Persistent alveolar inflammatory response in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is associated with mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) show limited systemic hyperinflammation, but immunomodulatory treatments are effective. Little is known about the inflammatory response in the lungs and if this could be targeted using high-dose steroids (HDS). We aimed to characterise the alveolar immune response in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, to determine its association with mortality, and to explore the association between HDS treatment and the alveolar immune response. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, a comprehensive panel of 63 biomarkers was measured in repeated bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and plasma samples of patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Differences in alveolar-plasma concentrations were determined to characterise the alveolar inflammatory response. Joint modelling was performed to assess the longitudinal changes in alveolar biomarker concentrations, and the association between changes in alveolar biomarker concentrations and mortality. Changes in alveolar biomarker concentrations were compared between HDS-treated and matched untreated patients. RESULTS: 284 BAL fluid and paired plasma samples of 154 patients with COVID-19 were analysed. 13 biomarkers indicative of innate immune activation showed alveolar rather than systemic inflammation. A longitudinal increase in the alveolar concentration of several innate immune markers, including CC motif ligand (CCL)20 and CXC motif ligand (CXCL)1, was associated with increased mortality. Treatment with HDS was associated with a subsequent decrease in alveolar CCL20 and CXCL1 levels. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19-related ARDS showed an alveolar inflammatory state related to the innate host response, which was associated with a higher mortality. HDS treatment was associated with decreasing alveolar concentrations of CCL20 and CXCL1.

Anti-C5a antibody vilobelimab treatment and the effect on biomarkers of inflammation and coagulation in patients with severe COVID-19: a substudy of the phase 2 PANAMO trial.

We recently reported in the phase 3 PANAMO trial that selectively blocking complement 5a (C5a) with vilobelimab led to improved survival in critically ill COVID-19 patients. C5a is an important contributor to the innate immune system and can also activate the coagulation system. High C5a levels have been reported in severely ill COVID-19 patients and correlate with disease severity and mortality. Previously, we assessed the potential benefit and safety of vilobelimab in severe COVID-19 patients. In the current substudy of the phase 2 PANAMO trial, we aim to explore the effects of vilobelimab on various biomarkers of inflammation and coagulation. Between March 31 and April 24, 2020, 17 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled in an exploratory, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial. Blood markers of complement, endothelial activation, epithelial barrier disruption, inflammation, neutrophil activation, neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation and coagulopathy were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or utilizing the Luminex platform. During the first 15 days after inclusion, change in biomarker concentrations between the two groups were modelled with linear mixed-effects models with spatial splines and compared. Eight patients were randomized to vilobelimab treatment plus best supportive care (BSC) and nine patients were randomized to BSC only. A significant decrease over time was seen in the vilobelimab plus BSC group for C5a compared to the BSC only group (p < 0.001). ADAMTS13 levels decreased over time in the BSC only group compared to the vilobelimab plus BSC group (p < 0.01) and interleukin-8 (IL-8) levels were statistically more suppressed in the vilobelimab plus BSC group compared to the BSC group (p = 0.03). Our preliminary results show that C5a inhibition decreases the inflammatory response and hypercoagulability, which likely explains the beneficial effect of vilobelimab in severe COVID-19 patients. Validation of these results in a larger sample size is warranted.

ImmunoSep (Personalised Immunotherapy in Sepsis) international double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a major cause of death among hospitalised patients. Accumulating evidence suggests that immune response during sepsis cascade lies within a spectrum of dysregulated host responses. On the one side of the spectrum there are patients whose response is characterised by fulminant hyperinflammation or macrophage activation-like syndrome (MALS), and on the other side patients whose immune response is characterised by immunoparalysis. A sizeable group of patients are situated between the two extremes. Recognising immune endotype is very important in order to choose the appropriate immunotherapeutic approach for each patient resulting in the best chance to improve the outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ImmunoSep is a randomised placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial with a double-dummy design in which the effect of precision immunotherapy on sepsis phenotypes with MALS and immunoparalysis is studied. Patients are stratified using biomarkers. Specifically, 280 patients will be 1:1 randomly assigned to placebo or active immunotherapy as adjunct to standard-of-care treatment. In the active immunotherapy arm, patients with MALS will receive anakinra (recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) intravenously, and patients with immunoparalysis will receive subcutaneous recombinant human interferon-gamma. Τhe primary endpoint is the comparative decrease of the mean total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by at least 1.4 points by day 9 from randomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol is approved by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices; the National Ethics Committee of Greece and by the National Organization for Medicines of Greece; the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects and METC Oost Netherland for the Netherlands; the National Agency for Medicine and Medical Products of Romania; and the Commission Cantonale d'éthique de la recherche sur l'être human of Switzerland. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04990232.

Real-world Evidence of the Effects of Novel Treatments for COVID-19 on Mortality: A Nationwide Comparative Cohort Study of Hospitalized Patients in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Waves in the Netherlands.

Background: Large clinical trials on drugs for hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have shown significant effects on mortality. There may be a discrepancy with the observed real-world effect. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands during 4 pandemic waves and analyze the association of the newly introduced treatments with mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and discharge alive. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients between February 27, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Patients were categorized into waves and into treatment groups (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, neutralizing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 monoclonal antibodies, corticosteroids, and interleukin [IL]-6 antagonists). Four types of Cox regression analyses were used: unadjusted, adjusted, propensity matched, and propensity weighted. Results: Among 5643 patients from 11 hospitals, we observed a changing epidemiology during 4 pandemic waves, with a decrease in median age (67-64 years; P < .001), in in-hospital mortality on the ward (21%-15%; P < .001), and a trend in the ICU (24%-16%; P = .148). In ward patients, hydroxychloroquine was associated with increased mortality (1.54; 95% CI, 1.22-1.96), and remdesivir was associated with a higher rate of discharge alive within 29 days (1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31). Corticosteroids were associated with a decrease in mortality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96); the results of IL-6 antagonists were inconclusive. In patients directly admitted to the ICU, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and IL-6 antagonists were not associated with decreased mortality. Conclusions: Both remdesivir and corticosteroids were associated with better outcomes in ward patients with COVID-19. Continuous evaluation of real-world treatment effects is needed.

The BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induces transient afucosylated IgG1 in naive but not in antigen-experienced vaccinees.

BACKGROUND: Afucosylated IgG1 responses have only been found against membrane-embedded epitopes, including anti-S in SARS-CoV-2 infections. These responses, intrinsically protective through enhanced FcγRIIIa binding, can also trigger exacerbated pro-inflammatory responses in severe COVID-19. We investigated if the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA also induced afucosylated IgG responses. METHODS: Blood from vaccinees during the first vaccination wave was collected. Liquid chromatography-Mass spectrometry (LC-MS) was used to study anti-S IgG1 Fc glycoprofiles. Responsiveness of alveolar-like macrophages to produce proinflammatory cytokines in presence of sera and antigen was tested. Antigen-specific B cells were characterized and glycosyltransferase levels were investigated by Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting (FACS). FINDINGS: Initial transient afucosylated anti-S IgG1 responses were found in naive vaccinees, but not in antigen-experienced ones. All vaccinees had increased galactosylated and sialylated anti-S IgG1. Both naive and antigen-experienced vaccinees showed relatively low macrophage activation potential, as expected, due to the low antibody levels for naive individuals with afucosylated IgG1, and low afucosylation levels for antigen-experienced individuals with high levels of anti-S. Afucosylation levels correlated with FUT8 expression in antigen-specific plasma cells in naive individuals. Interestingly, low fucosylation of anti-S IgG1 upon seroconversion correlated with high anti-S IgG levels after the second dose. INTERPRETATION: Here, we show that BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination induces transient afucosylated anti-S IgG1 responses in naive individuals. This observation warrants further studies to elucidate the clinical context in which potent afucosylated responses would be preferred. FUNDING: LSBR1721, 1908; ZonMW10430012010021, 09150161910033, 10430012010008; DFG398859914, 400912066, 390884018; PMI; DOI4-Nr. 3; H2020-MSCA-ITN 721815.

Outcomes of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in COVID-19–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Inverse Probability Weighted Analysis

IMPORTANCE: Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has been used in case of COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), outcomes and criteria for its application should be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To describe patient characteristics and outcomes in patients receiving VV ECMO due to COVID-19–induced ARDS and to assess the possible impact of COVID-19 on mortality. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter retrospective study in 15 ICUs worldwide. All adult patients (> 18 yr) were included if they received VV ECMO with ARDS as main indication. Two groups were created: a COVID-19 cohort from March 2020 to December 2020 and a “control” non-COVID ARDS cohort from January 2018 to July 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Collected data consisted of patient demographics, baseline variables, ECMO characteristics, and patient outcomes. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included patient characteristics, COVID-19–related therapies before and during ECMO and complication rate. To assess the influence of COVID-19 on mortality, inverse probability weighted (IPW) analyses were used to correct for predefined confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 193 patients with COVID-19 received VV ECMO. The main indication for VV ECMO consisted of refractory hypoxemia, either isolated or combined with refractory hypercapnia. Complications with the highest occurrence rate included hemorrhage, an additional infectious event or acute kidney injury. Mortality was 35% and 45% at 28 and 60 days, respectively. Those mortality rates did not differ between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in 2020. Furthermore, 60-day mortality was equal between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19–associated ARDS receiving VV ECMO (hazard ratio 60-d mortality, 1.27;95% CI, 0.82–1.98;p = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Mortality for patients with COVID-19 who received VV ECMO was similar to that reported in other COVID-19 cohorts, although no differences were found between the first and second waves regarding mortality. In addition, after IPW, mortality was independent of the etiology of ARDS.

Lung Microbiota of Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Are Associated with Nonresolving Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Rationale: Bacterial lung microbiota are correlated with lung inflammation and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and altered in severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the association between lung microbiota (including fungi) and resolution of ARDS in COVID-19 remains unclear. We hypothesized that increased lung bacterial and fungal burdens are related to nonresolving ARDS and mortality in COVID-19. Objectives: To determine the relation between lung microbiota and clinical outcomes of COVID-19-related ARDS. Methods: This observational cohort study enrolled mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. All patients had ARDS and underwent bronchoscopy with BAL. Lung microbiota were profiled using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and quantitative PCR targeting the 16S and 18S rRNA genes. Key features of lung microbiota (bacterial and fungal burden, α-diversity, and community composition) served as predictors. Our primary outcome was successful extubation adjudicated 60 days after intubation, analyzed using a competing risk regression model with mortality as competing risk. Measurements and Main Results: BAL samples of 114 unique patients with COVID-19 were analyzed. Patients with increased lung bacterial and fungal burden were less likely to be extubated (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.97]; P = 0.034 and 0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.83]; P = 0.0027 per log10 increase in bacterial and fungal burden, respectively) and had higher mortality (bacterial burden, P = 0.012; fungal burden, P = 0.0498). Lung microbiota composition was associated with successful extubation (P = 0.0045). Proinflammatory cytokines (e.g., tumor necrosis factor-α) were associated with the microbial burdens. Conclusions: Bacterial and fungal lung microbiota are related to nonresolving ARDS in COVID-19 and represent an important contributor to heterogeneity in COVID-19-related ARDS.

Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420. FINDINGS: From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections. FUNDING: InflaRx and the German Federal Government.

Antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants induced by four different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in health care workers in the Netherlands: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging and future SARS-CoV-2 variants may jeopardize the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Therefore, it is important to know how the different vaccines perform against diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a prospective cohort of 165 SARS-CoV-2 naive health care workers in the Netherlands, vaccinated with either one of four vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222 or Ad26.COV2.S), we performed a head-to-head comparison of the ability of sera to recognize and neutralize SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs; Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Omicron). Repeated serum sampling was performed 5 times during a year (from January 2021 till January 2022), including before and after booster vaccination with BNT162b2. Four weeks after completing the initial vaccination series, SARS-CoV-2 wild-type neutralizing antibody titers were highest in recipients of mRNA-1273, followed by recipients of BNT162b2 (geometric mean titers (GMT) of 358 [95% CI 231-556] and 214 [95% CI 153-299], respectively; p<0.05), and substantially lower in those vaccinated with the adenovirus vector-based vaccines AZD1222 and Ad26.COV2.S (GMT of 18 [95% CI 11-30] and 14 [95% CI 8-25] IU/ml, respectively; p<0.001). VOCs neutralization was reduced in all vaccine groups, with the greatest reduction in neutralization GMT observed against the Omicron variant (fold change 0.03 [95% CI 0.02-0.04], p<0.001). The booster BNT162b2 vaccination increased neutralizing antibody titers for all groups with substantial improvement against the VOCs including the Omicron variant. We used linear regression and linear mixed model analysis. All results were adjusted for possible confounding of age and sex. Study limitations include the lack of cellular immunity data. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study shows that the mRNA vaccines appear superior to adenovirus vector-based vaccines in inducing neutralizing antibodies against VOCs four weeks after initial vaccination and after booster vaccination, which implies the use of mRNA vaccines for both initial and booster vaccination.

Endothelial cells of pulmonary origin display unique sensitivity to the bacterial endotoxin lipopolysaccharide.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major clinical problem without available therapies. Known risks for ARDS include severe sepsis, SARS-CoV-2, gram-negative bacteria, trauma, pancreatitis, and blood transfusion. During ARDS, blood fluids and inflammatory cells enter the alveoli, preventing oxygen exchange from air into blood vessels. Reduced pulmonary endothelial barrier function, resulting in leakage of plasma from blood vessels, is one of the major determinants in ARDS. It is, however, unknown why systemic inflammation particularly targets the pulmonary endothelium, as endothelial cells (ECs) line all vessels in the vascular system of the body. In this study, we examined ECs of pulmonary, umbilical, renal, pancreatic, and cardiac origin for upregulation of adhesion molecules, ability to facilitate neutrophil (PMN) trans-endothelial migration (TEM) and for endothelial barrier function, in response to the gram-negative bacterial endotoxin LPS. Interestingly, we found that upon LPS stimulation, pulmonary ECs showed increased levels of adhesion molecules, facilitated more PMN-TEM and significantly perturbed the endothelial barrier, compared to other types of ECs. These observations could partly be explained by a higher expression of the adhesion molecule ICAM-1 on the pulmonary endothelial surface compared to other ECs. Moreover, we identified an increased expression of Cadherin-13 in pulmonary ECs, for which we demonstrated that it aids PMN-TEM in pulmonary ECs stimulated with LPS. We conclude that pulmonary ECs are uniquely sensitive to LPS, and intrinsically different, compared to ECs from other vascular beds. This may add to our understanding of the development of ARDS upon systemic inflammation.

Lipoprotein(a), venous thromboembolism and COVID-19: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Thrombosis is a major driver of adverse outcome and mortality in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hypercoagulability may be related to the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19, which is mainly driven by interleukin (IL)-6. Plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels increase following IL-6 upregulation and Lp(a) has anti-fibrinolytic properties. This study investigated whether Lp(a) elevation may contribute to the pro-thrombotic state hallmarking COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Lp(a), IL-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured in 219 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and analyzed with linear mixed effects model. The baseline biomarkers and increases during admission were related to venous thromboembolism (VTE) incidence and clinical outcomes in a Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Lp(a) levels increased significantly by a mean of 16.9 mg/dl in patients with COVID-19 during the first 21 days after admission. Serial Lp(a) measurements were available in 146 patients. In the top tertile of Lp(a) increase, 56.2% of COVID-19 patients experienced a VTE event compared to 18.4% in the lowest tertile (RR 3.06, 95% CI 1.61-5.81; p < 0.001). This association remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, IL-6 and CRP increase and number of measurements. Increases in IL-6 and CRP were not associated with VTE. Increase in Lp(a) was strongly correlated with increase in IL-6 (r = 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.56, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increases in Lp(a) levels during the acute phase of COVID-19 were strongly associated with VTE incidence. The acute increase in anti-fibrinolytic Lp(a) may tilt the balance to VTE in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

A guide to immunotherapy for COVID-19.

Immune dysregulation is an important component of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. A large body of literature has reported the effect of immune-based therapies in patients with COVID-19, with some remarkable successes such as the use of steroids or anti-cytokine therapies. However, challenges in clinical decision-making arise from the complexity of the disease phenotypes and patient heterogeneity, as well as the variable quality of evidence from immunotherapy studies. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence generated by major clinical trials of host-directed therapy. We discuss patient stratification and propose an algorithm to guide the use of immunotherapy strategies in the clinic. This will not only help guide treatment decisions, but may also help to design future trials that investigate immunotherapy in other severe infections.

The anti-C5a antibody vilobelimab efficiently inhibits C5a in patients with severe COVID-19.

Recently, we reported the phase II portion of the adaptive phase II/III PANAMO trial exploring potential benefit and safety of selectively blocking C5a with the monoclonal antibody vilobelimab (IFX-1) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The potent anaphylatoxin C5a attracts neutrophils and monocytes to the infection site, causes tissue damage by oxidative radical formation and enzyme releases, and leads to activation of the coagulation system. Results demonstrated that C5a inhibition with vilobelimab was safe and secondary outcomes appeared in favor of vilobelimab. We now report the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analysis of the phase II study. Between March 31 and April 24, 2020, 30 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vilobelimab plus best supportive care or best supportive care only. Samples for measurement of vilobelimab, C3a and C5a blood concentrations were taken. Vilobelimab predose (trough) drug concentrations in plasma ranged from 84,846 to 248,592 ng/ml (571 to 1674 nM) with a geometric mean of 151,702 ng/ml (1022 nM) on day 2 and from 80,060 to 200,746 ng/ml (539 to 1352 nM) with a geometric mean of 139,503 ng/ml (939 nM) on day 8. After the first vilobelimab infusion, C5a concentrations were suppressed in the vilobelimab group (median 39.70 ng/ml 4.8 nM, IQR 33.20-45.55) as compared to the control group (median 158.53 ng/ml 19.1 nM, IQR 60.03-200.89, p = 0.0006). The suppression was maintained on day 8 (p = 0.001). The current PK/PD analysis shows that vilobelimab efficiently inhibits C5a in patients with severe COVID-19.

A single mRNA vaccine dose in COVID-19 patients boosts neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern.

The urgent need for, but limited availability of, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines worldwide has led to widespread consideration of dose-sparing strategies. Here, we evaluate the SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses following BNT162b2 vaccination in 150 previously SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from a population-based cohort. One week after first vaccine dose, spike protein antibody levels are 27-fold higher and neutralizing antibody titers 12-fold higher, exceeding titers of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naive controls, with minimal additional boosting after the second dose. Neutralizing antibody titers against four variants of concern increase after vaccination; however, overall neutralization breadth does not improve. Pre-vaccination neutralizing antibody titers and time since infection have the largest positive effect on titers following vaccination. COVID-19 severity and the presence of comorbidities have no discernible impact on vaccine response. In conclusion, a single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine up to 15 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection offers higher neutralizing antibody titers than 2 vaccine doses in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals.

Performance of a machine-learning algorithm to predict hypotension in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit: a cohort study.

The Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) is a commercially available machine-learning algorithm that provides warnings for impending hypotension, based on real-time arterial waveform analysis. The HPI was developed with arterial waveform data of surgical and intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but has never been externally validated in the latter group. In this study, we evaluated diagnostic ability of the HPI with invasively collected arterial blood pressure data in 41 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU for mechanical ventilation. Predictive ability was evaluated at HPI thresholds from 0 to 100, at incremental intervals of 5. After exceeding the studied threshold, the next 20 min were screened for positive (mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 65 mmHg for at least 1 min) or negative (absence of MAP < 65 mmHg for at least 1 min) events. Subsequently, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and time to event were determined for every threshold. Almost all patients (93%) experienced at least one hypotensive event. Median number of events was 21 [7-54] and time spent in hypotension was 114 min [20-303]. The optimal threshold was 90, with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.81-0.98), specificity of 0.87 (0.81-0.92), PPV of 0.69 (0.61-0.77), NPV of 0.99 (0.97-1.00), and median time to event of 3.93 min (3.72-4.15). Discrimination ability of the HPI was excellent, with an area under the curve of 0.95 (0.93-0.97). This validation study shows that the HPI correctly predicts hypotension in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the ICU, and provides a basis for future studies to assess whether hypotension can be reduced in ICU patients using this algorithm.

Sex steroid hormones are associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients: Level of sex hormones in severe COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), men are more severely affected than women. Multiple studies suggest that androgens might play a role in this difference in disease severity. Our objective was to assess the association between sex hormone levels and mortality in patients with severe COVID-19.We selected patients from the Amsterdam University Medical Centers COVID-19 Biobank, in which patients admitted to hospital in March and April 2020, with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction proven severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection, were prospectively included. Specifically, we included postmenopausal women (>55 years) and age-matched men, with a mortality of 50% in each group. Residual plasma samples were used to measure testosterone, estradiol, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), and albumin. We investigated the association of the levels of these hormones with mortality in men and women.We included 16 women and 24 men in March and April 2020 of whom 7 (44%) and 13 (54%), respectively, died. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range [IQR] 64-75). In men, both total and free testosterone was significantly lower in deceased patients (median testosterone 0.8 nmol/L [IQR 0.4-1.9] in deceased patients vs 3.2 nmol/L [IQR 2.1-7.5] in survivors; P < .001, and median free testosterone 33.2 pmol/L [IQR 15.3-52.2] in deceased patients vs 90.3 pmol/L [IQR 49.1-209.7] in survivors; P = .002). SHBG levels were significantly lower in both men and women who died (18.5 nmol/L [IQR 11.3-24.3] in deceased patients vs 34.0 nmol/L [IQR 25.0-48.0] in survivors; P < .001). No difference in estradiol levels was found between deceased and surviving patients.Low SHBG levels were associated with mortality rate in patients with COVID-19, and low total and free testosterone levels were associated with mortality in men. The role of testosterone and SHBG and potential of hormone replacement therapy needs further exploration in COVID-19.