Efficacy of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Vaccine in Patients With Thoracic Cancer: A Prospective Study Supporting a Third Dose in Patients With Minimal Serologic Response After Two Vaccine Doses.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 resulted in a 30% mortality rate in patients with thoracic cancer. Given that patients with cancer were excluded from serum antisevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine registration trials, it is still unknown whether they would develop a protective antispike antibody response after vaccination. This prospective vaccine monitoring study primarily aimed to assess humoral responses to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with thoracic cancer. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2-spike antibodies were measured using the Abbot Architect SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G immunoassay before the first injection of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, at week 4, and 2 to 16 weeks after the second vaccine dose administration. The factors associated with antibody response were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 306 patients, with a median age of 67.0 years (interquartile range: 58-74), were vaccinated. Of these, 283 patients received two vaccine doses at 28-day intervals. After a 6.7-month median follow-up, eight patients (2.6%) contracted proven symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, with rapid favorable evolution. Of the 269 serologic results available beyond day 14 after the second vaccine dose administration, 17 patients (6.3%) were still negative (<50 arbitrary units/mL, whereas 34 (11%) were less than 300 arbitrary units/mL (12.5th percentile). In multivariate analysis, only age (p < 0.01) and long-term corticosteroid treatment (p = 0.01) were significantly associated with a lack of immunization. A total of 30 patients received a third vaccine dose, with only three patients showing persistently negative serology thereafter, whereas the others exhibited clear seroconversion. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV2 vaccines were found to be efficient in patients with thoracic cancer, most of them being immunized after two doses. A third shot given to 1% of patients with persistent low antibody titers resulted in an 88% immunization rate.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of XAV-19 in patients with COVID-19-induced moderate pneumonia: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase 2 (2a and 2b) trial.

BACKGROUND: Early inhibition of entry and replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a very promising therapeutic approach. Polyclonal neutralizing antibodies offers many advantages such as providing immediate immunity, consequently blunting an early pro-inflammatory pathogenic endogenous antibody response and lack of drug-drug interactions. By providing immediate immunity and inhibiting entry into cells, neutralizing antibody treatment is of interest for patient with COVID-19-induced moderate pneumonia. Convalescent plasma to treat infected patients is therefore a relevant therapeutic option currently under assessment (CORIMUNO-PLASM NCT04324047). However, the difficulties of collecting plasma on the long term are not adapted to a broad use across all populations. New polyclonal humanized anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies (XAV-19) developed by Xenothera and administered intravenous. XAV-19 is a heterologous swine glyco-humanized polyclonal antibody (GH-pAb) raised against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, blocking infection of ACE-2-positive human cells with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have been performed in preclinical models including primates. A first human study with another fully representative GH-pAb from Xenothera is ongoing in recipients of a kidney graft. These studies indicated that 5 consecutive administrations of GH-pAbs can be safely performed in humans. The objectives of this 2-step phase 2 randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled study are to define the safety and the optimal XAV-19 dose to administrate to patients with SARS-CoV-2 induced moderate pneumonia, and to assess the clinical benefits of a selected dose of XAV-19 in this population. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the clinical benefits of XAV-19 when administered to patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced moderate pneumonia. As a prerequisite, a first step of the study will define the safety and the dose of XAV-19 to be used. Such treatment might become a new therapeutic option to provide an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients (possibly in combination with anti-viral and immunotherapies). Further studies could later evaluate such passive immunotherapy as a potential post-exposure prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04453384 , registered on 1 July 2020, and EUDRACT 2020-002574-27, registered 6 June 2020.

Limiting the Use of Oral Glucose Tolerance Tests to Screen for Hyperglycemia in Pregnancy during Pandemics.

We aimed to evaluate each proposal of Australian-New Zealand Societies to limit the number of oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) to diagnose hyperglycemia in pregnancy (HIP) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. At our university hospital (2012-2016), we retrospectively applied in 4245 women who had OGTT between 22 and 30 weeks of gestation (reference standard: WHO criteria) the proposals in which OGTT is performed only in high-risk women; in all (Option 1) or high-risk (Option 1-Sel) women with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 4.7-5.0 mmol/L; in all (Option 2) or high-risk (Option 2-Sel) women without history of HIP and with FPG 4.7-5.0 mmol/L. We also tested FPG measurement alone in all high-risk women. Measuring FPG alone had a sensitivity of 49% (95% confidence interval 45-54) applying universal screening. Option 2 appeared to have the best balance considering the needed OGTT (17.3%), sensitivity (72% (67-76)) and rates of a composite outcome (true negative cases: 10.6%, false positive cases: 24.4%; true positive cases: 19.5%; false negative cases: 10.2%). Consideration of a history of HIP and measuring first FPG can avoid more than 80% of OGTTs and identify women with the highest risk of adverse HIP-related events.

COVID-19 pandemic: Can fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c replace the oral glucose tolerance test to screen for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy?

AIMS: To evaluate proposals considering HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurement as a substitute for oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose hyperglycaemia in pregnancy (HIP) during COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Of the 7,334 women who underwent the OGTT between 22 and 30 weeks gestation, 966 had HIP (WHO diagnostic criteria, reference standard). The 467 women who had an available HbA1c were used for analysis. French-speaking Society of Diabetes (SFD) proposal to diagnose HIP during COVID-19 pandemic was retrospectively applied: HbA1c ≥5.7% (39 mmol/mol) and/or FPG level ≥5.1 mmol/l. SFD proposal sensitivity for HIP diagnosis and the occurrence of HIP-related events (preeclampsia, large for gestational age infant, shoulder dystocia or neonatal hypoglycaemia) in women with false negative (FN) and true positive (TP) HIP-diagnoses were evaluated. RESULTS: The sensitivity was 57% [95% confidence interval 52-62]. FN women had globally lower plasma glucose levels during OGTT, lower HbA1c and body mass index than those TP. The percentage of HIP-related events was similar in FN (who were cared) and TP cases, respectively 19.5 and 16.9% (p = 0.48). We observed similar results when women at high risk for HIP only were considered. CONCLUSION: The SFD proposal has a poor sensitivity to detect HIP. Furthermore, it fails to have any advantages in predicting adverse outcomes.

Glucocorticoids with low-dose anti-IL1 anakinra rescue in severe non-ICU COVID-19 infection: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for patients with severe coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) and hyper-inflammation remains debated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cohort study was designed to evaluate whether a therapeutic algorithm using steroids with or without interleukin-1 antagonist (anakinra) could prevent death/invasive ventilation. Patients with a ≥5-day evolution since symptoms onset, with hyper-inflammation (CRP≥50mg/L), requiring 3-5 L/min oxygen, received methylprednisolone alone. Patients needing ≥6 L/min received methylprednisolone + subcutaneous anakinra daily either frontline or in case clinical deterioration upon corticosteroids alone. Death rate and death or intensive care unit (ICU) invasive ventilation rate at Day 15, with Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% CIs, were determined according to logistic regression and propensity scores. A Bayesian analysis estimated the treatment effects. RESULTS: Of 108 consecutive patients, 70 patients received glucocorticoids alone. The control group comprised 63 patients receiving standard of care. In the corticosteroid±stanakinra group (n = 108), death rate was 20.4%, versus 30.2% in the controls, indicating a 30% relative decrease in death risk and a number of 10 patients to treat to avoid a death (p = 0.15). Using propensity scores a per-protocol analysis showed an OR for COVID-19-related death of 0.9 (95%CI [0.80-1.01], p = 0.067). On Bayesian analysis, the posterior probability of any mortality benefit with corticosteroids+/-anakinra was 87.5%, with a 7.8% probability of treatment-related harm. Pre-existing diabetes exacerbation occurred in 29 of 108 patients (26.9%). CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 non-ICU inpatients at the cytokine release phase, corticosteroids with or without anakinra were associated with a 30% decrease of death risk on Day 15.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and renin-angiotensin system blockers: A review and pooled analysis.

A novel coronavirus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is causing an international outbreak of respiratory illness described as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 infects human cells by binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Small studies suggest that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers may upregulate the expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, affecting susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. This may be of great importance considering the large number of patients worldwide who are treated with RAS blockers, and the well-proven clinical benefit of these treatments in several cardiovascular conditions. In contrast, RAS blockers have also been associated with better outcomes in pneumonia models, and may be beneficial in COVID-19. This review sought to analyse the evidence regarding RAS blockers in the context of COVID-19 and to perform a pooled analysis of the published observational studies to guide clinical decision making. A total of 21 studies were included, comprising 11,539 patients, of whom 3417 (29.6%) were treated with RAS blockers. All-cause mortality occurred in 587/3417 (17.1%) patients with RAS blocker treatment and in 982/8122 (12.1%) patients without RAS blocker treatment (odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.69-1.45; P=0.49; I2=84%). As several hypotheses can be drawn from experimental analysis, we also present the ongoing randomized studies assessing the efficacy and safety of RAS blockers in patients with COVID-19. In conclusion, according to the current data and the results of the pooled analysis, there is no evidence supporting any harmful effect of RAS blockers on the course of patients with COVID-19, and it seems reasonable to recommend their continuation.