Sarilumab plus standard of care vs standard of care for the treatment of severe COVID-19: a phase 3, randomized, open-labeled, multi-center study (ESCAPE study).

Background: Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76). Findings: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% [95% CI 81-94] in arm A vs 85% [74-93], HR 1.07 [0.8-1.5] in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% [77-96] vs 79% [63-91], HR 1.55 [0.9-2.6]; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% [79-96]) vs (73% [55-89], HR 1.53 [0.9-2.7]; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results. Funding: This study was supported by INMI "Lazzaro Spallanzani" Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.

Proteomic analysis identifies a signature of disease severity in the plasma of COVID-19 pneumonia patients associated to neutrophil, platelet and complement activation.

Most patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 display mild symptoms with good prognosis, while 20% of patients suffer from severe viral pneumonia and up to 5% may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission due to severe acute respiratory syndrome, which could be accompanied by multiorgan failure.Plasma proteomics provide valuable and unbiased information about disease progression and therapeutic candidates. Recent proteomic studies have identified molecular changes in plasma of COVID-19 patients that implied significant dysregulation of several aspects of the inflammatory response accompanied by a general metabolic suppression. However, which of these plasma alterations are associated with disease severity remains only partly characterized.A known limitation of proteomic studies of plasma samples is the large difference in the macromolecule abundance, with concentration spanning at least 10 orders of magnitude. To improve the coverage of plasma contents, we performed a deep proteomic analysis of plasma from 10 COVID-19 patients with severe/fatal pneumonia compared to 10 COVID-19 patients with pneumonia who did not require ICU admission (non-ICU). To this aim, plasma samples were first depleted of the most abundant proteins, trypsin digested and peptides subjected to a high pH reversed-phase peptide fractionation before LC-MS analysis.These results highlighted an increase of proteins involved in neutrophil and platelet activity and acute phase response, which is significantly higher in severe/fatal COVID-19 patients when compared to non-ICU ones. Importantly, these changes are associated with a selective induction of complement cascade factors in severe/fatal COVID-19 patients. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD036491. Among these alterations, we confirmed by ELISA that higher levels of the neutrophil granule proteins DEFA3 and LCN2 are present in COVID-19 patients requiring ICU admission when compared to non-ICU and healthy donors.Altogether, our study provided an in-depth view of plasma proteome changes that occur in COVID-19 patients in relation to disease severity, which can be helpful to identify therapeutic strategies to improve the disease outcome.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Neutralization after Third Dose Vaccination in PLWH.

The aim was to measure neutralizing antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) variant in serum samples obtained from vaccinated PLWH and healthcare workers (HCW) and compare them with those against the Wuhan-D614G (W-D614G) strain, before and after the third dose of a mRNA vaccine. We included 106 PLWH and 28 HCWs, for a total of 134 participants. Before the third dose, the proportion of participants with undetectable nAbsT against BA.1 was 88% in the PLWH low CD4 nadir group, 80% in the high nadir group and 100% in the HCW. Before the third dose, the proportion of participants with detectable nAbsT against BA.1 was 12% in the PLWH low nadir group, 20% in the high nadir group and 0% in HCW, respectively. After 2 weeks from the third dose, 89% of the PLWH in the low nadir group, 100% in the high nadir group and 96% of HCW elicited detectable nAbsT against BA.1. After the third dose, the mean log2 nAbsT against BA.1 in the HCW and PLWH with a high nadir group was lower than that seen against W-D614G (6.1 log2 (±1.8) vs. 7.9 (±1.1) and 6.4 (±1.3) vs. 8.6 (±0.8)), respectively. We found no evidence of a different level of nAbsT neutralization by BA.1 vs. W-D614G between PLWH with a high CD4 nadir and HCW (0.40 (-1.64, 2.43); p = 0.703). Interestingly, in PLWH with a low CD4 nadir, the mean log2 difference between nAbsT against BA.1 and W-D614G was smaller in those with current CD4 counts 201-500 vs. those with CD4 counts < 200 cells/mm3 (-0.80 (-1.52, -0.08); p = 0.029), suggesting that in this target population with a low CD4 nadir, current CD4 count might play a role in diversifying the level of SARS-CoV-2 neutralization.

Humoral and Cellular Immune Response Elicited by mRNA Vaccination Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy Based on Current CD4 T-Lymphocyte Count.

BACKGROUND: Data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity in PLWH are currently limited. Aim of the study was to investigate immunogenicity according to current CD4 T-cell count. METHODS: PLWH on ART attending a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination program, were included in a prospective immunogenicity evaluation after receiving BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Participants were stratified by current CD4 T-cell count (poor CD4 recovery, PCDR: <200/mm3; intermediate CD4 recovery, ICDR: 200-500/mm3; high CD4 recovery, HCDR: >500/mm3). RBD-binding IgG, SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) and IFN-γ release were measured. As control group, HIV-negative healthcare workers (HCWs) were used. FINDINGS: Among 166 PLWH, after 1 month from the booster dose, detectable RBD-binding IgG were elicited in 86.7% of PCDR, 100% of ICDR, 98.7% of HCDR, and a neutralizing titre ≥1:10 elicited in 70.0%, 88.2%, and 93.1%, respectively. Compared to HCDR, all immune response parameters were significantly lower in PCDR. After adjusting for confounders, current CD4 T-cell <200/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of anti-RDB, nAbs and IFN-γ response. As compared with HCWs, PCDR elicited a consistently reduced immunogenicity for all parameters, ICDR only a reduced RBD-binding antibody response, whereas HCDR elicited a comparable immune response for all parameters. CONCLUSION: Humoral and cell-mediated immune response against SARS-CoV-2 were elicited in most of PLWH, albeit significantly poorer in those with CD4 T-cell <200/mm3 versus those with >500 cell/mm3 and HIV-negative controls. A lower RBD-binding antibody response than HCWs was also observed in PLWH with CD4 T-cell 200-500/mm3, whereas immune response elicited in PLWH with a CD4 T-cell >500/mm3 was comparable to HIV-negative population.

Characteristics and Outcomes of COVID-19-Related Hospitalization among PLWH.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence for how HIV influences COVID-19 infection. The aim of this study was to compare characteristics at presentation and the clinical outcomes of people living with HIV (PLWH) versus HIV-negative patients (non-PLWH) hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Primary endpoint: time until invasive ventilation/death. Secondary endpoints: time until ventilation/death, time until symptoms resolution. RESULTS: A total of 1647 hospitalized patients were included (43 (2.6%) PLWH, 1604 non-PLWH). PLWH were younger (55 vs. 61 years) and less likely to be with PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg compared with non-PLWH. Among PLWH, nadir of CD4 was 185 (75-322) cells/µL; CD4 at COVID-19 diagnosis was 272 cells/µL (127-468) and 77% of these were virologically suppressed. The cumulative probability of invasive mechanical ventilation/death at day 15 was 4.7% (95%CI 1.2-17.3) in PLWH versus 18.9% (16.9-21.1) in non-PLWH (p = 0.023). The cumulative probability of non-invasive/invasive ventilation/death at day 15 was 20.9% (11.5-36.4) in PLWH versus 37.6% (35.1-40.2) in non-PLWH (p = 0.044). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of invasive mechanical ventilation/death of PLWH was 0.49 (95% CI 0.12-1.96, p = 0.310) versus non-PLWH; similarly, aHR of non-invasive/invasive ventilation/death of PLWH was 1.03 (95% CI 0.53-2.00, p = 0.926). CONCLUSION: A less-severe presentation of COVID-19 at hospitalization was observed in PLWH compared to non-PLWH; no difference in clinical outcomes could be detected.