Time to negative PCR conversion amongst high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the clinical and virological outcomes in Omicron BA.1- and BA.2-infected patients who received sotrovimab with those in patients who received nirmatrelvir for the prevention of severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this multi-centric, prospective ANRS 0003S CoCoPrev cohort study, patients at a high risk of progression of mild-to-moderate BA.1 or BA.2 COVID-19 who received sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir were included. The proportion of patients with progression to severe COVID-19, time between the start of treatment to negative PCR conversion, SARS-CoV-2 viral decay, and characterization of resistance variants were determined. A multi-variable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the time to negative PCR conversion and a mixed-effect model for the dynamics of viral decay. RESULTS: Amongst 255 included patients, 199 (80%) received ≥3 vaccine doses, 195 (76%) received sotrovimab, and 60 (24%) received nirmatrelvir. On day 28, new COVID-19-related hospitalization occurred in 4 of 193 (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%) sotrovimab-treated patients and 0 of 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p 0.24). One out of the 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients died (2%; 95% CI, 0-10%). The median time to negative PCR conversion was 11.5 days (95% CI, 10.5-13) in the sotrovimab-treated patients vs. 4 days (95% CI, 4-9) in the nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p < 0.001). Viral decay was faster in the patients who received nirmatrelvir (p < 0.001). In the multi-variable analysis, nirmatrelvir and nasopharyngeal PCR cycle threshold values were independently associated with faster conversion to negative PCR (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.56-3.56; p < 0.0001 and hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; p 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of nirmatrelvir in high-risk patients compared with that of sotrovimab was associated with faster viral clearance. This may participate to decrease transmission and prevent viral resistance.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in hospitalized adults with severe or critical COVID-19 (Bari-SolidAct): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib has shown efficacy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but no placebo-controlled trials have focused specifically on severe/critical COVID, including vaccinated participants. METHODS: Bari-SolidAct is a phase-3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling participants from June 3, 2021 to March 7, 2022, stopped prematurely for external evidence. Patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were randomised to Baricitinib 4 mg once daily or placebo, added to standard of care. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 60 days. Participants were remotely followed to day 90 for safety and patient related outcome measures. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-nine patients were screened, 284 randomised, and 275 received study drug or placebo and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analyses (139 receiving baricitinib and 136 placebo). Median age was 60 (IQR 49-69) years, 77% were male and 35% had received at least one dose of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. There were 21 deaths at day 60 in each group, 15.1% in the baricitinib group and 15.4% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference and 95% CI - 0.1% [- 8·3 to 8·0]). In sensitivity analysis censoring observations after drug discontinuation or rescue therapy (tocilizumab/increased steroid dose), proportions of death were 5.8% versus 8.8% (- 3.2% [- 9.0 to 2.7]), respectively. There were 148 serious adverse events in 46 participants (33.1%) receiving baricitinib and 155 in 51 participants (37.5%) receiving placebo. In subgroup analyses, there was a potential interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on 60-day mortality. In a subsequent post hoc analysis there was a significant interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on the occurrence of serious adverse events, with more respiratory complications and severe infections in vaccinated participants treated with baricitinib. Vaccinated participants were on average 11 years older, with more comorbidities. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial was prematurely stopped for external evidence and therefore underpowered to conclude on a potential survival benefit of baricitinib in severe/critical COVID-19. We observed a possible safety signal in vaccinated participants, who were older with more comorbidities. Although based on a post-hoc analysis, these findings warrant further investigation in other trials and real-world studies. Trial registration Bari-SolidAct is registered at NCT04891133 (registered May 18, 2021) and EUClinicalTrials.eu ( 2022-500385-99-00 ).

Inflammatory markers and auto-Abs to type I IFNs in COVID-19 convalescent plasma cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) contains neutralising anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that may be useful as COVID-19 passive immunotherapy in patients at risk of developing severe disease. Such plasma from convalescent patients may also have additional immune-modulatory properties when transfused to COVID-19 patients. METHODS: CCP (n = 766) was compared to non-convalescent control plasma (n = 166) for soluble inflammatory markers, ex-vivo inflammatory bioactivity on endothelial cells, neutralising auto-Abs to type I IFNs and reported adverse events in the recipients. FINDINGS: CCP exhibited a statistically significant increase in IL-6 and TNF-alpha levels (0.531 ± 0.04 vs 0.271 ± 0.04; (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07371-0.4446; p = 0.0061) and 0.900 ± 0.07 vs 0.283 ± 0.07 pg/mL; (95% [CI], 0.3097-0.9202; p = 0.0000829) and lower IL-10 (0.731 ± 0.07 vs 1.22 ± 0.19 pg/mL; (95% [CI], -0.8180 to -0.1633; p = 0.0034) levels than control plasma. Neutralising auto-Abs against type I IFNs were detected in 14/766 (1.8%) CCPs and were not associated with reported adverse events when transfused. Inflammatory markers and bioactivity in CCP with or without auto-Abs, or in CCP whether or not linked to adverse events in transfused patients, did not differ to a statistically significant extent. INTERPRETATION: Overall, CCP exhibited moderately increased inflammatory markers compared to the control plasma with no discernible differences in ex-vivo bioactivity. Auto-Abs to type I IFNs detected in a small fraction of CCP were not associated with reported adverse events or differences in inflammatory markers. Additional studies, including careful clinical evaluation of patients treated with CCP, are required in order to further define the clinical relevance of these findings. FUNDING: French National Blood Service-EFS, the Association "Les Amis de Rémi" Savigneux, France, the "Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (Medical Research Foundation)-REACTing 2020".

Avdoralimab (Anti-C5aR1 mAb) Versus Placebo in Patients With Severe COVID-19: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial (FOR COVID Elimination [FORCE]).

OBJECTIVES: Severe COVID-19 is associated with exaggerated complement activation. We assessed the efficacy and safety of avdoralimab (an anti-C5aR1 mAb) in severe COVID-19. DESIGN: FOR COVID Elimination (FORCE) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Twelve clinical sites in France (ICU and general hospitals). PATIENTS: Patients receiving greater than or equal to 5 L oxygen/min to maintain Sp o2 greater than 93% (World Health Organization scale ≥ 5). Patients received conventional oxygen therapy or high-flow oxygen (HFO)/noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in cohort 1; HFO, NIV, or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in cohort 2; and IMV in cohort 3. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive avdoralimab or placebo. The primary outcome was clinical status on the World Health Organization ordinal scale at days 14 and 28 for cohorts 1 and 3, and the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 (VFD28) for cohort 2. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We randomized 207 patients: 99 in cohort 1, 49 in cohort 2, and 59 in cohort 3. During hospitalization, 95% of patients received glucocorticoids. Avdoralimab did not improve World Health Organization clinical scale score on days 14 and 28 (between-group difference on day 28 of -0.26 (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.7; p = 0.7) in cohort 1 and -0.28 (95% CI, -1.8 to 1.2; p = 0.6) in cohort 3). Avdoralimab did not improve VFD28 in cohort 2 (between-group difference of -6.3 (95% CI, -13.2 to 0.7; p = 0.96) or secondary outcomes in any cohort. No subgroup of interest was identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, avdoralimab did not significantly improve clinical status at days 14 and 28 (funded by Innate Pharma, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04371367).

Potential of FX06 to prevent disease progression in hospitalized non-intubated COVID-19 patients - the randomized, EU-wide, placebo-controlled, phase II study design of IXION.

BACKGROUND: More than 2.7 million hospitalizations of COVID-19-infected patients have occurred in Europe alone since the outbreak of the coronavirus in 2020. Interventions against SARS-CoV-2 are still in high need to prevent admissions to ICUs worldwide. FX06, a naturally occurring peptide in humans and other mammals, has the potential to reduce capillary leak by improving endothelial dysfunction and thus preventing the deterioration of patients. With IXION, we want to investigate the potential of FX06 to prevent disease progression in hospitalized, non-intubated COVID-19 patients. METHODS: IXION is an EU-wide, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, parallel, randomized (2:1) phase II clinical study. Patient recruitment will start in September 2022 (to Q2/2023) in Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Romania, Portugal, and France. A total of 306 hospitalized patients (≥ 18 years and < 75 years) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and a COVID-19 severity of 4-6 according to the WHO scale will be enrolled. After randomization to FX06 or placebo, patients will be assessed until day 28 (and followed up until day 60). FX06 (2 × 200 mg per day) or placebo will be administered intravenously for 5 consecutive days. The primary endpoint is to demonstrate a difference in the proportion of patients with progressed/worsened disease state in patients receiving FX06 compared to patients receiving placebo. Secondary endpoints are lung function, oxygen saturation and breathing rate, systemic inflammation, survival, capillary refill time, duration of hospital stay, and drug accountability. DISCUSSION: With IXION, the multidisciplinary consortium aims to deliver a new therapy in addition to standard care against SARS-CoV-2 for the clinical management of COVID-19 during mild and moderate stages. Potential limitations might refer to a lack of recruiting and drop-out due to various possible protocol violations. While we controlled for drop-outs in the same size estimation, recruitment problems may be subject to external problems difficult to control for. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2021-005059-35 . Registered on 12 December 2021. Study Code TMP-2204-2021-47.

Potential of FX06 to prevent disease progression in hospitalized non-intubated COVID-19 patients — the randomized, EU-wide, placebo-controlled, phase II study design of IXION

Background More than 2.7 million hospitalizations of COVID-19-infected patients have occurred in Europe alone since the outbreak of the coronavirus in 2020. Interventions against SARS-CoV-2 are still in high need to prevent admissions to ICUs worldwide. FX06, a naturally occurring peptide in humans and other mammals, has the potential to reduce capillary leak by improving endothelial dysfunction and thus preventing the deterioration of patients. With IXION, we want to investigate the potential of FX06 to prevent disease progression in hospitalized, non-intubated COVID-19 patients. Methods IXION is an EU-wide, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, parallel, randomized (2:1) phase II clinical study. Patient recruitment will start in September 2022 (to Q2/2023) in Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Romania, Portugal, and France. A total of 306 hospitalized patients (≥ 18 years and < 75 years) with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and a COVID-19 severity of 4–6 according to the WHO scale will be enrolled. After randomization to FX06 or placebo, patients will be assessed until day 28 (and followed up until day 60). FX06 (2 × 200 mg per day) or placebo will be administered intravenously for 5 consecutive days. The primary endpoint is to demonstrate a difference in the proportion of patients with progressed/worsened disease state in patients receiving FX06 compared to patients receiving placebo. Secondary endpoints are lung function, oxygen saturation and breathing rate, systemic inflammation, survival, capillary refill time, duration of hospital stay, and drug accountability. Discussion With IXION, the multidisciplinary consortium aims to deliver a new therapy in addition to standard care against SARS-CoV-2 for the clinical management of COVID-19 during mild and moderate stages. Potential limitations might refer to a lack of recruiting and drop-out due to various possible protocol violations. While we controlled for drop-outs in the same size estimation, recruitment problems may be subject to external problems difficult to control for. Trial registration EudraCT 2021-005059-35. Registered on 12 December 2021. Study Code TMP-2204-2021-47. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06609-x.

High seroconversion rate and SARS-CoV-2 Delta neutralization in people with HIV vaccinated with BNT162b2.

OBJECTIVES: To assess humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 Delta-variant in people with HIV (PWH) after BNT162b2-vaccination. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study of PWH with CD4 + cell count less than 500 cells/µl and viral load less than 50 copies/ml on stable antiretroviral therapy for at least 3 months. METHODS: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding-domain IgG antibodies (anti-RBD IgG) were quantified and neutralization capacity was evaluated by ELISA/GenScript and virus-neutralization-test against the D614G-strain, beta and delta variants before vaccination (day 0) and 1 month after complete schedule (M1). RESULTS: We enrolled 97 PWH, 85 received two vaccine shots. The seroconversion rate for anti-RBD IgG was 97% [95% confidence interval (CI) 90-100%] at M1. Median (IQR) anti-RBD IgG titer was 0.97 (0.97-5.3) BAU/ml at D0 and 1219 (602-1929) at M1. Neutralization capacity improved between D0 (15%; 50% CI 8-23%) and M1 (94%; 95% CI 87-98%) ( P  < 0.0001). At M1, NAbs against the D614G strain, beta and delta variants were present in 82, 77, and 84% PWH, respectively. The seroconversion rate and median anti-RBD-IgG level were 91% and 852 BAU/ml, respectively, in PWH with CD4 + cell count less than 250 ( n  = 13) and 98% and 1270 BAU/ml for CD4 + greater than 250 ( n  = 64) ( P  = 0.3994). NAbs were present in 73% of PWH with CD4 + less than 250 and 97% of those with CD4 + cell count greater than 250 ( P  = 0.0130). NAbs against beta variant were elicited in 50% in PWH with CD4 + cell count less than 250 and in 81% of those with CD4 + cell count greater than 250 ( P  = 0.0292). CD4 + and CD8 + T-cell counts were unchanged, whereas CD19 + B-cell counts decreased after vaccination(208 ±â€Š124 at D0 vs. 188 ±â€Š112 at M1, P  < 0.01). No notable adverse effects or COVID-19 cases were reported. CONCLUSION: Seroconversion rates were high, with delta-neutralization rates similar to those for the D61G strain, after a two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination in PWH.

Tocilizumab plus dexamethasone versus dexamethasone in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia: A randomised clinical trial from the CORIMUNO-19 study group.

Background: In moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dexamethasone (DEX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) reduce the occurrence of death and ventilatory support. We investigated the efficacy and safety of DEX+TCZ in an open randomized clinical trial. Methods: From July 24, 2020, through May 18, 2021, patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen (>3 L/min) were randomly assigned to receive DEX (10 mg/d 5 days tapering up to 10 days) alone or combined with TCZ (8 mg/kg IV) at day 1, possibly repeated with a fixed dose of 400 mg i.v. at day 3. The primary outcome was time from randomization to mechanical ventilation support or death up to day 14, analysed on an intent-to-treat basis using a Bayesian approach. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04476979. Findings: A total of 453 patients were randomized, 3 withdrew consent, 450 were analysed, of whom 226 and 224 patients were assigned to receive DEX or TCZ+DEX, respectively. At day 14, mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 32/226 (14%) and 27/224 (12%) in the DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 90% credible interval [CrI] 0·55 to 1·31). At day 14, the World health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale (CPS) was significantly improved in the TCZ+DEX arm (OR 0·69, 95% CrI, 0·49 to 0.97). At day 28, the cumulative incidence of oxygen supply independency was 82% in the TCZ+DEX arms and 72% in the DEX arm (HR 1·36, 95% CI 1·11 to 1·67). On day 90, 24 deaths (11%) were observed in the DEX arm and 18 (8%) in the TCZ+DEX arm (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·42-1·41). Serious adverse events were observed in 25% and 21% in DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively. Interpretation: Mechanical ventilation need and mortality were not improved with TCZ+DEX compared with DEX alone. The safety of both treatments was similar. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, definitive interpretation cannot be drawn. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique [PHRC COVID-19-20-0151, PHRC COVID-19-20-0029], Fondation de l'Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (Alliance Tous Unis Contre le Virus) and from Fédération pour la Recherche Médicale" (FRM). Tocilizumab was provided by Roche.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous and homologous mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccination: A multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial.

Background: Although effective mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been deployed worldwide, their interchangeability could facilitate the scale-up of vaccination programs. The objective of the trial was to assess whether the immune response induced by a heterologous SARS-CoV-2 mRNA primo vaccination is non-inferior to that of a homologous mRNA vaccination. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial in adults 18 years of age and older who received a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a second dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, 28 to 49 days after the first dose. Randomization was stratified on the vaccine received at the first vaccination. The primary endpoint was the anti-spike IgG antibodies titer measured 28 days after the second vaccine dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial, NCT04900467. Findings: Of the 414 randomized participants recruited from May 28 to July 2, 2021, 390 were included in the per protocol analysis: 94 participants in group 1 (BNT162b2/BNT162b2), 96 in group 2 (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273), 97 in group 3 (mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273), and 103 in group 4 (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2). The geometric mean titers ratios of anti-spike IgG antibodies for each heterologous regimen relative to the corresponding homologous regimen were 1·37 (two-sided 95% CI, 1·10 to 1·72) in the groups 1 and 2 and 0·67 (two-sided 95% CI, 0·55 to 0·82) in the groups 3 and 4. Levels of neutralizing antibodies to the main circulating SARS-Cov-2 viral strains were higher with the vaccine regimen containing mRNA-1273. Participants who received mRNA-1273 as a second dose experienced a higher rate of local adverse reactions and general symptoms than those who received BNT162b2 (p < 0·0001). Interpretation: The two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines could be used with flexibility for the second dose of COVID-19 primo vaccination. Tolerance remains good regardless of vaccine sequence although mRNA-1273 was more reactogenic. Funding: French Ministries of Solidarity and Health and Research. BNT162b2 was provided by Pfizer/BioNTech. mRNA-1273 was provided by Moderna.

Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among frontline health care workers in Paris: the SEROCOV cohort study.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Among 1062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95% CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); current smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk.Trial registration The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.

The Quality of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 T Cell Responses Predicts the Neutralizing Antibody Titer in Convalescent Plasma Donors.

Convalescent plasma therapy has been described as an attractive approach to treat critically ill patients with COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019). The selection of convalescent plasma donors (CPD) is commonly based on neutralizing antibody titer. A better understanding of the quality of immune responses following COVID-19 will enable the optimization of convalescent donors' selection in convalescent plasma programs. The involvement of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells in the induction and persistence of high affinity anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody is still poorly investigated. In this study, 115 CPD who presented SARS-CoV-2 and who were eligible for plasma donation were included. Comprehensive analysis of T cells together with humoral responses were performed in regards of sex, age and blood group type. High frequency of T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 related protein such as spike glycoprotein (80.0%), nucleocapsid (NCAP) (70.4%) and membrane protein (VME1) (74.8%) were detected in CPD by ex vivo IFN-γ and TNF-α ELISpot assays. Among CPD responders, most exhibited poly-specific T cell responses (75%) defined by the ability to mount responses against at least two SARS-CoV-2 antigens. We found a positive correlation between the magnitude and the poly-specificity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses in CPD. Notably, both the magnitude and poly-specificity of SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses were highly correlated with neutralizing antibody titer in CPD. The present study highlights that the poly-specificity and strength of SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell responses predicts neutralizing antibody titer following COVID-19. These observations show the interest to combine T cell assays and antibody titer for the selection of CPD and to a latter extend to assess COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in at-risk patients.

Convalescent plasma improves overall survival in patients with B-cell lymphoid malignancy and COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort and propensity score analysis.

Patients with hematological malignancy and COVID-19 display a high mortality rate. In such patients, immunosuppression due to underlying disease and previous specific treatments impair humoral response, limiting viral clearance. Thus, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy appears as a promising approach through the transfer of neutralizing antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2. We report the effect of CCP in a cohort of 112 patients with hematological malignancy and COVID-19 and a propensity score analysis on subgroups of patients with B-cell lymphoid disease treated (n = 81) or not (n = 120) with CCP between May 1, 2020 and April 1, 2021. The overall survival of the whole cohort was 65% (95% CI = 56-74.9) and 77.5% (95% CI = 68.5-87.7) for patients with B-cell neoplasm. Prior anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy was associated with better overall survival, whereas age, high blood pressure, and COVID-19 severity were associated with a poor outcome. After an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach, we observed in anti-CD20-exposed patients with B-cell lymphoid disease a decreased mortality of 63% (95% CI = 31-80) in the CCP-treated group compared to the CCP-untreated subgroup, confirmed in the other sensitivity analyses. Convalescent plasma may be beneficial in COVID-19 patients with B-cell neoplasm who are unable to mount a humoral immune response.

Implementation of an electronic patient-reported measure of barriers to antiretroviral therapy adherence with the Opal patient portal: Protocol for a mixed method type 3 hybrid pilot study at a large Montreal HIV clinic.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) remains problematic. Regular monitoring of its barriers is clinically recommended, however, patient-provider communication around adherence is often inadequate. Our team thus decided to develop a new electronically administered patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of barriers to ART adherence (the I-Score) to systematically capture this data for physician consideration in routine HIV care. To prepare for a controlled definitive trial to test the I-Score intervention, a pilot study was designed. Its primary objectives are to evaluate patient and physician perceptions of the I-Score intervention and its implementation strategy. METHODS: This one-arm, 6-month study will adopt a mixed method type 3 implementation-effectiveness hybrid design and be conducted at the Chronic Viral Illness Service of the McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, Canada). Four HIV physicians and 32 of their HIV patients with known or suspected adherence problems will participate. The intervention will involve having patients complete the I-Score through a smartphone application (Opal), before meeting with their physician. Both patients and physicians will have access to the I-Score results, for consideration during the clinic visits at Times 1, 2 (3 months), and 3 (6 months). The implementation strategy will focus on stakeholder involvement, education, and training; promoting the intervention's adaptability; and hiring an Application Manager to facilitate implementation. Implementation, patient, and service outcomes will be collected (Times 1-2-3). The primary outcome is the intervention's acceptability to patients and physicians. Qualitative data obtained, in part, through physician focus groups (Times 2-3) and patient interviews (Times 2-3) will help evaluate the implementation strategy and inform any methodological adaptations. DISCUSSION: This study will help plan a definitive trial to test the efficacy of the I-Score intervention. It will generate needed data on electronic PROM interventions in routine HIV care that will help improve understanding of conditions for their successful implementation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04702412; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Immune interventions in COVID-19: a matter of time?

As the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, and considering the lack of efficacy of antiviral strategies to this date, and the reactive hyperinflammation leading to tissue lesions and pneumonia, effective treatments targeting the dysregulated immune response are more than ever required. Immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive drugs have been repurposed in severe COVID-19 with contrasting results. The heterogeneity in the timing of treatments administrations could be accountable for these discrepancies. Indeed, many studies included patients at different timepoints of infection, potentially hiding the beneficial effects of a time-adapted intervention. We aim to review the available data on the kinetics of the immune response in beta-coronaviruses infections, from animal models and longitudinal human studies, and propose a four-step model of severe COVID-19 timeline. Then, we discuss the results of the clinical trials of immune interventions with regards to the timing of administration, and finally suggest a time frame in order to delineate the best timepoint for each treatment.