Efficacy of Tocilizumab in Severely Ill COVID-19 Patients With Rapid Respiratory Deterioration: A Single Center Experience During the Third Pandemic Wave in Greece.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Immunomodulatory therapy with Tocilizumab (TCZ), a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6 receptor-alpha, has been endorsed by the World Health Organization and other major regulatory bodies, as part of the standard-of-care therapy for severe or critical COVID-19 cases despite discordant trial outcomes. The aim of the present study was to report the experience of our center regarding TCZ routine use in severely ill COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized during the third pandemic wave in Greece. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 2021 to December 2021, we retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients with radiological findings of pneumonia and signs of rapid respiratory deterioration that were treated with TCZ. The primary outcome included the risk of intubation or/and death in TCZ-treated patients compared to matched controls. RESULTS: TCZ administration was neither predictive of intubation and/or death [OR=17.5 (95% CI=0.47-652.2; p=0.12)] or associated with fewer events (p=0.92) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our single-center real-life experience is in line with recently published research, revealing no benefit from TCZ routine use in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Presepsin as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker of severe bacterial infections and COVID-19.

We aimed to develop presepsin as a marker of diagnosis of severe infections of either bacterial and viral origin. The derivation cohort was recruited from 173 hospitalized patients with acute pancreatitis or post-operative fever or infection suspicion aggravated by at least one sign of the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA). The first validation cohort was recruited from 57 admissions at the emergency department with at least one qSOFA sign and the second validation cohort from 115 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Presepsin was measured in plasma by the PATHFAST assay. Concentrations more than 350 pg/ml had sensitivity 80.2% for sepsis diagnosis in the derivation cohort (adjusted odds ratio 4.47; p < 0.0001). In the derivation cohort, sensitivity for 28-day mortality prognosis was 91.5% (adjusted odds ratio 6.82; p: 0.001). Concentrations above 350 pg/ml had sensitivity 93.3% for the diagnosis of sepsis in the first validation cohort; this was 78.3% in the second validation cohort of COVID-19 aiming at the early diagnosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome necessitating mechanical ventilation. The respective sensitivity for 28-day mortality was 85.7% and 92.3%. Presepsin may be a universal biomarker for the diagnosis of severe infections of bacterial origin and prediction of unfavorable outcome.

Effectiveness of full (booster) COVID-19 vaccination against severe outcomes and work absenteeism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the Delta and Omicron waves in Greece

Aim We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of full (booster) vaccination against severe outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the Delta and Omicron waves. Methods The study extended from November 15, 2021 to April 17, 2022. Full vaccination was defined as a primary vaccination plus a booster ≥ 6 months later. Results We studied 1138 patients (mean age: 66.6 years), of whom 826 (72.6 %) had > 1 comorbidity. Of the 1138 patients, 75 (6.6 %) were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), 64 (5.6 %) received mechanical ventilation, and 172 (15.1 %) died. There were 386 (33.9 %) fully vaccinated, 172 (15.1 %) partially vaccinated, and 580 (51 %) unvaccinated patients. Unvaccinated patients were absent from work for longer periods compared to partially or fully vaccinated patients (mean absence of 20.1 days versus 12.3 and 17.3 days, respectively;p-value = 0.03). Compared to unvaccinated patients, fully vaccinated patients were less likely to be admitted to ICU [adjusted relative risk (ARR: 0.49;95 % CI: 0.29–0.84)], mechanically ventilated (ARR: 0.43;95 % CI: 0.23–0.80), and die (ARR: 0.57;95 % CI: 0.42–0.78), while they were hospitalized for significantly shorter periods (ARR: 0.79;95 % CI: 0.70–0.89). The adjusted full VE was 48.8 % (95 % CI: 42.7 %-54.9 %) against ICU admission, 55.4 % (95 % CI: 52.0 %-56.2 %) against mechanical ventilation, and 22.6 % (95 % CI: 7.4 %-34.8 %) against death. For patients with ≥ 3 comorbidities, VE was 56.2 % (95 % CI: 43.9 %-67.1 %) against ICU admission, 60.2 % (95 % CI: 53.7 %-65.4 %) against mechanical ventilation, and 43.9 % (95 % CI: 19.9 %-59.7 %) against death. Conclusions Full (booster) COVID-19 vaccination conferred protection against severe outcomes, prolonged hospitalization, and prolonged work absenteeism.

Effectiveness of full (booster) COVID-19 vaccination against severe outcomes and work absenteeism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the Delta and Omicron waves in Greece.

AIM: We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of full (booster) vaccination against severe outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the Delta and Omicron waves. METHODS: The study extended from November 15, 2021 to April 17, 2022. Full vaccination was defined as a primary vaccination plus a booster ≥ 6 months later. RESULTS: We studied 1138 patients (mean age: 66.6 years), of whom 826 (72.6 %) had ≥ 1 comorbidity. Of the 1138 patients, 75 (6.6 %) were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), 64 (5.6 %) received mechanical ventilation, and 172 (15.1 %) died. There were 386 (33.9 %) fully vaccinated, 172 (15.1 %) partially vaccinated, and 580 (51 %) unvaccinated patients. Unvaccinated patients were absent from work for longer periods compared to partially or fully vaccinated patients (mean absence of 20.1 days versus 12.3 and 17.3 days, respectively; p-value = 0.03). Compared to unvaccinated patients, fully vaccinated patients were less likely to be admitted to ICU [adjusted relative risk (ARR: 0.49; 95 % CI: 0.29-0.84)], mechanically ventilated (ARR: 0.43; 95 % CI: 0.23-0.80), and die (ARR: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.42-0.78), while they were hospitalized for significantly shorter periods (ARR: 0.79; 95 % CI: 0.70-0.89). The adjusted full VE was 48.8 % (95 % CI: 42.7 %-54.9 %) against ICU admission, 55.4 % (95 % CI: 52.0 %-56.2 %) against mechanical ventilation, and 22.6 % (95 % CI: 7.4 %-34.8 %) against death. For patients with ≥ 3 comorbidities, VE was 56.2 % (95 % CI: 43.9 %-67.1 %) against ICU admission, 60.2 % (95 % CI: 53.7 %-65.4 %) against mechanical ventilation, and 43.9 % (95 % CI: 19.9 %-59.7 %) against death. CONCLUSIONS: Full (booster) COVID-19 vaccination conferred protection against severe outcomes, prolonged hospitalization, and prolonged work absenteeism.

Endothelial dysfunction in acute and long standing COVID-19: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is implicated by active endotheliitis, and cardiovascular morbidity. The long-COVID-19 syndrome implications in atherosclerosis have not been elucidated yet. We assessed the immediate, intermediate, and long-term effects of COVID-19 on endothelial function. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at the medical ward or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) were enrolled and followed up to 6 months post-hospital discharge. Medical history and laboratory examinations were performed while the endothelial function was assessed by brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD). Comparison with propensity score-matched cohort (control group) was performed at the acute (upon hospital admission) and follow-up (1 and 6 months) stages. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (37% admitted in ICU) were recruited. FMD was significantly (p < 0.001) impaired in the COVID-19 group (1.65 ± 2.31%) compared to the control (6.51 ± 2.91%). ICU-treated subjects presented significantly impaired (p = 0.001) FMD (0.48 ± 1.01%) compared to those treated in the medical ward (2.33 ± 2.57%). During hospitalization, FMD was inversely associated with Interleukin-6 and Troponin I (p < 0.05 for all). Although, a significant improvement in FMD was noted during the follow-up (acute: 1.75 ± 2.19% vs. 1 month: 4.23 ± 2.02%, vs. 6 months: 5.24 ± 1.62%; p = 0.001), FMD remained impaired compared to control (6.48 ± 3.08%) at 1 month (p < 0.001) and 6 months (p = 0.01) post-hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients develop a notable endothelial dysfunction, which is progressively improved over a 6-month follow-up but remains impaired compared to healthy controls subjects. Whether chronic dysregulation of endothelial function following COVID-19 could be accompanied by a residual risk for cardiovascular and thrombotic events merits further research.

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Common Features in Two Patients Receiving Anti-CD20 Therapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Anti-CD20-depleting monoclonal antibodies predispose patients to the development of severe disease of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These antibodies are given as backbone or maintenance therapy in patients with hematological malignancies and rheumatology diseases, inducing effective B-cell depletion along with antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and disrupting infection-protective antibody responses. CASE REPORT: We describe two cases of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection with common features, in two patients receiving anti-CD20 therapies, the first for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and the second for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). For CLL patient, despite administration of antiviral therapy, signs and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection persisted for 43 days, with resolution and lymphocyte recovery from day 33. For RA patient, despite administration of two courses of antiviral therapy, signs and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection persisted for 47 days, without resolution and lymphocyte recovery, leading to a fatal outcome due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and unspecified sepsis. CONCLUSION: These two cases highlight the risk for persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies and support a role for cellular immunity recovery for disease control.

Interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10) for the early prognosis of the risk for severe respiratory failure and death in COVID-19 pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: Elevated concentrations of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) predict progression to severe respiratory failure (SRF) or death among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and guide early anakinra treatment. As suPAR testing may not be routinely available in every health-care setting, alternative biomarkers are needed. We investigated the performance of C-reactive protein (CRP), interferon gamma-induced protein-10 (IP-10) and TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) for predicting SRF or death in COVID-19. METHODS: Two cohorts were studied; one discovery cohort with 534 patients from the SAVE-MORE clinical trial; and one validation cohort with 364 patients from the SAVE trial including also 145 comparators. CRP, IP-10 and TRAIL were measured by the MeMed Key® platform in order to select the biomarker with the best prognostic performance for the early prediction of progression into SRF or death. RESULTS: IP-10 had the best prognostic performance: baseline concentrations 2000 pg/ml or higher predicted equally well to suPAR (sensitivity 85.0 %; negative predictive value 96.6 %). Odds ratio for poor outcome among anakinra-treated participants of the SAVE-MORE trial was 0.35 compared to placebo when IP-10 was 2,000 pg/ml or more. IP-10 could divide different strata of severity for SRF/death by day 14 in the validation cohort. Anakinra treatment decreased this risk irrespective the IP-10 concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: IP-10 concentrations of 2,000 pg/ml or higher are a valid alternative to suPAR for the early prediction of progression into SRF or death the first 14 days from hospital admission for COVID-19 and they may guide anakinra treatment. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04680949 and NCT04357366.

Delineating the SARS-CoV-2 Induced Interplay between the Host Immune System and the DNA Damage Response Network.

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and characterized by an extremely variable disease course, ranging from asymptomatic cases to severe illness. Although all individuals may be infected by SARS-CoV-2, some people, including those of older age and/or with certain health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease, are at higher risk of getting seriously ill. For cancer patients, there are both direct consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including that they are more likely to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and more prone to develop severe complications, as well as indirect effects, such as delayed cancer diagnosis or treatment and deferred tests. Accumulating data suggest that aberrant SARS-CoV-2 immune response can be attributed to impaired interferon signaling, hyper-inflammation, and delayed adaptive immune responses. Interestingly, the SARS-CoV-2-induced immunological abnormalities, DNA damage induction, generation of micronuclei, and the virus-induced telomere shortening can abnormally activate the DNA damage response (DDR) network that plays a critical role in genome diversity and stability. We present a review of the current literature regarding the molecular mechanisms that are implicated in the abnormal interplay of the immune system and the DDR network, possibly contributing to some of the COVID-19 complications.

Practical Recommendations for Optimal Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19: A Consensus Statement Based on Available Clinical Trials.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be strongly associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTE) mainly in the inpatient but also in the outpatient setting. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been shown to offer significant benefits in terms of reducing not only VTE events but also mortality, especially in acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Although the main source of evidence is derived from observational studies with several limitations, thromboprophylaxis is currently recommended for all hospitalized patients with acceptable bleeding risk by all national and international guidelines. Recently, high quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) further support the role of thromboprophylaxis and provide insights into the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy. The aim of this statement is to systematically review all the available evidence derived from RCTs regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19 in different settings (either inpatient or outpatient) and provide evidence-based guidance to practical questions in everyday clinical practice. Clinical questions accompanied by practical recommendations are provided based on data derived from 20 RCTs that were identified and included in the present study. Overall, the main conclusions are: (i) thromboprophylaxis should be administered in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, (ii) an optimal dose of inpatient thromboprophylaxis is dependent upon the severity of COVID-19, (iii) thromboprophylaxis should be administered on an individualized basis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 with high thrombotic risk, and (iv) thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely administered in outpatients. Changes regarding the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants, the wide immunization status (increasing rates of vaccination and reinfections), and the availability of antiviral therapies and monoclonal antibodies might affect the characteristics of patients with COVID-19; thus, future studies will inform us about the thrombotic risk and the optimal therapeutic strategies for these patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Thromboembolic Disease in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: Risk Factors, Prevention and Practical Thromboprophylaxis Recommendations-State-of-the-Art.

Cancer and COVID-19 are both well-established risk factors predisposing to thrombosis. Both disease entities are correlated with increased incidence of venous thrombotic events through multifaceted pathogenic mechanisms involving the interaction of cancer cells or SARS-CoV2 on the one hand and the coagulation system and endothelial cells on the other hand. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with active cancer and high-risk outpatients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment. Universal thromboprophylaxis with a high prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or therapeutic dose in select patients, is currentlyindicated for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Also, prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk for thrombosis or disease worsening. However, whether there is an additive risk of thrombosis when a patient with cancer is infected with SARS-CoV2 remains unclear In the current review, we summarize and critically discuss the literature regarding the epidemiology of thrombotic events in patients with cancer and concomitant COVID-19, the thrombotic risk assessment, and the recommendations on thromboprophylaxis for this subgroup of patients. Current data do not support an additive thrombotic risk for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Of note, patients with cancer have less access to intensive care unit care, a setting associated with high thrombotic risk. Based on current evidence, patients with cancer and COVID-19 should be assessed with well-established risk assessment models for medically ill patients and receive thromboprophylaxis, preferentially with LMWH, according to existing recommendations. Prospective trials on well-characterized populations do not exist.

Prone Positioning in Patients With COVID-19: Analysis of Multicenter Registry Data and Meta-analysis of Aggregate Data.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Evidence suggests a beneficial effect of prone positioning (PP) in COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Meta-analysis of individual (7 investigators' groups) and aggregate data (PubMed/EMBASE) regarding the impact of PP on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PO2/FiO2) in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Among 121 patients (mean age±SD 59.1±10.7 years, 55% males, 57% intubated) the mean post-versus pre- PP PO2/FiO2 difference was: (i) 50.4±64.3 mmHg, p<0.01, (ii) similar in awake (58.7±72.1 mmHg) versus intubated patients (44.1±57.5 mmHg, p=NS), (iii) inversely correlated with body mass index (r=-0.43, p<0.01). Meta-analysis of 23 studies (n=547, weighted age 58.3±4.1, 73% males, 59% intubated) showed a pooled PO2/FiO2 difference of 61.8 [95% confidence intervals=49.9-73.6] mmHg. Meta-regression analysis revealed no associations with baseline demographics, the time in PP before assessment, and the risk of bias of the studies. CONCLUSION: PP seems to improve oxygenation of patients with COVID-19.

Early Occurrence of Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 and Beneficial Effect of Anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study analyzed the characteristics of patients with COVID-19 with major events during the first days of hospitalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients admitted to two hospitals in Athens, Greece. The characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who suffered the primary endpoint (venous thromboembolic events, intubation, and death) during the first days of hospitalization were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 95 patients included in the analysis, 21 presented with major adverse events during a median follow-up of 13 days. More than 50% of these patients presented with a major event during the first 3 days. Anticoagulation treatment was inversely associated with the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint [hazard ratio=0.16 (95% confidence interval=0.06-0.47)]. Patients with major events were older, with lower baseline SatO2, and higher number of Wells' criteria and Charlson comorbidity index. Among these patients, those with hypertension were at higher risk for early occurrence of events (≤ first three days of hospitalization). CONCLUSION: Major adverse events may occur early in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with a high-risk profile. Anticoagulation treatment appears to reduce this risk and thus prompt thromboprophylaxis should be employed in these patients.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: COVID-19 outcomes in patients receiving anti-TNF treatments.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests a beneficial effective of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors on the outcomes of COVID-19 disease, which, however is not validated by all studies. AIMS: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing reports to investigate the impact of anti-TNF treatments on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic search at PubMed and SCOPUS databases using specific keywords was performed. All reports of COVID-19 outcomes for patients receiving anti-TNF therapy by September 2021 were included. Pooled effect measures were calculated using a random-effects model. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies was used to assess bias. Studies that were not eligible for meta-analysis were described qualitatively. RESULTS: In total, 84 studies were included in the systematic review, and 35 were included in the meta-analysis. Patients receiving anti-TNF treatment, compared to non-anti-TNF, among COVID-19 cases had a lower probability of hospitalisation (eight studies, 2555 patients, pooled OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.42-0.67, I2  = 0) and severe disease defined as intensive care unit admission or death (two studies, 1823 patients, pooled OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41-0.96, I2  = 0), after adjustment for validated predictors of adverse disease outcomes. No difference was found for the risk for hospitalisation due to COVID-19 in populations without COVID-19 for patients receiving anti-TNF treatment compared to non-anti-TNF (three studies, 5 994 958 participants, pooled risk ratio = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.68-1.39, I2  = 20) adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: TNF-α inhibitors are associated with a lower probability of hospitalisation and severe COVID-19 when compared to any other treatment for an underlying inflammatory disease.

High versus Standard Intensity of Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been associated with a survival benefit and is strongly recommended. However, the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis remains unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/EMBASE) of studies comparing high (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard (prophylactic dose) intensity of thrombo-prophylaxis with regard to outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was performed. Randomized and non-randomized studies that provided adjusted effect size estimates were included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies comparing intermediate versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 5 observational, n = 2009, weighted age 61 years, males 61%, ICU 53%) revealed a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) for death at 0.56 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.34, 0.92) in favor of the intermediate dose. For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31), and for major bleeding events was 1.63 (95% CI 0.79, 3.37). Meta-analysis of 17 studies comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis (2 randomized and 15 observational, n = 7776, weighted age 64 years, males 54%, ICU 21%) revealed a pooled adjusted RR for death at 0.73 (95% CI 0.47, 1.14) for the therapeutic dose. An opposite trend was observed in the unadjusted analysis of 15 observational studies (RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.88, 1.74)). For the same comparison arms, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 1.13 (95% CI 0.52, 2.48), and for major bleeding events 3.32 (95% CI 2.51, 4.40). In conclusion, intermediate compared with standard prophylactic dose of thromboprophylaxis appears to be rather safe and is associated with additional survival benefit, although most data are derived from observational retrospective analyses. Randomized studies are needed to define the optimal thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The Effect of Anakinra in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The role of immunomodulatory agents in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been of increasing interest. Anakinra, an interleukin-1 inhibitor, has been shown to offer significant clinical benefits in patients with COVID-19 and hyperinflammation. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the impact of anakinra on the outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was conducted. Studies, randomized or non-randomized with adjustment for confounders, reporting on the adjusted risk of death in patients treated with anakinra versus those not treated with anakinra were deemed eligible. A search was performed in PubMed/EMBASE databases, as well as in relevant websites, until 1 August 2021. The meta-analysis of six studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria (n = 1553 patients with moderate to severe pneumonia, weighted age 64 years, men 66%, treated with anakinra 50%, intubated 3%) showed a pooled hazard ratio for death in patients treated with anakinra at 0.47 (95% confidence intervals 0.34, 0.65). A meta-regression analysis did not reveal any significant associations between the mean age, percentage of males, mean baseline C-reactive protein levels, mean time of administration since symptoms onset among the included studies and the hazard ratios for death. All studies were considered as low risk of bias. The current evidence, although derived mainly from observational studies, supports a beneficial role of anakinra in the treatment of selected patients with COVID-19.

Comparative Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine with Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BNT162b2 has proven to be highly effective, but there is a paucity of data regarding immunogenicity factors and comparison between response to vaccination and natural infection. This study included 871 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) and 181 patients with natural infection. Immunogenicity was assessed by measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 against the RBD domain of the spike protein (anti-RBD). Samples were collected 1-2 weeks after vaccination or 15-59 days post-onset of symptoms. Post-vaccine anti-RBD concentrations were associated with age, gender, vaccination side-effects (VSE) and prior infection (Pr-CoV). Anti-RBD median levels (95%CI) were lower by 2466 (651-5583), 6228 (3254-9203) and 7651 (4479-10,823) AU/mL in 35-44, 45-54, 55-70 yrs, respectively, compared with the 18-34 yrs group. In females, the median levels were higher by 2823 (859-4787), 5024 (3122-6926) in individuals with VSE, and 9971 (5158-14,783) AU/mL in HCWs with Pr-CoV. The ratio of anti-RBD in vaccinated individuals versus those with natural infection varied from 1.0 to 19.4. The high immunogenicity of BNT162b2 is verified, although its sustainability has yet to be elucidated. The use of comparative data from natural infection serological panels, expressing the clinical heterogeneity of natural infection, may facilitate early decisions for candidate vaccines to be evaluated in clinical trials.

Early Start of Oral Clarithromycin Is Associated with Better Outcome in COVID-19 of Moderate Severity: The ACHIEVE Open-Label Single-Arm Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The anti-inflammatory effect of macrolides prompted the study of oral clarithromycin in moderate COVID-19. METHODS: An open-label non-randomized trial in 90 patients with COVID-19 of moderate severity was conducted between May and October 2020. The primary endpoint was defined at the end of treatment (EOT) as no need for hospital re-admission and no progression into lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) for patients with upper respiratory tract infection and as at least 50% decrease of the respiratory symptoms score without progression into severe respiratory failure (SRF) for patients with LRTI. Viral load, biomarkers, the function of mononuclear cells and safety were assessed. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was attained in 86.7% of patients treated with clarithromycin (95% CIs 78.1-92.2%); this was 91.7% and 81.4% among patients starting clarithromycin the first 5 days from symptoms onset or later (odds ratio after multivariate analysis 6.62; p 0.030). The responses were better for patients infected by non-B1.1 variants. Clarithromycin use was associated with decreases in circulating C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin (IL)-6; by increase of production of interferon-gamma and decrease of production of interleukin-6 by mononuclear cells; and by suppression of SARS-CoV-2 viral load. No safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Early clarithromycin treatment provides most of the clinical improvement in moderate COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04398004.

Knowledge and Perceptions about COVID-19 among Health Care Workers: Evidence from COVID-19 Hospitals during the Second Pandemic Wave.

Health care workers (HCWs) face a higher risk of infection, since they work at the front line of COVID-19 patients' management. Misinterpretations of current scientific evidence among HCWs may impact the delivery of appropriate care to COVID-19 patients and increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the hospital setting. Moreover, knowledge may affect HCWs perceptions depending on their broad beliefs and past experiences. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and perceptions of HCWs regarding COVID-19 issues during the second wave of the pandemic. A cross-sectional survey, involving a printed questionnaire, was conducted from 21 October 2020 to 31 January 2021 in four tertiary care hospitals located at four distant geographical regions in Greece. In total, 294 HCWs participated in this study. The majority of HCWs provided precise responses regarding general knowledge, perceptions, and practices concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. However, responses on hand hygiene and antimicrobial use in HCWs with COVID-19 were mistaken. This study reveals a certain degree of misconceptions and knowledge gaps in HCWs everyday practice, especially regarding hand hygiene and antimicrobial use in COVID-19 patients.

Statin use and mortality in COVID-19 patients: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Statin therapy is administered to patients with high cardiovascular risk. These patients are also at risk for severe course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Statins exhibit not only cardioprotective but also immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects. This study performed a systematic review of published evidence regarding statin treatment and COVID-19 related mortality. METHODS: A systematic PubMed/Embase search was performed from February 10, 2020 until March 05, 2021 for studies in COVID-19 patients that reported adjusted hazard or odds ratio for death in statin users versus non-users. RESULTS: 22 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 41,807, weighted age 56 ± 8 years, men 51%, hypertension 34%, diabetes 21%, statin users 14%) that reported adjusted hazard ratios for mortality in statin users versus non-users showed pooled estimate at 0.65 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.53, 0.81). Meta-analysis of 6 studies that reported continuation of statin therapy during hospitalization (58-100% of patients) revealed a pooled hazard ratio of 0.54 (95% CI 0.47, 0.62). Meta-analysis of 12 studies (n = 72,881, weighted age 65 ± 2 years, men 54%, hypertension 66%, diabetes 43%, statin users 30%) that reported adjusted odds ratios for mortality showed pooled estimate at 0.65 (95% CI 0.55, 0.78). Multivariable meta-regression analysis did not reveal any significant association of hazard or odds ratios with anthropometric characteristics or comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of retrospective observational studies showed that statin therapy was associated with an about 35% decrease in the adjusted risk of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.