Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

Therapeutic trials for long COVID-19: A call to action from the interventions taskforce of the RECOVER initiative.

Although most individuals recover from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, a significant number continue to suffer from Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), including the unexplained symptoms that are frequently referred to as long COVID, which could last for weeks, months, or even years after the acute phase of illness. The National Institutes of Health is currently funding large multi-center research programs as part of its Researching COVID to Enhance Recover (RECOVER) initiative to understand why some individuals do not recover fully from COVID-19. Several ongoing pathobiology studies have provided clues to potential mechanisms contributing to this condition. These include persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antigen and/or genetic material, immune dysregulation, reactivation of other latent viral infections, microvascular dysfunction, and gut dysbiosis, among others. Although our understanding of the causes of long COVID remains incomplete, these early pathophysiologic studies suggest biological pathways that could be targeted in therapeutic trials that aim to ameliorate symptoms. Repurposed medicines and novel therapeutics deserve formal testing in clinical trial settings prior to adoption. While we endorse clinical trials, especially those that prioritize inclusion of the diverse populations most affected by COVID-19 and long COVID, we discourage off-label experimentation in uncontrolled and/or unsupervised settings. Here, we review ongoing, planned, and potential future therapeutic interventions for long COVID based on the current understanding of the pathobiological processes underlying this condition. We focus on clinical, pharmacological, and feasibility data, with the goal of informing future interventional research studies.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

COVID19 disease severity influences the expression of markers of durability in memory B cells

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 specific memory B cells can be maintained at least a year after exposure. However, reports show an altered B cell response during infection in severe COVID-19 cases. This study aims to describe the B cell response during COVID-19 convalescence with a focus on signatures that contribute to durable and robust immunity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Our study cohort consisted of individuals who had recovered from non-severe (hospitalized) or severe (hospitalized and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation) COVID-19. In our comparative analysis, samples from both groups were carefully matched to fall within 4-5 weeks post-symptom onset. We also performed a longitudinal analysis of non-severe patients with sampling ending 5 months post-symptom onset. Using high parameter flow cytometry, we characterized the phenotype of memory B cells using 19 distinct cell markers and fluorescently labeled probes to identify B cells reactive with SARS-CoV-2 spike and receptor-binding domain protein. Additionally, serum collected from individuals was used to quantify antibody titers. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The frequency of spike-specific B cells and serum antibody titers were similar between severe and non-severe groups. However, we observed that individuals recovered from severe COVID-19 have a significantly reduced frequency of spike specific IgG+ memory B cells expressing Tbet and FcRL5 (markers associated with long lived immunity). In the non-severe patients, we observed IgG+Tbet+ B cells targeting the spike protein peak at 2-3 weeks post-symptom onset, decrease by almost fifty percent 4-5 weeks post-symptom onset, and return to baseline 5 months post-symptom onset. Our study also validated previous findings of a short-lived primary response of IgM+ B cells targeting the spike protein. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings highlight potential implications for long-term immunity against re-infection or severity of the resulting disease in patients with severe COVID-19. Further investigation will be necessary to determine whether the maintenance of immunological protection is hindered in patients who overcame severe COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific memory B cells express higher levels of T-bet and FcRL5 after non-severe COVID-19 as compared to severe disease.

SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits a robust B cell response, resulting in the generation of long-lived plasma cells and memory B cells. Here, we aimed to determine the effect of COVID-19 severity on the memory B cell response and characterize changes in the memory B cell compartment between recovery and five months post-symptom onset. Using high-parameter spectral flow cytometry, we analyzed the phenotype of memory B cells with reactivity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or the spike receptor binding domain (RBD) in recovered individuals who had been hospitalized with non-severe (n = 8) or severe (n = 5) COVID-19. One month after symptom onset, a substantial proportion of spike-specific IgG+ B cells showed an activated phenotype. In individuals who experienced non-severe disease, spike-specific IgG+ B cells showed increased expression of markers associated with durable B cell memory, including T-bet and FcRL5, as compared to individuals who experienced severe disease. While the frequency of T-bet+ spike-specific IgG+ B cells differed between the two groups, these cells predominantly showed an activated switched memory B cell phenotype in both groups. Five months post-symptom onset, the majority of spike-specific memory B cells had a resting phenotype and the percentage of spike-specific T-bet+ IgG+ memory B cells decreased to baseline levels. Collectively, our results highlight subtle differences in the B cells response after non-severe and severe COVID-19 and suggest that the memory B cell response elicited during non-severe COVID-19 may be of higher quality than the response after severe disease.

Coronavirus Disease 2019–Associated Invasive Fungal Infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can become complicated by secondary invasive fungal infections (IFIs), stemming primarily from severe lung damage and immunologic deficits associated with the virus or immunomodulatory therapy. Other risk factors include poorly controlled diabetes, structural lung disease and/or other comorbidities, and fungal colonization. Opportunistic IFI following severe respiratory viral illness has been increasingly recognized, most notably with severe influenza. There have been many reports of fungal infections associated with COVID-19, initially predominated by pulmonary aspergillosis, but with recent emergence of mucormycosis, candidiasis, and endemic mycoses. These infections can be challenging to diagnose and are associated with poor outcomes. The reported incidence of IFI has varied, often related to heterogeneity in patient populations, surveillance protocols, and definitions used for classification of fungal infections. Herein, we review IFI complicating COVID-19 and address knowledge gaps related to epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19–associated fungal infections.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Aspergillus Polymerase Chain Reaction-An Update on Technical Recommendations, Clinical Applications, and Justification for Inclusion in the Second Revision of the EORTC/MSGERC Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease.

Aspergillus polymerase chain reaction testing of blood and respiratory samples has recently been included in the second revision of the EORTC/MSGERC definitions for classifying invasive fungal disease. This is a result of considerable efforts to standardize methodology, the availability of commercial assays and external quality control programs, and additional clinical validation. This supporting article provides both clinical and technical justifications for its inclusion while also summarizing recent advances and likely future developments in the molecular diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis.

Taskforce report on the diagnosis and clinical management of COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis.

PURPOSE: Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) is increasingly reported in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Diagnosis and management of COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) are challenging and our aim was to develop practical guidance. METHODS: A group of 28 international experts reviewed current insights in the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of CAPA and developed recommendations using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: The prevalence of CAPA varied between 0 and 33%, which may be partly due to variable case definitions, but likely represents true variation. Bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) remain the cornerstone of CAPA diagnosis, allowing for diagnosis of invasive Aspergillus tracheobronchitis and collection of the best validated specimen for Aspergillus diagnostics. Most patients diagnosed with CAPA lack traditional host factors, but pre-existing structural lung disease and immunomodulating therapy may predispose to CAPA risk. Computed tomography seems to be of limited value to rule CAPA in or out, and serum biomarkers are negative in 85% of patients. As the mortality of CAPA is around 50%, antifungal therapy is recommended for BAL positive patients, but the decision to treat depends on the patients' clinical condition and the institutional incidence of CAPA. We recommend against routinely stopping concomitant corticosteroid or IL-6 blocking therapy in CAPA patients. CONCLUSION: CAPA is a complex disease involving a continuum of respiratory colonization, tissue invasion and angioinvasive disease. Knowledge gaps including true epidemiology, optimal diagnostic work-up, management strategies and role of host-directed therapy require further study.

Defining and managing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis: the 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus criteria for research and clinical guidance.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causes direct damage to the airway epithelium, enabling aspergillus invasion. Reports of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis have raised concerns about it worsening the disease course of COVID-19 and increasing mortality. Additionally, the first cases of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis caused by azole-resistant aspergillus have been reported. This article constitutes a consensus statement on defining and managing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis, prepared by experts and endorsed by medical mycology societies. COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis is proposed to be defined as possible, probable, or proven on the basis of sample validity and thus diagnostic certainty. Recommended first-line therapy is either voriconazole or isavuconazole. If azole resistance is a concern, then liposomal amphotericin B is the drug of choice. Our aim is to provide definitions for clinical research and up-to-date recommendations for clinical management of the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis.

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Invasive Aspergillosis as an Under-recognized Superinfection in COVID-19.

Pulmonary aspergillosis has been increasingly reported following severe respiratory viral infections. Millions have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, placing large numbers of patients at-risk for COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). Prompt recognition of this syndrome and is paramount to improve outcomes.

Review of influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis in ICU patients and proposal for a case definition: an expert opinion.

PURPOSE: Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis is increasingly reported in patients with influenza admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Classification of patients with influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (IAPA) using the current definitions for invasive fungal diseases has proven difficult, and our aim was to develop case definitions for IAPA that can facilitate clinical studies. METHODS: A group of 29 international experts reviewed current insights into the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of IAPA and proposed a case definition of IAPA through a process of informal consensus. RESULTS: Since IAPA may develop in a wide range of hosts, an entry criterion was proposed and not host factors. The entry criterion was defined as a patient requiring ICU admission for respiratory distress with a positive influenza test temporally related to ICU admission. In addition, proven IAPA required histological evidence of invasive septate hyphae and mycological evidence for Aspergillus. Probable IAPA required the detection of galactomannan or positive Aspergillus culture in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or serum with pulmonary infiltrates or a positive culture in upper respiratory samples with bronchoscopic evidence for tracheobronchitis or cavitating pulmonary infiltrates of recent onset. The IAPA case definitions may be useful to classify patients with COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA), while awaiting further studies that provide more insight into the interaction between Aspergillus and the SARS-CoV-2-infected lung. CONCLUSION: A consensus case definition of IAPA is proposed, which will facilitate research into the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of this emerging acute and severe Aspergillus disease, and may be of use to study CAPA.