Mortality and risk factors of vaccinated and unvaccinated frail patients with COVID-19 treated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies: A real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: There is a scarcity of data on the outcomes and predictors of therapeutic failure of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in frail patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective study including consecutive COVID-19 outpatients referred by primary care physicians for mAb treatment. The outcomes evaluated were 60-day mortality, time to SARS-CoV-2 clearance, need for hospitalization, and O2 therapy. RESULTS: Among 1026 COVID-19 patients enrolled, 60.2% received casirivamab/imdevimab and 39.8% sotrivimab. Median age was 63 years, 52.4% were males and median time from positive nasopharyngeal swab to mAbs administration was 3 days (interquartile range, 2-5). 78.1% were vaccinated. Overall, the 60-day mortality was 2.14%. No differences in outcomes were observed between the two mAbs used. No difference was observed in mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (P = 0.925); although, lower rate of hospitalization (P <0.005), less need for O2 therapy (P <0.0001) and reduced nasopharyngeal swab negativity time (P <0.0001) were observed in vaccinated patients. Early administration of mAbs was associated with lower mortality (P <0.007), whereas corticosteroid use worsened prognosis (P <0.004). The independent predictors associated with higher mortality were older age (P <0.0001), presence of active hematologic malignancies (P <0.0001), renal failure (P <0.041), and need for O2 therapy (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: This study shows similar effectiveness among mAbs used, regardless of vaccination status and identifies patients with COVID-19 in whom mAbs have poor activity.

Impact of chronic liver disease on SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes: Roles of stage, etiology and vaccination.

Since the first identification in December of 2019 and the fast spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, it has represented a dramatic global public health concern. Though affecting mainly the respiratory system, SARS-CoV-2 disease, defined as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may have a systemic involvement leading to multiple organ dysfunction. Experimental evidence about the SARS-CoV-2 tropism for the liver and the increasing of hepatic cytolysis enzymes during infection support the presence of a pathophysiological relationship between liver and SARS-CoV-2. On the other side, patients with chronic liver disease have been demonstrated to have a poor prognosis with COVID-19. In particular, patients with liver cirrhosis appear extremely vulnerable to infection. Moreover, the etiology of liver disease and the vaccination status could affect the COVID-19 outcomes. This review analyzes the impact of the disease stage and the related causes on morbidity and mortality, clinical outcomes during SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as the efficacy of vaccination in patients with chronic liver disease.

Remdesivir Plus Dexamethasone Versus Dexamethasone Alone for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients Requiring Supplemental O2 Therapy: A Prospective Controlled Nonrandomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which improves some clinical outcomes. Dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in reducing mortality. It has been hypothesized that combination of these two drugs can improve mortality. We evaluated the effect of combination on mortality of COVID-19 patients requiring O2 therapy. METHODS: A prospective quasi-experimental study, including two independent, sequential controlled cohorts, one received remdesivir-dexamethasone and the other dexamethasone alone, was designed. All COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental O2 therapy were enrolled consecutively. The sample size to power mortality was a priori calculated. The primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and viral clearance differences. Secondary endpoints were differences in hospitalization times, improvement in respiratory failure (PO2/FiO2) and inflammatory indices (fibrinogen, CRP, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, D-Dimer). Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test were used to evaluate significant differences in mortality between groups. RESULTS: In total, 151 COVID-19 patients were enrolled (remdesivir/dexamethasone group, 76, and dexamethasone alone, 75). No differences in demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were observed between the 2 groups at baseline. Faster viral clearance occurred in the remdesivir/dexamethasone group compared to dexamethasone alone (median 6 vs 16 days; P < .001). The 30-day mortality in the remdesivir/dexamethasone group was 1.3%, whereas in dexamethasone alone was 16% (P < .005). In the remdesivir/dexamethasone group compared to dexamethasone alone there was a reduction in hospitalization days (P < .0001) and a faster improvement in both respiratory function and inflammatory markers. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir/dexamethasone treatment is associated with significant reduction in mortality, length of hospitalization, and faster SARS-CoV-2 clearance, compared to dexamethasone alone.

Non-invasive respiratory support in SARS-CoV-2 related acute respiratory distress syndrome: when is it most appropriate to start treatment?

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most severe complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support (NRS) as Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and/or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) has been proven as effective in the management of SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS. However, the most appropriate timing for start NRS is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study including all consecutive patients who developed moderate SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS during hospitalization. Patients were randomly divided into two intervention groups according to ARDS severity (assessed by PaO2/FiO2-P/F) at NRS beginning: group A started CPAP/NIV when P/F was ≤ 200 and group B started CPAP/NIV when P/F was ≤ 150. Eligible patients who did not give their consent to CPAP/NIV until the severe stage of ARDS and started non-invasive treatment when P/F ≤ 100 (group C) was added. The considered outcomes were in-hospital mortality, oro-tracheal intubation (OTI) and days of hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 146 eligible patients, 29 underwent CPAP/NIV when P/F was ≤ 200 (Group A), 68 when P/F was ≤ 150 (Group B) and 31 patients agreed to non-invasive treatment only when P/F was ≤ 100 (Group C). Starting NRS at P/F level between 151 and 200 did not results in significant differences in the outcomes as compared to treatment starting with P/F ranging 101-150. Conversely, patients undergone CPAP/NIV in a moderate stage (P/F 101-200) had a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate (13.4 vs. 29.0%, p = 0.044) and hospitalization length (14 vs. 15 days, p = 0.038) than those in the severe stage (P/F ≤ 100). Age and need for continuous ventilation were independent predictors of CPAP/NIV failure. CONCLUSIONS: Starting CPAP/NIV in patients with SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS in moderate stage (100 > P/F ≤ 200) is associated to a reduction of both in-hospital mortality and hospitalization length compared to the severe stage (P/F ≤ 100). Starting CPAP/NIV with a P/F > 150 does not appear to be of clinical utility.

COVID-19 and arrhythmia: The factors associated and the role of myocardial electrical impulse propagation. An observational study based on cardiac telemetric monitoring.

Background: The heart is commonly involved in COVID-19, and rhythm disorders have been largely reported. Objective: To evaluate the association of some non-cardiac and cardiac comorbidities and QT dispersion with arrhythmias and their impact on outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Each patient underwent cardiac telemetry monitoring through the entire hospitalization period, laboratory analyses, 12-lead ECG, and lung imaging examination. Patients with arrhythmia were divided into three groups (bradyarrhythmias, tachyarrhythmias, and tachy- and bradyarrhythmias). Results: Two-hundred patients completed the study (males, 123; mean age, 70.1 years); of these, 80 patients (40%) exhibited rhythm disorders on telemetry. Patients with arrhythmia were older (p < 0.0001), had a greater number of comorbidities (p < 0.0001), higher values of creatinine (p = 0.007), B-type natriuretic peptide (p < 0.0001), troponin (p < 0.0001), C-reactive protein (p = 0.01), ferritin (p = 0.001), D-dimer (p < 0.0001), procalcitonin (p = 0.0008), QT interval (p = 0.002), QTc interval (p = 0.04), and QTc dispersion (p = 0.01), and lower values of sodium (p = 0.03), magnesium (p = 0.04), glomerular filtration rate (p < 0.0001), and hemoglobin (p = 0.008) as compared to patients without arrhythmia. By comparing the three subgroups of patients, no significant differences were found. At multivariate analysis, age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.14 (95% CI: 1.07-1.22); p = 0.0004], coronary artery disease [OR = 12.7 (95% CI: 2.38-68.01); p = 0.005], and circulating troponin [OR = 1.05 (95% CI: 1.003-1.10); p = 0.04] represented risk factors independently associated with arrhythmia. All-cause in-hospital mortality was ∼40-fold higher among patients with arrhythmia [OR = 39.66 (95% CI: 5.20-302.51); p = 0.0004]. Conclusion: Arrhythmias are associated with aging, coronary artery disease, subtle myocardial injury, hyperinflammatory status, coagulative unbalance, and prolonged QTc dispersion in patients with COVID-19, and confer a worse in-hospital prognosis. Given its usefulness, routinary use of cardiac telemetry should be encouraged in COVID wards.

Prediction of SARS-CoV-2-Related Lung Inflammation Spreading by V:ERITAS (Vanvitelli Early Recognition of Inflamed Thoracic Areas Spreading).

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be complicated by interstitial pneumonia, possibly leading to severe acute respiratory failure and death. Because of variable evolution ranging from asymptomatic cases to the need for invasive ventilation, COVID-19 outcomes cannot be precisely predicted on admission. The aim of this study was to provide a simple tool able to predict the outcome of COVID-19 pneumonia on admission to a low-intensity ward in order to better plan management strategies for these patients. Methods The clinical records of 123 eligible patients were reviewed. The following variables were analyzed on admission: chest computed tomography severity score (CTSS), PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte to monocyte ratio, C-reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen, D-dimer, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin. The main outcome was the intensity of respiratory support (RS). To simplify the statistical analysis, patients were split into two main groups: those requiring no or low/moderate oxygen support (group 1); and those needing subintensive/intensive RS up to mechanical ventilation (group 2). Results The RS intensity was significantly associated with higher CTSS and NLR scores; lower PaO2/FiO2 ratios; and higher serum levels of LDH, CRP, D-dimer, and AST. After multivariate logistic regression and ROC curve analysis, CTSS and LDH were shown to be the best predictors of respiratory function worsening. Conclusions Two easy-to-obtain parameters (CTSS and LDH) were able to reliably predict a worse evolution of COVID-19 pneumonia with values of >7 and >328 U/L, respectively.

Epidemiology of HCV and HBV in a High Endemic Area of Southern Italy: Opportunities from the COVID-19 Pandemic-Standardized National Screening or One Tailored to Local Epidemiology?

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the hospitalization of an unselected population with the possibility to evaluate the epidemiology of viral hepatitis. Thus, a retrospective multicenter study was conducted in an area of Southern Italy with the aim of assessing the prevalence of HCV and HBV markers and the ability of current screening program to capture cases. We evaluated 2126 hospitalized patients in seven COVID Centers of Naples and Caserta area in which 70% of the Campania population lives. HBsAg and HCV-Ab prevalence was 1.6% and 5.1%, respectively, with no differences between gender. Decade distribution for birth year shows a bimodal trend of HCV prevalence, with a peak (11.6%) in the decade 1930-1939 and a second peak (5.6%) for those born in 1960-1969. An analysis of the screening period imposed by the Italian government for those born between 1969 and 1989 shows that only 17% of cases of HCV infection could be captured. A small alignment of the screening period, i.e., those born from 1960 to 1984, would capture 40% of cases. The data confirm the high endemicity of our geographical area for hepatitis virus infections and underline the need for a tailored screening program according to the regional epidemiology.

Efficacy and safety of the sofosbuvir/velpatasvir combination for the treatment of patients with early mild to moderate COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 is still a health problem worldwide despite the availability of vaccines. Therefore, there is a need for effective and safe antiviral. SARS-CoV-2 and HCV necessitate RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) for replication; therefore, it has been hypothesized that RdRp inhibitors used to treat HCV may be effective treating SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, we evaluated the effect of the sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) combination in early SARS-CoV-2 infection. A multicenter case-control study was conducted, enrolling 120 patients with mild or moderate COVID-19, of whom 30, HCV coinfected or not, received SOF/VEL tablets (400/100 mg) once daily for 9 days within a median of 6 days from the beginning of infection and 90 controls were treated with standard care. The primary endpoint was the effect on viral clearance, and the secondary endpoint was the improvement of clinical outcomes. Nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR were performed every 5-7 days. Between 5-14 days after starting SOF/VEL treatment, SAS-CoV-2 clearance was observed in 83% of patients, while spontaneous clearance in the control was 13% (p < 0.001). An earlier SARS-CoV-2 clearance was observed in the SOF/VEL group than in the control group (median 14 vs 22 days, respectively, p < 0.001) also when the first positivity was considered. None of the patients in the SOF/VEL group showed disease progression, while in the control group, 24% required more intensive treatment (high flow oxygen or noninvasive/invasive ventilation), and one patient died (p < 0.01). No significant side effects were observed in the SOF/VEL group. Early SOF/VEL treatment in mild/moderate COVID-19 seems to be safe and effective for faster elimination of SARS-CoV-2 and to prevent disease progression.