Real-life experience with remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 among older adults: a multicentre retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of remdesivir on COVID-19 mortality remains conflicting. Elderly individuals are at risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to assess the effect of remdesivir on COVID-19 mortality among elderly individuals, using real-world data. METHODS: Retrospective multinational cohort of individuals aged ≥65 years, hospitalized with COVID-19 in six medical centres between January 2020 and May 2021. Associations with in-hospital mortality were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model with propensity score adjustment for remdesivir therapy and while implementing generalized estimating equations to control for centre effect. Sensitivity analysis was performed by stratification according to the degree of respiratory support. RESULTS: Of 3010 individuals included, 2788 individuals required either oxygen supplementation or non-invasive/invasive mechanical ventilation, 489 (16%) were treated with remdesivir, and 836 (28%) died. Median age was 77 (IQR 70-84) years and 42% were women. Remdesivir was the only therapeutic intervention associated with decreased mortality [adjusted OR (aOR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.66, P < 0.001]. This protective effect was shown for individuals requiring oxygen support and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, while no association was found among individuals necessitating invasive mechanical ventilation.Risk factors for mortality included invasive ventilation (aOR 5.18, 95% CI 2.46-10.91, P < 0.001), higher serum creatinine (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.43, P = 0.001) and dyspnoea (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 1.07-1.84, P = 0.015) on presentation, and other non-modifiable factors, such as comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Among elderly individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, remdesivir carries survival benefit for those with moderate to severe disease. Its role among individuals with critical illness should be further assessed.

Predictors of survival in elderly patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the hospital: derivation and validation of the FLAMINCOV score.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of 30-day survival in elderly patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including patients with COVID-19 aged ≥65 years hospitalized in six European sites (January 2020 to May 2021). Data on demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were collected. A predictive score (FLAMINCOV) was developed using logistic regression. Regression coefficients were used to calculate the score. External validation was performed in a cohort including elderly patients from a major COVID-19 centre in Israel. Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the derivation and validation cohorts. Survival risk groups based on the score were derived and applied to the validation cohort. RESULTS: Among 3010 patients included in the derivation cohort, 30-day survival was 74.5% (2242/3010). The intensive care unit admission rate was 7.6% (228/3010). The model predicting survival included independent functional status (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 3.93-6.03), a oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO2/FiO2) ratio of >235 (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.04-4.63), a C-reactive protein level of <14 mg/dL (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.91-3.04), a creatinine level of <1.3 (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.62-2.52) mg/dL, and absence of fever (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66). The score was validated in 1174 patients. The FLAMINCOV score ranges from 0 to 15 and showed good discrimination in the derivation (AUC, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.81; p < 0.001) and validation cohorts (AUC, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81; p < 0.001). Thirty-day survival ranged from 39.4% (203/515) to 95.3% (634/665) across four risk groups according to score quartiles in the derivation cohort. Similar proportions were observed in the validation set. DISCUSSION: The FLAMINCOV score identifying elderly with higher or lower chances of survival may allow better triage and management, including intensive care unit admission/exclusion.

Efficacy and Safety of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, Molnupiravir, and Remdesivir in a Real-World Cohort of Outpatients with COVID-19 at High Risk of Progression: The PISA Outpatient Clinic Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Different antivirals are available for the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19. Our aim was to describe a real-world experience of outpatient management of COVID-19 subjects at high risk of progression. METHODS: This prospective observational study conducted in the University Hospital of Pisa (January 2022-July 2022) included consecutive COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for disease progression. Patients received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, molnupiravir, or 3-day remdesivir, according to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) indications. All patients were followed up until 30 days from the first positive nasopharyngeal swab. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or hospitalization. Secondary endpoints were occurrence of adverse events and a negative test within 10 days from the first positive test. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with death or hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 562 outpatients were included: 114 (20.3%) received molnupiravir, 252 (44.8%) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 196 (34.9%) 3-day remdesivir. The composite endpoint occurred in 2.5% of patients and was more frequent in patients treated with remdesivir (5.1%) compared with molnupiravir (1.8%) or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (0.8%, ANOVA among groups p = 0.012). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, presence of ≥ 3 comorbidities, hematological disease, gastrointestinal symptoms, and each-day increment from symptoms onset were factors associated with death or hospitalization, while antiviral treatment was not a predictor. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (49.2%). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with remdesivir was associated with a higher probability of having a negative test within 10 days from the first positive one. CONCLUSION: Death or hospitalization did not differ among high-risk COVID-19 outpatients treated with currently available antivirals. Safety and time to a negative test differed among the three drugs.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on tuberculosis outcome and follow-up in Italy during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave: a nationwide online survey.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected tuberculosis (TB) management. This Italian nationwide survey assessed COVID-19 impact on TB care and outcomes. Materials and methods: Twenty-one hospitals or referral centres fulfilled an online survey. Primary objective was to describe clinical features, outcomes and retention in care in subjects with latent TB infection (LTBI) or disease over the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary objectives were the assessment of risk factors, co-morbidities, diagnostics, radiological findings, and outcomes of COVID-19 in the study population. Results: 254 patients with LTBI or active TB were included. In co-infected (SARS-CoV-2, LTBI/TB) patients, recovery occurred in 29/32 (90.6%) cases, death in one case. High retention in care was preserved. Conclusion: in our cohort, outcomes did not seem to be adversely conditioned by incident COVID-19.

Pretomanid for tuberculosis treatment: an update for clinical purposes.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic determined a 10 years-set back in tuberculosis (TB) control programs. Recent advances in available therapies may help recover the time lost. While Linezolid (LZD) and Bedaquiline (BDQ), previously Group D second line drugs (SLDs) for TB, have been relocated to Group A, other drugs are currently being studied in regimens for drug resistant TB (DR-TB). Among these, Pretomanid (PA), a recently introduced antimycobacterial drug derived from nitroimidazole with both solid bactericidal and bacteriostatic effect, and with an excellent effectiveness and tolerability profile, is in the spotlight. Following promising data obtained from recently published and ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the World Health Organization (WHO) determined to include PA in its guidelines for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant (RR), multi drug resistant (MDR) and pre-extensively drug resistant TB (pre-XDR-TB) with BDQ, LZD and Moxifloxacine (MFX) in a 6-month regimen. Although further studies on the subject are needed, PA may also represent a treatment option for drug-susceptible TB (DS-TB), latent TB infection (LTBI) and non tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). This narrative review aims to examine current implementation options and future possibilities for PA in the never-ending fight against TB.

Recrudescence of Plasmodium falciparum malaria 5 years after treatment in an HIV migrant: a case report with a peculiar presentation.

In the last two decades, several cases of delayed-onset malaria in migrants from endemic areas were reported. The decrease of acquired immunity over time, often enhanced by immune suppression, represents a possible underlying mechanism for recrudescence. Here we describe a case of Plasmodium falciparum malaria occurring five years after exposure in a patient infected with human immunodeficiency virus, originating from Ivory Coast. Peculiarly, bilateral subsegmental pulmonary embolism in the absence of deep venous thrombosis was also detected, requiring anticoagulant therapy. Treatment with dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine was followed by clearance of trophozoites and the patient was discharged home.

Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in Hematological Patients.

Patients with specific hematological malignancies (HM) are at increased risk for severe disease and death from infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In healthy subjects, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been demonstrated to be highly effective in disease prevention; however, immunocompromised patients were largely excluded from vaccine randomized controlled trials. In this review, we overview available non-randomized studies addressing effectiveness and safety of several coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in patients with HM. Overall, COVID-19 vaccines are safe in patients with HM, with adverse events similar to those in the general population. Though serology testing is not recommended as a test to evaluate vaccine effectiveness, a correlation between higher antibody levels and protection against infection has been reported. Studies evaluating humoral response to COVID-19 vaccine in HM patients demonstrate low immunogenicity, mainly in patients with lymphoproliferative disorders, as well as with certain drugs, including mainly anti-CD20 antibodies, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and also ruxolitinib and venetoclax. Seropositivity rates of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia following mRNA vaccination reach 40%-50%. T-cell responses to vaccination are also impaired among these patients. Better humoral response rates are reported in multiple myeloma patients and hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, reaching ∼75%-80%, but not in patients following chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and myeloproliferative diseases have high response rate to vaccination. Third mRNA vaccine dose is currently recommended to all HM patients. Alternative approaches for vaccination and prevention in patients unable to mount an immune response following full vaccination are provided in the review.

Genitourinary Tuberculosis: A Comprehensive Review of a Neglected Manifestation in Low-Endemic Countries.

Genitourinary tuberculosis (GUTB) represents a disease often underestimated by urological specialists, particularly in settings such as the European one, where the pathology is less frequent. Similar to other uncommon diseases at these latitudes, GUTB is a neglected clinical problem. In this light, the aim of this review is to give a comprehensive overview of GUTB in order to provide a useful tool for urologists who seldomly manage this disease. A non-systematic review of genitourinary tuberculosis was performed on relevant articles published from January 1990 to July 2021 using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. GUTB represents up to a quarter of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) cases. Diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical work-up have been deeply reviewed and summarized. The mass migration of refugees to Europe as well as the ease of international travel is gradually leading to an upsurge in urological diseases such as GUTB, which were previously only rarely encountered in some European countries. The poor TB knowledge of European urologists should be improved through medical education courses, webinars or telematic means.

Efficacy of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and Casirivimab/Imdevimab in Preventing Progression to Severe COVID-19 and Role of Variants of Concern.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization or death in patients infected by SARS-CoV2 variants of concern (VOCs) receiving combinations of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. METHODS: Observational prospective study conducted in two Italian hospitals (University Hospital of Pisa and San Donato Hospital, Arezzo) including consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who received bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab from March 20th to May 10th 2021. All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to FDA/AIFA recommendations. Patients were divided into two study groups according to the infecting viral strain (VOCs): Alpha and Gamma group. The primary endpoint was a composite of hospitalization or death within 30 days from mAbs infusion. A Cox regression multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcome in the overall population. RESULTS: The study included 165 patients: 105 were infected by the VOC Alpha and 43 by the VOC Gamma. In the Alpha group, no differences in the primary endpoint were observed between patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Conversely, in the Gamma group, a higher proportion of patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab met the primary endpoint compared to those receiving casirivimab/imdevimab (55% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.013). On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, the Gamma variant and days from symptoms onset to mAbs infusion were factors independently associated with higher risk of hospitalization or death, while casirivimab/imdevimab was protective (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.83, p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: In patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant, bamlanivimab/etesevimab should be used with caution because of the high risk of disease progression.

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in an Adult (MIS-A) Successfully Treated with Anakinra and Glucocorticoids.

During the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a novel syndrome termed "multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children" (MIS-C) has emerged. MIS-C was linked to COVID-19 and shared some features with Kawasaki disease and Toxic Shock Syndrome, with a common pathogenetic substrate of hyperinflammation and cytokine storm. Lately, MIS was also described in adults (≥21 years of age) and named "MIS-A". There is no consensus about the treatment of MIS-A; successful use of glucocorticoids and immunoglobulins has been reported in case series, but more solid evidence is lacking. Furthermore, the role of biologic agents with proven benefits against COVID-19, MIS-C, or Kawasaki disease is still unexplored. In this report, we detail the clinical picture and the diagnostic process that led to the diagnosis of MIS-A in a 27-year-old man, focusing on its treatment with anakinra and glucocorticoids, which resulted in full recovery. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the successful use of anakinra for MIS-A, a drug that has already proven useful in the treatment of refractive cases of MIS-C. Anakinra may also play a pivotal role for the treatment of MIS-A.

SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test as a Diagnostic Tool in Hospitalized Patients and Healthcare Workers, at a large Teaching Hospital in northern Italy, during the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic

We describe the outcome of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG/IgM rapid test, and discuss the potential suitability of antibody testing. Retrospective single cohort study on patients with suspected Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and asymptomatic Healthcare Workers, enrolled from March to April 2020. Subjects had quantitative PCR (qPCR) test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 via nasal swab and serological testing using the COVID-19 IgG/ IgM Rapid Test (PRIMA Lab SA) immunochromatographic assay. Some subjects underwent chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) after rapid test. The aim of the study was to analyse the proportion of those who developed a positive IgM/IgG response for SARS-CoV-2. The correspondence between the results from rapid testing and CLIA, when available, was evaluated. 97 subjects underwent qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 through nasal swab, which resulted positive in 40/43 (93.0%) of symptomatic patients, 2/40 (5%) of asymptomatic HCW, in no subjects with suspected COVID-19 (clinical and radiological findings) then excluded by repeated nasal swabs and alternative diagnosis (COVID-19-negative patients, CNPs), and in 6/6 (100%) of patients with confirmed diagnosis and negative follow-up nasal swabs (COVID-19-recovered patients, CRPs). IgM resulted positive in 8/43 (18.6%) of symptomatic patients and in 1/6 (16.7%) of CRPs. IgG resulted positive in 36/43 (83.7%) of symptomatic patients, 2/40 (5%) of HCW, and in 1/8 (12.5%) and 6/6 (100%) of CNPs and CRPs, respectively. A comparison between an IgG/IgM Rapid Test and a following CLIA test showed consistency in negative results in 25/28 of HCW and 8/8 of CNPs tested. Our preliminary data support the role of IgG/IgM Rapid Test (PRIMA Lab SA) immunochromatographic assay as a point-of-care test that may complement molecular tests in the screening of SARS-CoV-2 carriers. The test may gain particular relevance in shortening the time needed to refer patients to a COVID or non-COVID Hospital area and to achieve diagnosis in patients with persistently negative nasal swabs.

The Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak on the Psychological Flexibility and Behaviour of Cancelling Medical Appointments of Italian Patients with Pre-Existing Medical Condition: The "ImpACT-COVID-19 for Patients" Multi-Centre Observational Study.

Psychological distress imposed by the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak particularly affects patients with pre-existing medical conditions, and the progression of their diseases. Patients who fail to keep scheduled medical appointments experience a negative impact on care. The aim of this study is to investigate the psychosocial factors contributing to the cancellation of medical appointments during the pandemic by patients with pre-existing health conditions. Data were collected in eleven Italian hospitals during the last week of lockdown, and one month later. In order to assess the emotional impact of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and the subject's degree of psychological flexibility, we developed an ad hoc questionnaire (ImpACT), referring to the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) model. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) and the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ) were also used. Pervasive dysfunctional use of experiential avoidance behaviours (used with the function to avoid thought, emotions, sensations), feelings of loneliness and high post-traumatic stress scores were found to correlate with the fear of COVID-19, increasing the likelihood of cancelling medical appointments. Responding promptly to the information and psychological needs of patients who cancel medical appointments can have positive effects in terms of psychological and physical health.

Accidental diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia after 18F FDG PET/CT: a case series.

Purpose: The aim of this case series is to illustrate possible [18F]-FDG uptake patterns associated to COVID-19. Methods: Retrospective assessment of all Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) scans performed for any clinical / oncological reason from 1st April 2020 to 30th April 2020. Results of PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 were retrieved for all patients with lung consolidations and/or peripheral ground glass opacities characterized by increased metabolism to evaluate any possible association with the viral infection. Results: Seven (4%) out of 172 FDG-PET scans were included. Six out of seven patients (85%) had positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, while one patient (15%) had possible (not PCR confirmed) COVID-19 pneumonia. Conclusion: Suspicious accidental COVID-19 findings in Nuclear Medicine Department need to be reported and appropriately evaluated to implement proper supportive treatment and infection control measures.

Sensitivity, Specificity and Predictive Values of Molecular and Serological Tests for COVID-19: A Longitudinal Study in Emergency Room.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of molecular and serological tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A total of 346 patients were enrolled in the emergency room. We evaluated three Reverse Transcriptase-real time PCRs (RT-PCRs) including six different gene targets, five serologic rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and one ELISA. The final classification of infected/non-infected patients was performed using Latent Class Analysis combined with clinical re-assessment of incongruous cases. RESULTS: Out of these, 24.6% of patients were classified as infected. The molecular test RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 showed the highest performance with 91.8% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100.0% PPV and 97.4% NPV respectively. Considering the single gene targets, S and RdRp of RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 had the highest sensitivity (94.1%). The in-house RdRp presented the lowest sensitivity (62.4%). The specificity ranged from 99.2% for in-house RdRp and N2 to 95.0% for E. The PPV ranged from 97.1% of N2 to 85.4% of E and the NPV from 98.1% of S to 89.0% of in-house RdRp. All serological tests had < 50% sensitivity and low PPV and NPV. VivaDiag IgM (RDT) had 98.5% specificity, with 84.0% PPV, but 24.7% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection showed excellent specificity, but significant differences in sensitivity. Serological tests have limited utility in a clinical context.