Dexamethasone Modulates the Cytokine Response but Not COVID-19-Induced Coagulopathy in Critically Ill.

Severe forms of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease are caused by an exaggerated systemic inflammatory response and subsequent inflammation-related coagulopathy. Anti-inflammatory treatment with low dose dexamethasone has been shown to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen therapy. However, the mechanisms of action of corticosteroids have not been extensively studied in critically ill patients in the context of COVID-19. Plasma biomarkers of inflammatory and immune responses, endothelial and platelet activation, neutrophil extracellular trap formation, and coagulopathy were compared between patients treated or not by systemic dexamethasone for severe forms of COVID-19. Dexamethasone treatment significantly reduced the inflammatory and lymphoid immune response in critical COVID-19 patients but had little effect on the myeloid immune response and no effect on endothelial activation, platelet activation, neutrophil extracellular trap formation, and coagulopathy. The benefits of low dose dexamethasone on outcome in critical COVID-19 can be partially explained by a modulation of the inflammatory response but not by reduction of coagulopathy. Future studies should explore the impact of combining dexamethasone with other immunomodulatory or anticoagulant drugs in severe COVID-19.

Variability among commercial batches of normal pooled plasma in lupus anticoagulant testing.

INTRODUCTION: Lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing requires normal pooled plasma (NPP) in performing mixing studies and can be used for normalized ratios of clotting times (CTs). The aims were to demonstrate whether significant differences in clotting times between two batches of a same commercial NPP (CRYOcheck™) directly affect NPP-based cut-off values. METHODS: Diluted Russell Viper venom time (DRVVT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) were used for LA testing. Screening, mixing and confirm tests were performed with Stago® instruments and reagents. Two batches of commercial NPP (A1291 and A1301 from CRYOcheck™; frozen) were compared in the determination of cut-off values. Cut-off values were defined as 99th percentile values of 60 healthy donors and compared with Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Cut-off values obtained with the two NPP batches were significantly different for DRVVT (screen normalized ratio: 1.09 vs. 1.24, screen mix: 41.9 s vs. 38.9 s; index of circulating anticoagulant: 5.0 vs. 8.4; all had p-value <.001). On the contrary, no significant differences were observed for aPTT (screen normalized ratio: 1.32 vs. 1.34; p-value = .4068, screen mix: 37.8 s vs. 38.1 s; p-value = .1153) except for index of circulating anticoagulant: 9.6 versus 10.4 (p-value <.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that differences between two commercial NPP batches produced by a same manufacturer influenced LA cut-off values used for mixing studies and normalized ratios. Adequate cut-off setting, taking into account NPP CTs, is important to provide accurate conclusion about the presence or absence of a LA and avoid potential clinical impact.

Inflammation-Induced Coagulopathy Substantially Differs Between COVID-19 and Septic Shock: A Prospective Observational Study.

Critical COVID-19, like septic shock, is related to a dysregulated systemic inflammatory reaction and is associated with a high incidence of thrombosis and microthrombosis. Improving the understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of critical COVID-19 could help in finding new therapeutic targets already explored in the treatment of septic shock. The current study prospectively compared 48 patients with septic shock and 22 patients with critical COVID-19 regarding their clinical characteristics and outcomes, as well as key plasmatic soluble biomarkers of inflammation, coagulation, endothelial activation, platelet activation, and NETosis. Forty-eight patients with matched age, gender, and co-morbidities were used as controls. Critical COVID-19 patients exhibited less organ failure but a prolonged ICU length-of-stay due to a prolonged respiratory failure. Inflammatory reaction of critical COVID-19 was distinguished by very high levels of interleukin (IL)-1ß and T lymphocyte activation (including IL-7 and CD40L), whereas septic shock displays higher levels of IL-6, IL-8, and a more significant elevation of myeloid response biomarkers, including Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid cells-1 (TREM-1) and IL-1ra. Subsequent inflammation-induced coagulopathy of COVID-19 also differed from sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) and was characterized by a marked increase in soluble tissue factor (TF) but less platelets, antithrombin, and fibrinogen consumption, and less fibrinolysis alteration. In conclusion, COVID-19 inflammation-induced coagulopathy substantially differs from SIC. Modulating TF release and activity should be evaluated in critical COVID-19 patients.

NETosis and Nucleosome Biomarkers in Septic Shock and Critical COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study.

Background: Neutrophil extracellular traps' (NETs') formation is a mechanism of defense that neutrophils deploy as an alternative to phagocytosis, to constrain the spread of microorganisms. Aim: The aim was to evaluate biomarkers of NETs' formation in a patient cohort admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) due to infection. Methods: Forty-six septic shock patients, 22 critical COVID-19 patients and 48 matched control subjects were recruited. Intact nucleosomes containing histone 3.1 (Nu.H3.1), or citrullinated histone H3R8 (Nu.Cit-H3R8), free citrullinated histone (Cit-H3), neutrophil elastase (NE) and myeloperoxidase (MPO) were measured. Results: Significant differences in Nu.H3.1 and NE levels were observed between septic shock and critical COVID-19 subjects as well as with controls (p-values < 0.05). The normalization of nucleosome levels according to the neutrophil count improved the discrimination between septic shock and critical COVID-19 patients. The ratio of Nu.Cit-H3R8 to Nu.H3.1 allowed the determination of nucleosome citrullination degree, presumably by PAD4. Conclusions: H3.1 and Cit-H3R8 nucleosomes appear to be interesting markers of global cell death and neutrophil activation when combined. Nu.H3.1 permits the evaluation of disease severity and differs between septic shock and critical COVID-19 patients, reflecting two distinct potential pathological processes in these conditions.

Inflammation-Induced Coagulopathy Substantially Differs Between COVID-19 and Septic Shock: A Prospective Observational Study

Critical COVID-19, like septic shock, is related to a dysregulated systemic inflammatory reaction and is associated with a high incidence of thrombosis and microthrombosis. Improving the understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of critical COVID-19 could help in finding new therapeutic targets already explored in the treatment of septic shock. The current study prospectively compared 48 patients with septic shock and 22 patients with critical COVID-19 regarding their clinical characteristics and outcomes, as well as key plasmatic soluble biomarkers of inflammation, coagulation, endothelial activation, platelet activation, and NETosis. Forty-eight patients with matched age, gender, and co-morbidities were used as controls. Critical COVID-19 patients exhibited less organ failure but a prolonged ICU length-of-stay due to a prolonged respiratory failure. Inflammatory reaction of critical COVID-19 was distinguished by very high levels of interleukin (IL)-1β and T lymphocyte activation (including IL-7 and CD40L), whereas septic shock displays higher levels of IL-6, IL-8, and a more significant elevation of myeloid response biomarkers, including Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid cells-1 (TREM-1) and IL-1ra. Subsequent inflammation-induced coagulopathy of COVID-19 also differed from sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) and was characterized by a marked increase in soluble tissue factor (TF) but less platelets, antithrombin, and fibrinogen consumption, and less fibrinolysis alteration. In conclusion, COVID-19 inflammation-induced coagulopathy substantially differs from SIC. Modulating TF release and activity should be evaluated in critical COVID-19 patients.

Neutralizing Antibodies in COVID-19 Patients and Vaccine Recipients after Two Doses of BNT162b2.

The evaluation of the neutralizing capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is important because they represent real protective immunity. In this study we aimed to measure and compare the neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in COVID-19 patients and in vaccinated individuals. One-hundred and fifty long-term samples from 75 COVID-19 patients were analyzed with a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and compared to six different SARS-CoV-2 serology assays. The agreement between the sVNT and pseudovirus VNT (pVNT) results was found to be excellent (i.e., 97.2%). The NAb response was also assessed in 90 individuals who had received the complete dose regimen of BNT162b2. In COVID-19 patients, a stronger response was observed in moderate-severe versus mild patients (p-value = 0.0006). A slow decay in NAbs was noted in samples for up to 300 days after diagnosis, especially in moderate-severe patients (r = -0.35, p-value = 0.03). In the vaccinated population, 83.3% of COVID-19-naive individuals had positive NAbs 14 days after the first dose and all were positive 7 days after the second dose, i.e., at day 28. In previously infected individuals, all were already positive for NAbs at day 14. At each time point, a stronger response was observed for previously infected individuals (p-value < 0.05). The NAb response remained stable for up to 56 days in all participants. Vaccinated participants had significantly higher NAb titers compared to COVID patients. In previously infected vaccine recipients, one dose might be sufficient to generate sufficient neutralizing antibodies.

Confounding Factors Influencing the Kinetics and Magnitude of Serological Response Following Administration of BNT162b2.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about potential confounding factors influencing the humoral response in individuals having received the BNT162b2 vaccine. METHODS: Blood samples from 231 subjects were collected before and 14, 28, and 42 days following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with BNT162b2. Anti-spike receptor-binding-domain protein (anti-Spike/RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies were measured at each time-point. Impact of age, sex, childbearing age status, hormonal therapy, blood group, body mass index and past-history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were assessed by multivariable analyses. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In naïve subjects, the level of anti-Spike/RBD antibodies gradually increased following administration of the first dose to reach the maximal response at day 28 and then plateauing at day 42. In vaccinated subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, the plateau was reached sooner (i.e., at day 14). In the naïve population, age had a significant negative impact on anti-Spike/RBD titers at days 14 and 28 while lower levels were observed for males at day 42, when corrected for other confounding factors. Body mass index (BMI) as well as B and AB blood groups had a significant impact in various subgroups on the early response at day 14 but no longer after. No significant confounding factors were highlighted in the previously infected group.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Rapid and Automated Antigen Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

(1) Background: The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples through real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered the standard gold method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antigen detection (AD) tests are more rapid, less laborious, and less expensive alternatives but still require clinical validation. (2) Methods: This study compared the clinical performance of five AD tests, including four rapid AD (RAD) tests (biotical, Panbio, Healgen, and Roche) and one automated AD test (VITROS). For that purpose, 118 (62.8%) symptomatic patients and 70 (37.2%) asymptomatic subjects were tested, and results were compared to RT-PCR. (3) Results: The performance of the RAD tests was modest and allowed us to identify RT-PCR positive patients with higher viral loads. For Ct values ≤25, the sensitivity ranged from 93.1% (95% CI: 83.3-98.1%) to 96.6% (95% CI: 88.1-99.6%), meaning that some samples with high viral loads were missed. Considering the Ct value proposed by the CDC for contagiousness (i.e., Ct values ≤33) sensitivities ranged from 76.2% (95% CI: 65.4-85.1%) to 88.8% (95% CI: 79.7-94.7%) while the specificity ranged from 96.3% (95% CI: 90.8-99.0%) to 99.1% (95% CI: 95.0-100%). The VITROS automated assay showed a 100% (95% CI: 95.5-100%) sensitivity for Ct values ≤33, and had a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.6-100%); (4) Conclusions: Compared to RAD tests, the VITROS assay fully aligned with RT-PCR for Ct values up to 33, which might allow a faster, easier and cheaper identification of SARS-CoV-2 contagious patients.