Three-Day Icatibant on Top of Standard Care in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2, Proof-of-Concept Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate icatibant, a competitive antagonist of the bradykinin B2 receptors, for the treatment of inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia admitted in the early hypoxemic stage. METHODS: The randomized, open-label clinical trial of icatibant for COVID-19 pneumonia (ICAT·COVID, registered as NCT04978051 at ClinicalTrials.gov) was conducted in Barcelona. Inpatients requiring supplemental but not high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation were allocated (1:1) to treatment with either three 30-mg icatibant doses/d for 3 consecutive days plus standard care or standard care alone, and followed for up to 28 days after initial discharge. The primary and key secondary outcomes were clinical response on study day 10/discharge and clinical efficacy at 28 days from initial discharge, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical response occurred in 27 of 37 patients (73.0%) in the icatibant group and 20 of 36 patients (55.6%) in the control group (rate difference, 17.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.22 to 39.06; P = .115). Clinical efficacy ensued in 37 patients (100.0%) in the icatibant group and 30 patients (83.3%) in the control group (rate difference, 16.67; 95% CI, 4.49-28.84; P = .011). No patient died in the icatibant group, compared with 6 patients (16.7%) in the control group (P = .011). All patients but 1 had adverse events, which were evenly distributed between study arms. No patient withdrew because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adding icatibant to standard care was safe and improved both COVID-19 pneumonia and mortality in this proof-of-concept study. A larger, phase 3 trial is warranted to establish the clinical value of this treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04978051.

Suspected adverse events following immunization against SARS-CoV2 in a university hospital in 2021: Observational study.

AIM: Vaccination against SARS-CoV2 has been proposed as a fundamental element for the control of the pandemic. This study aimed to describe the suspected adverse reactions (ADR) reported by vaccinated hospital workers. METHODS: A descriptive study of suspected ADR was conducted between January and March 2021. The suspected ADR were identified using a specifically designed electronic form and spontaneous reporting. Data were also collected regarding the characteristics of the professionals, vaccine administered, severity, and outcome of ADR. RESULTS: 8169 professionals received 2 doses of SARS-CoV2 vaccine (6672 Comirnaty® and 1497 Spikevax®) and 894 reports of suspected ADR were reported (762 for Comirnaty® and 132 for Spikevax®), resulting in a cumulative ADR incidence of 10.94% (95%CI: 10.27-11.62). The majority of ADR were reported only after the second dose, 497 (56.2%), while 211 (23.6%) were reported only after the first dose and 186 (21%) after both doses. The symptoms were mostly mild, did not require medical assistance, and disappeared within approximately 3 days. One hundred and seventeen professionals had a history of COVID-19 infection. These studies reported, statistically significant, more suspected ADR after the first dose (42.7%) than those with no history of COVID-19 (20.7%). Among professionals, more ADR occurred after the first dose with the Spikevax® vaccine (41.6%) than with the Comirnaty® vaccine (20.5%). CONCLUSION: The majority of suspected ADR reported were described in the summary of product characteristics (SmPC). Professionals with a history of COVID-19 reported more suspected ADR after the first dose than did those without a history.

Use of failure-to-rescue after emergency surgery as a dynamic indicator of hospital resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical failure-to-rescue (FTR, death rate following complications) is a reliable cross-sectional quality of care marker, but has not been evaluated dynamically. We aimed to study changes in FTR following emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Matched cohort study including all COVID-19-non-infected adult patients undergoing emergency general surgery in 25 Spanish hospitals during COVID-19 pandemic peak (March-April 2020), non-peak (May-June 2020), and 2019 control periods. A propensity score-matched comparative analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model, in which period was regressed on observed baseline characteristics. Subsequently, a mixed effects logistic regression model was constructed for each variable of interest. Main variable was FTR. Secondary variables were post-operative complications, readmissions, reinterventions, and length of stay. RESULTS: 5003 patients were included (948, 1108, and 2947 in the pandemic peak, non-peak, and control periods), with comparable clinical characteristics, prognostic scores, complications, reintervention, rehospitalization rates, and length of stay across periods. FTR was greater during the pandemic peak than during non-peak and pre-pandemic periods (22.5% vs. 17.2% and 12.7%), being this difference confirmed in adjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.27-3.66). There was sensible inter-hospital variability in FTR changes during the pandemic peak (median FTR change +8.77%, IQR 0-29.17%) not observed during the pandemic non-peak period (median FTR change 0%, IQR -6.01-6.72%). Greater FTR increase was associated with higher COVID-19 incidence (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.31-4.16) and some hospital characteristics, including tertiary level (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.27-8.00), medium-volume (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.14-7.34), and high basal-adjusted complication risk (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.07-4.72). CONCLUSION: FTR following emergency surgery experienced a heterogeneous increase during different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting it to behave as an indicator of hospital resilience. FTR monitoring could facilitate identification of centres in special needs during ongoing health care challenges.

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, proof-of-concept phase II clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of icatibant in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and admitted to hospital units without invasive mechanical ventilation: study protocol (ICAT-COVID).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has quickly become a global pandemic with a substantial number of deaths and is a considerable burden for healthcare systems worldwide. Although most cases are paucisymptomatic and limited to the viral infection-related symptoms, some patients evolve to a second phase, with an impaired inflammatory response (cytokine storm) that may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. This is thought to be caused by increased bradykinin synthesis. METHODS: ICAT-COVID is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, proof-of-concept phase II clinical trial assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of adding icatibant to the standard of care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 without invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients hospitalized with a confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis (RT-PCR or antigen test ≤ 10 days prior to randomization, and radiographic evidence of pulmonary infiltrates), rated "4" or "5" on the WHO's clinical status scale, are eligible. Patients will be randomized on a 1:1 ratio to either standard of care-plus-icatibant (experimental group) or to standard of care alone (control group). The experimental group will receive 30 mg of icatibant subcutaneously 3 times a day for 3 days (for a total of 9 doses). The expected sample size is 120 patients (60 per group) from 2 sites in Spain. Primary outcomes are the efficacy and safety of Icatibant. The main efficacy outcome is the number of patients reaching grades "2" or "1" on the WHO scale within 10 days of starting treatment. Secondary outcomes include "long-term efficacy": number of patients discharged who do not present COVID-19-related relapse or comorbidity up until 28 days after discharge, and mortality. DISCUSSION: Icatibant, a bradykinin type 2 receptor antagonist with proven effectiveness and safety against hereditary angioedema attacks, may be beneficial for COVID-19 patients by inhibiting bradykinin's action on endothelial cells and by inhibiting the SARS-CoV-2 M protease. Our working hypothesis is that treatment with standard of care-plus-icatibant is effective and safe to treat patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to hospital for pneumonia without invasive mechanical ventilation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2020-002166-13. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT04978051.

High-titre methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma as an early treatment for outpatients with COVID-19: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been proposed as an early treatment to interrupt the progression of early COVID-19 to severe disease, but there is little definitive evidence. We aimed to assess whether early treatment with convalescent plasma reduces the risk of hospitalisation and reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load among outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in four health-care centres in Catalonia, Spain. Adult outpatients aged 50 years or older with the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms 7 days or less before randomisation were eligible for enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one intravenous infusion of either 250-300 mL of ABO-compatible high anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres (EUROIMMUN ratio ≥6) methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma (experimental group) or 250 mL of sterile 0·9% saline solution (control). Randomisation was done with the use of a central web-based system with concealment of the trial group assignment and no stratification. To preserve masking, we used opaque tubular bags that covered the investigational product and the infusion catheter. The coprimary endpoints were the incidence of hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline and the mean change in viral load (in log10 copies per mL) in nasopharyngeal swabs from baseline to day 7. The trial was stopped early following a data safety monitoring board recommendation because more than 85% of the target population had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Primary efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, safety was assessed in all patients who received the investigational product. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04621123. FINDINGS: Between Nov 10, 2020, and July 28, 2021, we assessed 909 patients with confirmed COVID-19 for inclusion in the trial, 376 of whom were eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment (convalescent plasma n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=160]; placebo n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=166]). Median age was 56 years (IQR 52-62) and the mean symptom duration was 4·4 days (SD 1·4) before random assignment. In the intention-to-treat population, hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline occurred in 22 (12%) participants who received convalescent plasma versus 21 (11%) who received placebo (relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·41]). The mean change in viral load from baseline to day 7 was -2·41 log10 copies per mL (SD 1·32) with convalescent plasma and -2·32 log10 copies per mL (1·43) with placebo (crude difference -0·10 log10 copies per mL [95% CI -0·35 to 0·15]). One participant with mild COVID-19 developed a thromboembolic event 7 days after convalescent plasma infusion, which was reported as a serious adverse event possibly related to COVID-19 or to the experimental intervention. INTERPRETATION: Methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma did not prevent progression from mild to severe illness and did not reduce viral load in outpatients with COVID-19. Therefore, formal recommendations to support the use of convalescent plasma in outpatients with COVID-19 cannot be concluded. FUNDING: Grifols, Crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono.

P-POSSUM as mortality predictor in COVID-19-infected patients submitted to emergency digestive surgery. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection is associated with a higher mortality rate in surgical patients, but surgical risk scores have not been validated in the emergency setting. We aimed to study the capacity for postoperative mortality prediction of the P-POSSUM score in COVID-19-positive patients submitted to emergency general and digestive surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing emergency general and digestive surgery from March to June 2020, and from March to June 2019 in 25 Spanish hospitals were included in a retrospective cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME: 30-day mortality. P-POSSUM discrimination was quantified by the area under the curve (AUC) of ROC curves; calibration was assessed by linear regression slope (ß estimator); and sensitivity and specificity were expressed as percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: 4988 patients were included: 177 COVID-19-positive; 2011 intra-pandemic COVID-19-negative; and 2800 pre-pandemic. COVID-19-positive patients were older, with higher surgical risk, more advanced pathologies, and higher P-POSSUM values (1.79% vs. 1.09%, p < 0.001, in both the COVID-19-negative and control cohort). 30-day mortality in the COVID-19-positive, intra-pandemic COVID-19-negative and pre-pandemic cohorts were: 12.9%, 4.6%, and 3.2%. The P-POSSUM predictive values in the three cohorts were, respectively: AUC 0.88 (95% CI 0.81-0.95), 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.92), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93); ß value 0.97 (95% CI 0.74-1.2), 0.99 (95% CI 0.82-1.16), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82); sensitivity 83% (95% CI 61-95), 91% (95% CI 84-96), and 89% (95% CI 80-94); and specificity 81% (95% CI 74-87), 76% (95% CI 74-78), and 80% (95% CI 79-82). CONCLUSION: The P-POSSUM score showed a good predictive capacity for postoperative mortality in COVID-19-positive patients submitted to emergency general and digestive surgery.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection at the University of Barcelona during the Third COVID-19 Pandemic Wave in Spain.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic started in December 2019 and still is a major global health challenge. Lockdown measures and social distancing sparked a global shift towards online learning, which deeply impacted universities' daily life, and the University of Barcelona (UB) was not an exception. Accordingly, we aimed to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic at the UB. To that end, we performed a cross-sectional study on a sample of 2784 UB members (n = 52,529). Participants answered a brief, ad hoc, online epidemiological questionnaire and provided a nasal swab for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 analysis and a venous blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay. Total prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive RT-PCR or positive IgG) was 14.9% (95%CI 13.3 to 17.0%). Forty-four participants (1.6%, 95%CI: 1.2-2.1%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. IgG against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in 12.8% (95%CI: 11.6-14.1%) of participants. Overall, while waiting for population vaccination and/or increased herd immunity, we should concentrate on identifying and isolating new cases and their contacts.

Postoperative complications and mortality following emergency digestive surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicenter collaborative retrospective cohort study protocol (COVID-CIR).

ABSTRACT: Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to contribute significantly to increased postoperative complications and mortality after emergency surgical procedures. Additionally, the fear of COVID-19 contagion delays the consultation of patients, resulting in the deterioration of their acute diseases by the time of consultation. In the specific case of urgent digestive surgery patients, both factors significantly worsen the postoperative course and prognosis. Main working hypothesis: infection by COVID-19 increases postoperative 30-day-mortality for any cause in patients submitted to emergency/urgent general or gastrointestinal surgery. Likewise, hospital collapse during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic increased 30-day-mortality for any cause. Hence, the main objective of this study is to estimate the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30-days-after-surgery. Secondary objectives are: to estimate the cumulative incidence of postoperative complications and to develop a specific postoperative risk propensity model for COVID-19-infected patients.A multicenter, observational retrospective cohort study (COVID-CIR-study) will be carried out in consecutive patients operated on for urgent digestive pathology. Two cohorts will be defined: the "pandemic" cohort, which will include all patients (classified as COVID-19-positive or -negative) operated on for emergency digestive pathology during the months of March to June 2020; and the "control" cohort, which will include all patients operated on for emergency digestive pathology during the months of March to June 2019. Information will be gathered on demographic characteristics, clinical and analytical parameters, scores on the usual prognostic scales for quality management in a General Surgery service (POSSUM, P-POSSUM and LUCENTUM scores), prognostic factors applicable to all patients, specific prognostic factors for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, postoperative morbidity and mortality (at 30 and 90 postoperative days). The main objective is to estimate the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days after surgery. As secondary objectives, to estimate the cumulative incidence of postoperative complications and to develop a specific postoperative risk propensity model for SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.The protocol (version1.0, April 20th 2020) was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (Ethic-and-Clinical-Investigation-Committee, code PR169/20, date 05/05/20). The study findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant national and international scientific meetings.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04479150 (July 21, 2020).