Resolution of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection with prolonged intravenous remdesivir and vaccination in a patient post CAR-T.

SARS-CoV-2 virus is a single-stranded enveloped RNA virus, which causes coronavirus disease. Most of the immunocompetent patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection do have mild to moderate respiratory illness; however, in immunocompromised patients, the course of infection is unpredictable with high rates of infectivity and mortality. So, it is important to identify the immunocompromised patients early and establish the course of treatment accordingly. Here, we describe a 25-year-old male with background of B cell ALL, post-BMT and CAR-T therapy who received treatment with remdesivir and vaccination and was followed up for six months from the onset of symptoms to post vaccination, which showed resolution of symptoms and improvement of immunological markers. Here, we review the literature concerning the course and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection aimed at achieving cure in this patient.

Real-world effectiveness of molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and sotrovimab on preventing hospital admission among higher-risk patients with COVID-19 in Wales: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and sotrovimab with no treatment in preventing hospital admission or death in higher-risk patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. SETTING: A real-world cohort study was conducted within the SAIL Databank (a secure trusted research environment containing anonymised, individual, population-scale electronic health record (EHR) data) for the population of Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with COVID-19 in the community, at higher risk of hospitalization and death, testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 16th December 2021 and 22nd April 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and sotrovimab given in the community by local health boards and the National Antiviral Service in Wales. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause admission to hospital or death within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cox proportional hazard model with treatment status (treated/untreated) as a time-dependent covariate and adjusted for age, sex, number of comorbidities, Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, and vaccination status. Secondary subgroup analyses were by treatment type, number of comorbidities, and before and on or after 20th February 2022, when omicron BA.1 and omicron BA.2 were the dominant subvariants in Wales. RESULTS: Between 16th December 2021 and 22nd April 2022, 7013 higher-risk patients were eligible for inclusion in the study. Of these, 2040 received treatment with molnupiravir (359, 17.6%), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (602, 29.5%), or sotrovimab (1079, 52.9%). Patients in the treatment group were younger (mean age 53 vs 57 years), had fewer comorbidities, and a higher proportion had received four or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccine (36.3% vs 17.6%). Within 28 days of a positive test, 628 (9.0%) patients were admitted to hospital or died (84 treated and 544 untreated). The primary analysis indicated a lower risk of hospitalization or death at any point within 28 days in treated participants compared to those not receiving treatment. The adjusted hazard rate was 35% (95% CI: 18-49%) lower in treated than untreated participants. There was no indication of the superiority of one treatment over another and no evidence of a reduction in risk of hospitalization or death within 28 days for patients with no or only one comorbidity. In patients treated with sotrovimab, the event rates before and on or after 20th February 2022 were similar (5.0% vs 4.9%) with no significant difference in the hazard ratios for sotrovimab between the time periods. CONCLUSIONS: In higher-risk adult patients in the community with COVID-19, those who received treatment with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, or sotrovimab were at lower risk of hospitalization or death than those not receiving treatment.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57-0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. INTERPRETATION: Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial.

Treatment of chronic or relapsing COVID-19 in immunodeficiency.

BACKGROUND: Patients with some types of immunodeficiency can experience chronic or relapsing infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This leads to morbidity and mortality, infection control challenges, and the risk of evolution of novel viral variants. The optimal treatment for chronic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize a cohort of patients with chronic or relapsing COVID-19 disease and record treatment response. METHODS: We conducted a UK physician survey to collect data on underlying diagnosis and demographics, clinical features, and treatment response of immunodeficient patients with chronic (lasting ≥21 days) or relapsing (≥2 episodes) of COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 31 patients (median age 49 years). Their underlying immunodeficiency was most commonly characterized by antibody deficiency with absent or profoundly reduced peripheral B-cell levels; prior anti-CD20 therapy, and X-linked agammaglobulinemia. Their clinical features of COVID-19 were similar to those of the general population, but their median duration of symptomatic disease was 64 days (maximum 300 days) and individual patients experienced up to 5 episodes of illness. Remdesivir monotherapy (including when given for prolonged courses of ≤20 days) was associated with sustained viral clearance in 7 of 23 clinical episodes (30.4%), whereas the combination of remdesivir with convalescent plasma or anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs resulted in viral clearance in 13 of 14 episodes (92.8%). Patients receiving no therapy did not clear SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 can present as a chronic or relapsing disease in patients with antibody deficiency. Remdesivir monotherapy is frequently associated with treatment failure, but the combination of remdesivir with antibody-based therapeutics holds promise.

Azithromycin versus standard care in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (ATOMIC2): an open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed. FINDINGS: 298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Examining the utility of extended laboratory panel testing in the emergency department for risk stratification of patients with COVID-19: a single-centre retrospective service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The role of specific blood tests to predict poor prognosis in patients admitted with infection from SARS-CoV-2 remains uncertain. During the first wave of the global pandemic, an extended laboratory testing panel was integrated into the local pathway to guide triage and healthcare resource utilisation for emergency admissions. We conducted a retrospective service evaluation to determine the utility of extended tests (D-dimer, ferritin, high-sensitivity troponin I, lactate dehydrogenase and procalcitonin) compared with the core panel (full blood count, urea and electrolytes, liver function tests and C reactive protein). METHODS: Clinical outcomes for adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted between 17 March and 30 June 2020 were extracted, alongside costs estimates for individual tests. Prognostic performance was assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis with 28-day mortality used as the primary endpoint and a composite of 28-day intensive care escalation or mortality for secondary analysis. RESULTS: From 13 500 emergency attendances, we identified 391 unique adults admitted with COVID-19. Of these, 113 died (29%) and 151 (39%) reached the composite endpoint. 'Core' test variables adjusted for age, gender and index of deprivation had a prognostic area under the curve of 0.79 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) for mortality and 0.70 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.84) for the composite endpoint. Addition of 'extended' test components did not improve on this. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest use of the extended laboratory testing panel to risk stratify community-acquired COVID-19 positive patients on admission adds limited prognostic value. We suggest laboratory requesting should be targeted to patients with specific clinical indications.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.).