenotypes, as well as the generation of novel hypotheses to explain the pathophysiology of common diseases. Application of iCPAGdb to a recent GWAS of severe COVID-19 demonstrated unexpected overlap of GWAS signals between COVID-19 and human diseases, including with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis driven by the DPP9 locus. Transcriptomics from peripheral blood of COVID-19 patients demonstrated that DPP9 was induced in SARS-CoV-2 compared to healthy controls or those with bacterial infection. Further investigation of cross-phenotype SNPs associated with both severe COVID-19 and other human traits demonstrated colocalization of the GWAS signal at the ABO locus with plasma protein levels of a reported receptor of SARS-CoV-2, CD209 (DC-SIGN). This finding points to a possible mechanism whereby glycosylation of CD209 by ABO may regulate COVID-19 disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, connecting genetically related traits across phenotypic scales links human diseases to molecular and cellular measurements that can reveal mechanisms and lead to novel biomarkers and therapeutic approaches. The iCPAGdb web portal is accessible at http://cpag.oit.duke.edu and the software code at https://github.com/tbalmat/iCPAGdb .

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).