A beacon in the dark: COVID-19 course in CVID patients from two European countries: Different approaches, similar outcomes.

Background: CVID patients present an increased risk of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection and re-infection and a higher COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality compared to the general population. Since 2021, different therapeutic and prophylactic strategies have been employed in vulnerable groups (vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and antivirals). The impact of treatments over the last 2 years has not been explored in international studies considering the emergence of viral variants and different management between countries. Methods: A multicenter retrospective/prospective real-life study comparing the prevalence and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection between a CVID cohort from four Italian Centers (IT-C) and one cohort from the Netherlands (NL-C), recruiting 773 patients. Results: 329 of 773 CVID patients were found positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1st, 2020 and September 1st 2022. The proportion of CVID patients infected was comparable in both national sub-cohorts. During all waves, chronic lung disease, "complicated" phenotype, chronic immunosuppressive treatment and cardiovascular comorbidities impacted on hospitalization, whereas risk factors for mortality were older age, chronic lung disease, and bacterial superinfections. IT-C patients were significantly more often treated, both with antivirals and mAbs, than NL-C patients. Outpatient treatment, available only in Italy, started from the Delta wave. Despite this, no significant difference was found for COVID-19 severity between the two cohorts. However, pooling together specific SARS-CoV-2 outpatient treatments (mAbs and antivirals), we found a significant effect on the risk of hospitalization starting from Delta wave. Vaccination with ≥ 3 doses shortened RT-PCR positivity, with an additional effect only in patients receiving antivirals. Conclusions: The two sub-cohorts had similar COVID-19 outcomes despite different treatment approaches. This points out that specific treatment should now be reserved for selected subgroups of CVID patients, based on pre-existing conditions.

Real-life data on monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs in Italian inborn errors of immunity patients during COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 virus showing a spectrum of disease ranging from asymptomatic to severe COVID-19. A fair number of patients did not respond adequately to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, thus early therapeutic or prophylactic measures were needed to prevent severe or fatal course or COVID-19 and to reduce the burden of hospitalizations. Methods: Longitudinal, multicentric study on patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity immunized with mRNA vaccines treated with monoclonal antibodies and/or antiviral agents at the first infection and at reinfection by SARS-CoV-2. Analyses of efficacy were performed according to the different circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains. Results: The analysis of the cohort of 192 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, across 26 months, showed the efficacy of antivirals on the risk of hospitalization, while mabs offered a positive effect on hospitalization, and COVID-19 severity. This protection was consistent across the alpha, delta and early omicron waves, although the emergence of BA.2 reduced the effect of available mabs. Hospitalized patients treated with mabs and antivirals had a lower risk of ICU admission. We reported 16 re-infections with a length of SARS-CoV-2 positivity at second infection shorter among patients treated with mabs. Treatment with antivirals and mabs was safe. Conclusions: The widespread use of specific therapy, vaccination and better access to care might have contributed to mitigate risk of mortality, hospital admission, and severe disease. However, the rapid spread of new viral strains underlines that mabs and antiviral beneficial effects should be re- evaluated over time.

Real-life data on monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs in Italian inborn errors of immunity patients during COVID-19 pandemic

Background Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 virus showing a spectrum of disease ranging from asymptomatic to severe COVID-19. A fair number of patients did not respond adequately to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, thus early therapeutic or prophylactic measures were needed to prevent severe or fatal course or COVID-19 and to reduce the burden of hospitalizations. Methods Longitudinal, multicentric study on patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity immunized with mRNA vaccines treated with monoclonal antibodies and/or antiviral agents at the first infection and at reinfection by SARS-CoV-2. Analyses of efficacy were performed according to the different circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains. Results The analysis of the cohort of 192 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, across 26 months, showed the efficacy of antivirals on the risk of hospitalization, while mabs offered a positive effect on hospitalization, and COVID-19 severity. This protection was consistent across the alpha, delta and early omicron waves, although the emergence of BA.2 reduced the effect of available mabs. Hospitalized patients treated with mabs and antivirals had a lower risk of ICU admission. We reported 16 re-infections with a length of SARS-CoV-2 positivity at second infection shorter among patients treated with mabs. Treatment with antivirals and mabs was safe. Conclusions The widespread use of specific therapy, vaccination and better access to care might have contributed to mitigate risk of mortality, hospital admission, and severe disease. However, the rapid spread of new viral strains underlines that mabs and antiviral beneficial effects should be re- evaluated over time.

Multidimensional 3-Month Follow-Up of Severe COVID-19: Airways beyond the Parenchyma in Symptomatic Patients.

SARS-CoV-2 may lead to a large spectrum of respiratory manifestations, including pulmonary sequelae. We conducted a single-center longitudinal study of survivors from severe COVID-19 cases who underwent a chest CT during hospitalization (CTH). Three months after being discharged, these patients were evaluated by a clinical examination, pulmonary function tests and a chest-CT scan (CTFU). Sixty-two patients were enrolled. At follow-up, 27% complained of exertional dyspnoea and 12% of cough. Dyspnoeic patients had a lower forced expiratory flow (FEF)25-75 (p = 0.015), while a CT scan (p = 0.016 showed that patients with cough had a higher extent of bronchiectasis. Lung volumes and diffusion of carbon monoxide (DLCO) at follow-up were lower in patients who had been invasively ventilated, which correlated inversely with the length of hospitalization and ground-glass extension at CTH. At follow-up, 14.5% of patients had a complete radiological resolution, while 85.5% presented persistence of ground-glass opacities, and 46.7% showed fibrotic-like alterations. Residual ground-glass at CTFU was related to the length of hospitalization (r = 0.48; p = 0.0002) and to the need for mechanical ventilation or high flow oxygen (p = 0.01) during the acute phase. In conclusion, although patients at three months from discharge showed functional impairment and radiological abnormalities, which correlated with a prolonged hospital stay and need for mechanical ventilation, the persistence of respiratory symptoms was related not to parenchymal but rather to airway sequelae.

Mortality in Severe Antibody Deficiencies Patients during the First Two Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Vaccination and Monoclonal Antibodies Efficacy.

Patients with severely impaired antibody responses represent a group at-risk in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic due to the lack of Spike-specific neutralizing antibodies. The main objective of this paper was to assess, by a longitudinal prospective study, COVID-19 infection and mortality rates, and disease severity in the first two years of the pandemic in a cohort of 471 Primary Antibody Defects adult patients. As secondary endpoints, we compared SARS-CoV-2 annual mortality rate to that observed over a 10-year follow-up in the same cohort, and we assessed the impact of interventions done in the second year, vaccination and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies administration on the disease outcome. Forty-one and 84 patients were infected during the first and the second year, respectively. Despite a higher infection and reinfection rate, and a higher COVID-19-related mortality rate compared to the Italian population, the pandemic did not modify the annual mortality rate for any cause in our cohort compared to that registered over the last ten years in the same cohort. PADs patients who died from COVID-19 had an underlying end-stage lung disease. We showed a beneficial effect of MoAbs administration on the likelihood of hospitalization and development of severe disease. In conclusion, COVID-19 did not cause excess mortality in Severe Antibody Deficiencies.

Impact of Hypogammaglobulinemia on the Course of COVID-19 in a Non-Intensive Care Setting: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Severity and mortality of COVID-19 largely depends on the ability of the immune system to clear the virus. Among various comorbidities potentially impacting on this process, the weight and the consequences of an antibody deficiency have not yet been clarified. Methods: We used serum protein electrophoresis to screen for hypogammaglobulinemia in a cohort of consecutive adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalized in non-intensive care setting between December 2020 and January 2021. The disease severity, measured by a validated score and by the need for semi intensive (sICU) or intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the 30-day mortality was compared between patients presenting hypogammaglobulinemia (HYPO) and without hypogammaglobulinemia (no-HYPO). Demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 specific treatment during the hospital stay, disease duration, complications and laboratory parameters were also evaluated in both groups. Results: We enrolled 374 patients, of which 39 represented the HYPO cohort (10.4%). In 10/39 the condition was previously neglected, while in the other 29/39 hematologic malignancies were common (61.5%); 2/39 were on regular immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT). Patients belonging to the HYPO group more frequently developed a severe COVID-19 and more often required sICU/ICU admission than no-HYPO patients. IgRT were administered in 8/39 during hospitalization; none of them died or needed sICU/ICU. Among HYPO cohort, we observed a significantly higher prevalence of neoplastic affections, of active oncologic treatment and bronchiectasis, together with higher prevalence of viral and bacterial superinfections, mechanical ventilation, convalescent plasma and SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies administration during hospital stay, and longer disease duration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression confirmed the impact of hypogammaglobulinemia on the COVID-19 severity and the probability of sICU/ICU admission. The analysis of the mortality rate in the whole cohort showed no significant difference between HYPO and no-HYPO. Conclusions: Hypogammaglobulinemia, regardless of its cause, in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a non-intensive care setting was associated to a more severe disease course and more frequent admission to s-ICU/ICU, particularly in absence of IgRT. Our findings emphasize the add-value of routine serum protein electrophoresis evaluation in patients admitted with COVID-19 to support clinicians in patient care and to consider IgRT initiation during hospitalization.

Comparison between Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone Therapy in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia Admitted to Non-Intensive Medical Units.

(1) Background: Data on different steroid compounds for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) patients are still limited. The aim of this study was to compare COVID-19 patients admitted to non-intensive units and treated with methylprednisolone or dexamethasone. (2) Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study that included consecutive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in medical wards during the second wave of the pandemic. Thirty-day mortality and the need for intensive or semi-intensive care were the main clinical outcomes analyzed in patients receiving methylprednisolone (60 mg/day) compared with dexamethasone (6 mg/day). Secondary outcomes included complication rates, length of hospital stay, and time to viral clearance. (3) Results: Two-hundred-forty-six patients were included in the analysis, 110 treated with dexamethasone and 136 with methylprednisolone. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups of patients regarding 30-day mortality (OR 1.35, CI95% 0.71-2.56, p = 0.351) and the need for intensive or semi-intensive care (OR 1.94, CI95% 0.81-4.66, p = 0.136). The complication rates, length of hospital stay, and time to viral clearance did not significantly differ between the two groups. (4) Conclusions: In patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in non-intensive units, the choice of different steroid compounds, such as dexamethasone or methylprednisolone, did not affect the main clinical outcomes.

Pneumothorax and/or Pneumomediastinum Worsens the Prognosis of COVID-19 Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter Retrospective Case-Control Study in the North-East of Italy.

Pneumothorax (PNX) and pneumomediastinum (PNM) are potential complications of COVID-19, but their influence on patients' outcomes remains unclear. The aim of the study was to assess incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of severe COVID-19 complicated with PNX/PNM. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter case-control analysis was conducted in COVID-19 patients admitted for respiratory failure in intermediate care units of the Treviso area, Italy, from March 2020 to April 2021. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without PNX/PNM were compared. RESULTS: Among 1213 patients, PNX and/or PNM incidence was 4.5%. Among these, 42% had PNX and PNM, 33.5% only PNX, and 24.5% only PNM. COVID-19 patients with PNX/PNM showed higher in-hospital (p = 0.02) and 90-days mortality (p = 0.048), and longer hospitalization length (p = 0.002) than COVID-19 patients without PNX/PNM. At PNX/PNM occurrence, one-third of subjects was not mechanically ventilated, and the respiratory support was similar to the control group. PNX/PNM occurrence was associated with longer symptom length before hospital admission (p = 0.005) and lower levels of blood lymphocytes (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: PNX/PNM are complications of COVID-19 associated with a worse prognosis in terms of mortality and length of hospitalization. Although they are more frequent in ventilated patients, they can occur in non-ventilated, suggesting that mechanisms other than barotrauma might contribute to their presentation.

Vaccination in PADs.

Primary antibody deficiencies (PADs) are the most common primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs). They can be divided into the following groups, depending on their immunological features: agammaglobulinemia; common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) isotype; hyper IgM isotype; light chain or functional deficiencies with normal B cell count; specific antibody deficiency with normal Ig concentrations and normal numbers of B cells and transient hypogammaglobulinemia of infancy. The role of vaccination in PADs is recognized as therapeutic, diagnostic and prognostic and may be used in patients with residual B-cell function to provide humoral immunity to specific infective agents. According to their content and mechanisms, vaccines are grouped as live attenuated, inactivated (conjugated, polysaccharide), mRNA or replication-deficient vector vaccines. Vaccination may be unsafe or less effective when using certain vaccines and in specific types of immunodeficiency. Inactivated vaccines can be administered in PAD patients even if they could not generate a protective response; live attenuated vaccines are not recommended in major antibody deficiencies. From December 2020, European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved vaccines against COVID-19 infection: according to ESID advises, those vaccinations are recommended in patients with PADs. No specific data are available on safety and efficacy in PAD patients.

Venom immunotherapy during COVID-19 pandemic: Experience from a University Allergy Center in Northern Italy.

During the ongoing pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) allergic patients need to continue their constant and proper treatment, including allergen-specific immunotherapy. These patients are expected to be at a higher risk for exacerbation of lung inflammation during viral infection. We investigated the putative interplay existing between allergen-specific immunotherapy and COVID-19 infection in a Hymenoptera venom-allergic population. We evaluated the frequency and severity of COVID-19 infection in a cohort of 211 subjects referring to our center for the regular administration of venom immunotherapy (VIT). Our result showed that the median age of our cohort is similar to the one that in our region has been associated with a high incidence of COVID-19 infection, increased hospitalization, and mortality rates. We reported only an isolated positivity of COVID-19 in the overall group; whereas none suffered from upper airway symptoms associated with COVID-19 (fever, cough, dyspnoea, sore throat, anosmia, and/or ageusia). Even though the demographic characteristics pose a substantial risk for such a population, we suggest that a regular administration of VIT may help in the development of an immunological milieu able to down modulate the Th1/Th17 environment that has been linked to inflammatory manifestations of COVID-19. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first description of the incidence of COVID-19 infection in Hymenoptera venom allergic patients treated with VIT, suggesting indirectly that venom immune tolerance-inducing treatment may be capable of reducing the aberrant inflammatory response induced by the virus in this specific population.

Use of RAAS Inhibitors and Risk of Clinical Deterioration in COVID-19: Results From an Italian Cohort of 133 Hypertensives.

BACKGROUND: The effect of chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the severity of COVID-19 infection is still unclear in patients with hypertension. We aimed to investigate the association between chronic use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and COVID-19-related outcomes in hypertensive patients. METHODS: A single-center study was conducted on 133 consecutive hypertensive subjects presenting to the emergency department with acute respiratory symptoms and/or fever who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection between 9 and 31 March 2020. RESULTS: All patients were grouped according to their chronic antihypertensive medications (ACEIs, N = 40; ARBs, N = 42; not on RAAS inhibitors, N = 51). There was no statistical difference between ACEIs and ARBs groups in terms of hospital admission rate, oxygen therapy, and need for noninvasive ventilation. Patients chronically treated with RAAS inhibitors showed a significantly lower rate of admission to semi-intensive/intensive care units, when compared with the non-RAAS population (odds ratio (OR) 0.25, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.09-0.66, P = 0.006). Similarly, the risk of mortality was lower in the former group, although not reaching statistical significance (OR 0.56, CI 95% 0.17-1.83, P = 0.341). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that chronic use of RAAS inhibitors does not negatively affect clinical course of COVID-19 in hypertensive patients. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding and determine whether RAAS inhibitors may have a protective effect on COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.