Krebs von den Lungen-6 glycoprotein circulating levels are not useful as prognostic marker in COVID-19 pneumonia: A large prospective cohort study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly expanded worldwide. Currently, there are no biomarkers to predict respiratory worsening in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. Small studies explored the use of Krebs von de Lungen-6 circulating serum levels (sKL-6) as a prognostic biomarker of the worsening of COVID-19 pneumonia. We aimed at a large study to determine the prognostic value of sKL-6 in predicting evolving trends in COVID-19. We prospectively analyzed the characteristics of 836 patients with COVID-19 with mild lung disease on admission. sKL-6 was obtained in all patients at least at baseline and compared among patients with or without respiratory worsening. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to find the optimal cutoff level. A total of 159 (19%) patients developed respiratory worsening during hospitalization. Baseline sKL-6 levels were not higher in patients who had respiratory worsening (median {IQR} 315.5 {209-469} vs. 306 {214-423} U/ml p = 0.38). The last sKL-6 and the change between baseline and last sKL-6 were higher in the respiratory worsening group (p = 0.02 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The best sKL-6 cutoff point for respiratory worsening was 497 U/ml (area under the curve 0.52; 23% sensitivity and 85% specificity). sKL-6 was not found to be an independent predictor of respiratory worsening. A conditional inference tree (CTREE) was not useful to discriminate patients at risk of worsening. We found that sKL-6 had a low sensibility to predict respiratory worsening in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia and may not be of use to assess the risk of present respiratory worsening in inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Krebs von den Lungen-6 glycoprotein circulating levels are not useful as prognostic marker in COVID-19 pneumonia: A large prospective cohort study

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly expanded worldwide. Currently, there are no biomarkers to predict respiratory worsening in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. Small studies explored the use of Krebs von de Lungen-6 circulating serum levels (sKL-6) as a prognostic biomarker of the worsening of COVID-19 pneumonia. We aimed at a large study to determine the prognostic value of sKL-6 in predicting evolving trends in COVID-19. We prospectively analyzed the characteristics of 836 patients with COVID-19 with mild lung disease on admission. sKL-6 was obtained in all patients at least at baseline and compared among patients with or without respiratory worsening. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to find the optimal cutoff level. A total of 159 (19%) patients developed respiratory worsening during hospitalization. Baseline sKL-6 levels were not higher in patients who had respiratory worsening (median {IQR} 315.5 {209–469} vs. 306 {214–423} U/ml p = 0.38). The last sKL-6 and the change between baseline and last sKL-6 were higher in the respiratory worsening group (p = 0.02 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The best sKL-6 cutoff point for respiratory worsening was 497 U/ml (area under the curve 0.52;23% sensitivity and 85% specificity). sKL-6 was not found to be an independent predictor of respiratory worsening. A conditional inference tree (CTREE) was not useful to discriminate patients at risk of worsening. We found that sKL-6 had a low sensibility to predict respiratory worsening in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia and may not be of use to assess the risk of present respiratory worsening in inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Post-COVID-19 fatigue: the contribution of cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Fatigue in its many forms of physical, mental, and psychosocial exhaustion is a common symptom of post-COVID-19 condition, also known as "Long COVID." Persistent fatigue in COVID-19 patients is frequently accompanied by cognitive dysfunction and neuropsychiatric symptoms; however, less is known about the relationships between these components of post-COVID-19 condition and fatigue itself. Consequently, the present study sought to (1) distinguish the types of fatigue experienced by participants, and (2) investigate whether cognitive deficits across various domains and neuropsychiatric conditions predicted these different types of fatigue. The study included 136 COVID-19 patients referred for neuropsychological evaluation due to cognitive complaints 8 months on average after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measures included self-reported fatigue (physical, cognitive, and psychosocial), neuropsychiatric questionnaires (assessing symptoms of depression, anxiety, apathy, and executive functioning), a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment, and self-reported quality of life and everyday functioning. Results showed that reports of clinical significant fatigue were pervasive in our sample (82.3% of participants), with physical fatigue rated highest on average relative to the subscale maximum. Elevated levels of apathy, anxiety, and executive dysfunction in neuropsychiatric measures along with executive and attentional difficulties on cognitive tests were found to be consistently important predictors among different types of fatigue. This implicates both cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms as predictors of fatigue in post-COVID-19 condition, and stresses the importance of a holistic approach in assessing and considering potential treatment for COVID-19 patients experiencing fatigue.

Neuropsychological deficits in patients with cognitive complaints after COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: While much of the scientific focus thus far has been on cognitive sequelae in patients with severe COVID-19, subjective cognitive complaints are being reported across the spectrum of disease severity, with recent studies beginning to corroborate patients' perceived deficits. In response to this, the aims of this study were to (1) explore the frequency of impaired performance across cognitive domains in post-COVID patients with subjective complaints and (2) uncover whether impairment existed within a single domain or across multiple. METHODS: Sixty-three patients with subjective cognitive complaints post-COVID were assessed with a comprehensive protocol consisting of various neuropsychological tests and mood measures. Cognitive test performance was transformed into T scores and classified based on recommended guidelines. After performing a principal component analysis to define cognitive domain factors, distributions of test scores within and across domains were analyzed. RESULTS: Results revealed pervasive impact on attention abilities, both as the singularly affected domain (19% of single-domain impairment) as well as coupled with decreased performance in executive functions, learning, and long-term memory. These salient attentional and associated executive deficits were largely unrelated to clinical factors such as hospitalization, disease duration, biomarkers, or affective measures. DISCUSSION: These findings stress the importance of comprehensive evaluation and intervention to address cognitive sequelae in post-COVID patients of varying disease courses, not just those who were hospitalized or experienced severe symptoms. Future studies should investigate to what extent these cognitive abilities are recuperated over time as well as employ neuroimaging techniques to uncover underlying mechanisms of neural damage.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising strategy to break COVID-19 transmission. Although hydroxychloroquine was evaluated for treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis, it is not evaluated for COVID-19 PrEP yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PrEP with hydroxychloroquine against placebo in healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during an epidemic period. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in three hospitals in Barcelona, Spain. From 350 adult healthcare workers screened, we included 269 participants with no active or past SARS-CoV-2 infection (determined by a negative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR and a negative serology against SARS-CoV-2). Participants allocated in the intervention arm (PrEP) received 400 mg of hydroxychloroquine daily for the first four consecutive days and subsequently, 400 mg weekly during the study period. Participants in the control group followed the same treatment schedule with placebo tablets. RESULTS: 52.8% (142/269) of participants were in the hydroxychloroquine arm and 47.2% (127/269) in the placebo arm. Given the national epidemic incidence decay, only one participant in each group was diagnosed with COVID-19. The trial was stopped due to futility and our study design was deemed underpowered to evaluate any benefit regarding PrEP efficacy. Both groups showed a similar proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse event (AE) (p=0.548). No serious AEs were reported. Almost all AEs (96.4%, 106/110) were mild. Only mild gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly higher in the hydroxychloroquine arm compared to the placebo arm (27.4% (39/142) vs 15.7% (20/127), p=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Although the efficacy of PrEP with hydroxychloroquine for preventing COVID-19 could not be evaluated, our study showed that PrEP with hydroxychloroquine at low doses is safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04331834 . Registered on April 2, 2020.

Not all COVID-19 pandemic waves are alike.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess differences in patients' profiles in the first two surges of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Barcelona, Spain. METHODS: We prospectively collected data from all adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. All the patients were diagnosed through nasopharyngeal swab PCR. The first surge spanned from 1st March to 13th August 2020, while surge two spanned from 14th August to 8th December 2020. RESULTS: There were 2479 and 852 patients with microbiologically proven SARS-CoV-2 infection in surges one and two, respectively. Patients from surge two were significantly younger (median age 52 (IQR 35) versus 59 (40) years, respectively, p < 0.001), had fewer comorbidities (379/852, 44.5% versus 1237/2479, 49.9%, p 0.007), and there was a shorter interval between onset of symptoms and diagnosis (median 3 (5) versus 4 (5) days, p < 0.001). All-cause in-hospital mortality significantly decreased for both the whole population (24/852, 2.8% versus 218/2479, 8.8%, p < 0.001) and hospitalized patients (20/302, 6.6% versus 206/1570, 13.1%, p 0.012). At adjusted logistic regression analysis, predictors of in-hospital mortality were older age (per year, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.079, 95%CI 1.063-1.094), male sex (aOR 1.476, 95%CI 1.079-2.018), having comorbidities (aOR 1.414, 95%CI 0.934-2.141), ICU admission (aOR 3.812, 95%CI 1.875-7.751), mechanical ventilation (aOR 2.076, 95%CI 0.968-4.454), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during surge one (with respect to surge two) (aOR 2.176, 95%CI 1.286-3.680). CONCLUSIONS: First-wave SARS-CoV-2-infected patients had a more than two-fold higher in-hospital mortality than second-wave patients. The causes are likely multifactorial.

Pharmacological considerations for the treatment of COVID-19 in people living with HIV (PLWH).

INTRODUCTION: When coronavirus infectious disease-2019 (COVID-19) blew up, ill-fated auguries on the collision between COVID-19 and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemics loomed. AREAS COVERED: Data from observational studies suggest similar incidence attacks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in people living with HIV (PLWH) and HIV-uninfected populations. The mortality rate of COVID-19 is similar in both populations too. The authors discuss the role of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in preventing infection or reducing COVID-19 severity. They also discuss the pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in PLWH. EXPERT OPINION: Management of COVID-19 in PLWH is no different from the general population. It should be based on careful supportive care, emphasizing lung-protective ventilation, and wise pharmacological interventions. The antiviral drug remdesivir and dexamethasone are the only pharmacological interventions with clinical benefit for COVID-19, whereas anticoagulation may prevent thrombotic complications. The experience with using these drugs in PLWH is limited, which prevents from rendering well-founded conclusions. Until more data on COVID-19 in PLWH become available, the best weapons within our reach are sound supportive care and sensible use of RDV and dexamethasone, bearing in mind the potential for drug-drug interactions of most corticosteroids and antiretroviral drugs.

Effectiveness and safety of intravenous tocilizumab to treat COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome: Covizumab-6 observational cohort.

Although the starting event in COVID-19 is a viral infection some patients present with an over-exuberant inflammatory response, leading to acute lung injury (ALI) and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Since IL-6 plays a critical role in the inflammatory response, we assessed the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in this single-centre, observational study in all Covid-19 in-patient with a proven SARS-CoV-2 rapidly progressing infection to prevent ALI and ARDS. 104 patients with COVID-19 treated with TCZ had a lower mortality rate (5·8%) compared with the regional mortality rate (11%), hospitalized patient's mortality (10%), and slightly lower than hospitalized patients treated with our standard of care alone (6%). We found that TCZ rapidly decreased acute phase reactants, ferritin and liver release of proteins. D-Dimer decreased slowly. We did not observe specific safety concerns. Early administration of IL6-R antagonists in COVID-19 patients with impending hyperinflammatory response, may be safe and effective treatment to prevent, ICU admission and further complications.

The four horsemen of a viral Apocalypse: The pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19).

The pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be envisaged as the dynamic interaction between four vicious feedback loops chained or happening at once. These are the viral loop, the hyperinflammatory loop, the non-canonical renin-angiotensin system (RAS) axis loop, and the hypercoagulation loop. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-coronavirus (CoV)-2 lights the wick by infecting alveolar epithelial cells (AECs) and downregulating the angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2)/angiotensin (Ang-1-7)/Mas1R axis. The viral feedback loop includes evading the host's innate response, uncontrolled viral replication, and turning on a hyperactive adaptative immune response. The inflammatory loop is composed of the exuberant inflammatory response feeding back until exploding in an actual cytokine storm. Downregulation of the ACE2/Ang-(1-7)/Mas1R axis leaves the lung without a critical defense mechanism and turns the scale to the inflammatory side of the RAS. The coagulation loop is a hypercoagulable state caused by the interplay between inflammation and coagulation in an endless feedback loop. The result is a hyperinflammatory and hypercoagulable state producing acute immune-mediated lung injury and eventually, adult respiratory distress syndrome.