Protection from successive Omicron variants with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and monoclonal antibodies in kidney transplant recipients.

Introduction: Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) are at high risk of severe COVID-19, even when they are fully vaccinated. Additional booster vaccinations or passive immunization with prophylactic monoclonal antibodies are recommended to increase their protection against severe COVID-19. Methods: Here, we describe the neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Delta, Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 variants, firstly by 39 serum samples from vaccinated KTRs exhibiting anti-spike antibody concentrations ≥264 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL and, secondly, by tixagevimab/cilgavimab. Results: No neutralization was observed for 18% of the KTRs, while serum from only 46% of patients could neutralize the five variants. Cross-neutralization of the Delta and Omicron variants occurred for 65-87% of sera samples. The anti-spike antibody concentration correlated with neutralization activity for all the variants. The neutralization titers against the Delta variant were higher in vaccinated KTRs who had previously presented with COVID-19, compared to those KTRs who had only been vaccinated. Breakthrough infections occurred in 39% of the KTRs after the study. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab poorly neutralizes Omicron variants, particularly BA.5, and does not neutralize BQ.1, which is currently the most prevalent strain. Discussion: As a result, sera from seropositive vaccinated KTRs had poor neutralization of the successive Omicron variants. Several Omicron variants are able to escape tixagevimab/cilgavimab.

Presence of specific SARS-COV2 antibodies in hemodialysis patients and their caregivers after the first wave of COVID-19.

Hemodialysis (HD) patients are at risk for severe COVID-19 and cannot comply with social distancing. SARS-COV2 seroprevalence in French patients and caregivers after the first wave of COVID-19 is unknown. SeroCOVIDial is a prospective study conducted between June and December 2020. SARS-COV2 seroprevalence was evaluated by a rapid serological test (BIOSYNEX) in HD patients and caregivers, and the presence or not of anti-SARS-COV2 neutralizing or non-neutralizing antibodies in patients was also determined by ELISA and seroneutralization. In June 2020, 451 HD patients and 238 caregivers were included. Overall SARS-COV2 seroprevalence was 8.4% (patients) and 6.7% (caregivers), and was 87.1% (patients) and 90.0% (caregivers) in participants with a previously documented SARS-COV2 infection. Overall seroprevalence reached 13.8% (patients) and 12.6% (caregivers) following the second epidemic wave. During the follow-up, 38 (8.4%) patients died (9 of COVID-19). Among the 44 (10.6%) patients who became infected, only two were seropositive at M0. The levels of anti-SARS-COV2 antibodies decreased over time in patients and caregivers. The BIOSYNEX test showed 82.9% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity. Prevalence of anti-SARS-COV2 antibodies was low in HD patients and caregivers after the first epidemic wave but rose after the second wave. A rapid serological test showed good performances and could be useful for future monitoring of anti-SARS-COV2 antibodies.

Spike and neutralizing antibodies response to COVID-19 vaccination in haemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Humoral response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines needs to be evaluated in the fragile population of patients on maintenance haemodialysis (HD). METHODS: We analysed the antibody response to the spike (S) antigen of SARS-CoV-2 before and after each dose of the messenger RNA (mRNA) Comirnaty vaccine (BNT162b2; BioNTech & Pfizer) in patients from a single dialysis centre and detected the presence of neutralizing antibodies (Nabs). RESULTS: Among the 90 vaccinated HD patients (mean age 69 years, 61% male), 19 (21%) had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A seroconversion with anti-S immunoglobulin G antibodies (Sabs) was documented in 20% of patients after the first dose (early responders) and in 77% after the second dose, while 23% were non-responders. Cardiac disease, cirrhosis and gamma globulin levels were independently predictive of the absence of seroconversion. Nabs were detected in 15.4% of early responders after the first dose and in 84.6% of early responders and 57.9% of late responders after the second dose. Sab titres after the second dose were higher in patients with Nab than without Nab {598 [interquartile range (IQR) 246-882]) versus 134 [IQR 61-390]; P < 0.0001}. All patients with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection developed both Sabs and Nabs and their titres for Sabs and Nabs were higher than in late responders. CONCLUSIONS: Most HD patients develop a substantial humoral response against SARS-CoV2, with Nabs, following the mRNA vaccine. Whether this immunity persists over time and is able to efficiently protect patients from coronavirus disease 2019 remains to be determined.

Inpatient Use of Metformin and Acarbose Is Associated with Reduced Mortality of COVID-19 Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (preprint)

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a strong risk factor for complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The effect of T2DM medications on COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear. In a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 131 patients with T2DM hospitalized for COVID-19 in Wuhan, we have previously found that metformin use prior to hospitalization is associated with reduced mortality. Here we continue to investigate the effects of inpatient use of T2DM medications, including metformin, acarbose, insulin, and sulfonylureas, on the mortality of COVID-19 patients with T2DM during hospitalization. We found that patients using metformin and acarbose, alone or both together, after admission were significantly more likely to survive than those who did not use either metformin or acarbose. Thus, our analyses suggest that inpatient use of metformin and acarbose together or alone during hospitalization should be studied in randomized trials.

Risk factors for severity of COVID-19 in chronic dialysis patients from a multicentre French cohort.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease, related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Few data are available in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of COVID-19 patients at 11 dialysis centres in two distinct districts of France to examine the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in this population, and to determine risk factors of disease severity (defined as a composite outcome including intensive care unit admission or death) and mortality. RESULTS: Among the 2336 patients enrolled, 5.5% had confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Of the 122 patients with a follow-up superior to 28 days, 37% reached the composite outcome and 28% died. Multivariate analysis showed that oxygen therapy on diagnosis and a decrease in lymphocyte count were independent risk factors associated with disease severity and with mortality. Chronic use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (18% of patients) was associated with a protective effect on mortality. Treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine (AZT/HCQ) (46% of patients) were not associated with the composite outcome and with death in univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is a severe disease with poor prognosis in patients with ESRD. Usual treatment with ARBs seems to be protective of critical evolution and mortality. There is no evidence of clinical benefit with the combination of AZT/HCQ.

Dissemination of extreme levels of extracellular vesicles: tissue factor activity in patients with severe COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become one of the biggest public health challenges of this century. Severe forms of the disease are associated with a thrombo-inflammatory state that can turn into thrombosis. Because tissue factor (TF) conveyed by extracellular vesicles (EVs) has been implicated in thrombosis, we quantified the EV-TF activity in a cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (n = 111) and evaluated its link with inflammation, disease severity, and thrombotic events. Patients with severe disease were compared with those who had moderate disease and with patients who had septic shock not related to COVID-19 (n = 218). The EV-TF activity was notably increased in patients with severe COVID-19 compared with that observed in patients with moderate COVID-19 (median, 231 [25th to 75th percentile, 39-761] vs median, 25 [25th to 75th percentile, 12-59] fM; P < .0001); EV-TF was correlated with leukocytes, D-dimer, and inflammation parameters. High EV-TF values were associated with an increased thrombotic risk in multivariable models. Compared with patients who had septic shock, those with COVID-19 were characterized by a distinct coagulopathy profile with significantly higher EV-TF and EV-fibrinolytic activities that were not counterbalanced by an increase in plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1). Thus, this article is the first to describe the dissemination of extreme levels of EV-TF in patients with severe COVID-19, which supports the international recommendations of systematic preventive anticoagulation in hospitalized patients and potential intensification of anticoagulation in patients with severe disease.

Triage of Patients Suspected of COVID-19 in Chronic Hemodialysis: Eosinophil Count Differentiates Low and High Suspicion of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Daily management to shield chronic dialysis patients from SARS-CoV-2 contamination makes patient care cumbersome. There are no screening methods to date and a molecular biology platform is essential to perform RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2; however, accessibility remains poor. Our goal was to assess whether the tools routinely used to monitor our hemodialysis patients could represent reliable and quickly accessible diagnostic indicators to improve the management of our hemodialysis patients in this pandemic environment. METHODS: In this prospective observational diagnostic study, we recruited patients from La Conception hospital. Patients were eligible for inclusion if suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection when arriving at our center for a dialysis session between March 12th and April 24th 2020. They were included if both RT-PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 and cell blood count on the day that infection was suspected were available. We calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: 37 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 16 (43.2%) were COVID-19 positive. For the day of suspected COVID-19, total leukocytes were significantly lower in the COVID-19 positive group (4.1 vs. 7.4 G/L, p = 0.0072) and were characterized by lower neutrophils (2.7 vs. 5.1 G/L, p = 0.021) and eosinophils (0.01 vs. 0.15 G/L, p = 0.0003). Eosinophil count below 0.045 G/L identified SARS-CoV-2 infection with AUC of 0.9 [95% CI 0.81-1] (p < 0.0001), sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 86%, a positive predictive value of 82%, a negative predictive value of 86% and a likelihood ratio of 6.04. CONCLUSIONS: Eosinophil count enables rapid routine screening of symptomatic chronic hemodialysis patients suspected of being COVID-19 within a range of low or high probability.

Triage of Patients Suspected of COVID-19 in Chronic Hemodialysis: Eosinophil Count Differentiates Low and High Suspicion of COVID-19

Background: Daily management to shield chronic dialysis patients from SARS-CoV-2 contamination makes patient care cumbersome. There are no screening methods to date and a molecular biology platform is essential to perform RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2;however, accessibility remains poor. Our goal was to assess whether the tools routinely used to monitor our hemodialysis patients could represent reliable and quickly accessible diagnostic indicators to improve the management of our hemodialysis patients in this pandemic environment. Methods: In this prospective observational diagnostic study, we recruited patients from La Conception hospital. Patients were eligible for inclusion if suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection when arriving at our center for a dialysis session between March 12th and April 24th 2020. They were included if both RT-PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 and cell blood count on the day that infection was suspected were available. We calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: 37 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 16 (43.2%) were COVID-19 positive. For the day of suspected COVID-19, total leukocytes were significantly lower in the COVID-19 positive group (4.1 vs. 7.4 G/L, p = 0.0072) and were characterized by lower neutrophils (2.7 vs. 5.1 G/L, p = 0.021) and eosinophils (0.01 vs. 0.15 G/L, p = 0.0003). Eosinophil count below 0.045 G/L identified SARS-CoV-2 infection with AUC of 0.9 [95% CI 0.81—1] (p <0.0001), sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 86%, a positive predictive value of 82%, a negative predictive value of 86% and a likelihood ratio of 6.04. Conclusions: Eosinophil count enables rapid routine screening of symptomatic chronic hemodialysis patients suspected of being COVID-19 within a range of low or high probability.

Circulating Endothelial Cells as a Marker of Endothelial Injury in Severe COVID -19.

Beside the commonly described pulmonary expression of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), major vascular events have been reported. The objective of this study was to investigate whether increased levels of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) might be associated with severe forms of COVID-19. Ninety-nine patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients in the intensive care units (ICU) had significantly higher CEC counts than non-ICU patients and the extent of endothelial injury was correlated with putative markers of disease severity and inflammatory cytokines. Together, these data provide in vivo evidence that endothelial injury is a key feature of COVID-19.

Hoist the Yellow Flag and Spam® Up: The Separation of Powers Limitation on Hawaii’s Emergency Authority (preprint)

Hawaii’s government has a long experience responding to public health emergencies. But until 2014, when the Hawaii legislature adopted a comprehensive structural overhaul, Hawaii’s emergency response statutes and organization were a patchwork of scattered provisions that did not conform to modern emergency management and response practices. The law’s first major test has been a dramatic one: the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic. Hawaii’s governor exercised his authority to issue a declaration of emergency, and later issued supplemental proclamations purporting to extend the termination date for the emergency. This article analyzes whether the statute’s internal limitation on delegated emergency power—the “automatic termination” provision, under which an emergency proclamation terminates by law the sixtieth days after it was issued—may be enforced by the courts. It argues that that the circumstances in which a court would sustain a challenge are limited, and that the primary remedy will be a political one. It should not be so, however, because Hawaii precedents confirm that the courts should enforce the essential separation of powers boundaries between the other branches. This article examines the prominent narrative threads that have emerged from Hawaii’s history of adjudicating claims arising out of public health crises, quarantines, and emergencies, as a way of comparing the directions a court might take.