Peginterferon lambda for the treatment of hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19: A pilot phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous injection of peginterferon lambda in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods In this study (NCT04343976), patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swab were randomly assigned within 48 h to receive peginterferon lambda or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Participants were subcutaneously injected with a peginterferon lambda or saline placebo at baseline and day 7 and were followed up until day 14. Results We enrolled 14 participants;6 participants (85.7%) in the peginterferon lambda group and 1 participant (14.3%) in the placebo group were treated with remdesivir prior to enrollment. Fifty percent of participants were SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative at baseline although they tested SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive within 48 h of randomization. Among participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive at baseline, 2 out of 5 participants (40%) in the peginterferon lambda group became negative at day 14, while 0 out of 2 participants (0%) in the placebo group achieved negativity for SARS-CoV-2 by day 14 (p > 0.05). The median change in viral load (log copies per ml) was +1.72 (IQR −2.78 to 3.19) in the placebo group and −2.22 (IQR −3.24 to 0.55) in the peginterferon lambda group at day 14 (p = 0.24). Symptomatic changes did not differ between the two groups. Peginterferon lambda was well tolerated with a few treatment-related adverse effects. Conclusion Peginterferon lambda appears to accelerate SARS-CoV-2 viral load decline and improve plasma disease progression markers in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Peginterferon lambda for the treatment of hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19: A pilot phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous injection of peginterferon lambda in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: In this study (NCT04343976), patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swab were randomly assigned within 48 h to receive peginterferon lambda or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Participants were subcutaneously injected with a peginterferon lambda or saline placebo at baseline and day 7 and were followed up until day 14. Results: We enrolled 14 participants; 6 participants (85.7%) in the peginterferon lambda group and 1 participant (14.3%) in the placebo group were treated with remdesivir prior to enrollment. Fifty percent of participants were SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative at baseline although they tested SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive within 48 h of randomization. Among participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive at baseline, 2 out of 5 participants (40%) in the peginterferon lambda group became negative at day 14, while 0 out of 2 participants (0%) in the placebo group achieved negativity for SARS-CoV-2 by day 14 (p > 0.05). The median change in viral load (log copies per ml) was +1.72 (IQR -2.78 to 3.19) in the placebo group and -2.22 (IQR -3.24 to 0.55) in the peginterferon lambda group at day 14 (p = 0.24). Symptomatic changes did not differ between the two groups. Peginterferon lambda was well tolerated with a few treatment-related adverse effects. Conclusion: Peginterferon lambda appears to accelerate SARS-CoV-2 viral load decline and improve plasma disease progression markers in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Therapeutic trials for long COVID-19: A call to action from the interventions taskforce of the RECOVER initiative.

Although most individuals recover from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, a significant number continue to suffer from Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), including the unexplained symptoms that are frequently referred to as long COVID, which could last for weeks, months, or even years after the acute phase of illness. The National Institutes of Health is currently funding large multi-center research programs as part of its Researching COVID to Enhance Recover (RECOVER) initiative to understand why some individuals do not recover fully from COVID-19. Several ongoing pathobiology studies have provided clues to potential mechanisms contributing to this condition. These include persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antigen and/or genetic material, immune dysregulation, reactivation of other latent viral infections, microvascular dysfunction, and gut dysbiosis, among others. Although our understanding of the causes of long COVID remains incomplete, these early pathophysiologic studies suggest biological pathways that could be targeted in therapeutic trials that aim to ameliorate symptoms. Repurposed medicines and novel therapeutics deserve formal testing in clinical trial settings prior to adoption. While we endorse clinical trials, especially those that prioritize inclusion of the diverse populations most affected by COVID-19 and long COVID, we discourage off-label experimentation in uncontrolled and/or unsupervised settings. Here, we review ongoing, planned, and potential future therapeutic interventions for long COVID based on the current understanding of the pathobiological processes underlying this condition. We focus on clinical, pharmacological, and feasibility data, with the goal of informing future interventional research studies.

Nirmatrelvir Plus Ritonavir for Early COVID-19 in a Large U.S. Health System : A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In the EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for Covid-19 in High-Risk Patients) trial, nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir led to an 89% reduction in hospitalization or death among unvaccinated outpatients with early COVID-19. The clinical impact of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir among vaccinated populations is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir reduces risk for hospitalization or death among outpatients with early COVID-19 in the setting of prevalent SARS-CoV-2 immunity and immune-evasive SARS-CoV-2 lineages. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study analyzed to emulate a clinical trial using inverse probability-weighted models to account for anticipated bias in treatment. SETTING: A large health care system providing care for 1.5 million patients in Massachusetts and New Hampshire during the Omicron wave (1 January to 17 July 2022). PATIENTS: 44 551 nonhospitalized adults (90.3% with ≥3 vaccine doses) aged 50 years or older with COVID-19 and no contraindications for nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization within 14 days or death within 28 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: During the study period, 12 541 (28.1%) patients were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, and 32 010 (71.9%) were not. Patients prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir were more likely to be older, have more comorbidities, and be vaccinated. The composite outcome of hospitalization or death occurred in 69 (0.55%) patients who were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and 310 (0.97%) who were not (adjusted risk ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.75]). Recipients of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir had lower risk for hospitalization (adjusted risk ratio, 0.60 [CI, 0.44 to 0.81]) and death (adjusted risk ratio, 0.29 [CI, 0.12 to 0.71]). LIMITATION: Potential residual confounding due to differential access to COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatment. CONCLUSION: The overall risk for hospitalization or death was already low (1%) after an outpatient diagnosis of COVID-19, but nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir reduced this risk further. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Bebtelovimab for High-Risk Outpatients With Early COVID-19 in a Large US Health System.

There are limited data for the clinical efficacy of bebtelovimab in preventing severe coronavirus disease 2019. Among outpatients unable to take nirmatrelvir-ritonavir at a large health system, 10 of 377 (2.7%) patients who received bebtelovimab and 17 of 377 (4.5%) matched untreated patients were hospitalized or died. The 43% observed risk reduction with bebtelovimab was not statistically significant (P = 0.14).

Developing Treatment Guidelines During a Pandemic Health Crisis: Lessons Learned From COVID-19.

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Preventing Infectious Complications of Immunomodulation in COVID-19 in Foreign-Born Patients.

Immunomodulating therapies for COVID-19 may carry risks of reactivating latent infections in foreign-born people. We conducted a rapid review of infection-related complications of immunomodulatory therapies for COVID-19. We convened a committee of specialists to formulate a screening and management strategy for latent infections in our setting. Dexamethasone, used in severe COVID-19, is associated with reactivation of latent tuberculosis, hepatitis B, and dissemination/hyperinfection of Strongyloides species and should prompt screening and/ or empiric treatment in appropriate epidemiologic contexts. Other immunomodulators used in COVID-19 may also increase risk, including interleukin-6 receptor antagonist (e.g., tocilizumab) and kinase inhibitors. People with specific risk factors should also be screened for HIV, Chagas disease, and endemic mycoses. Racial and ethnic minorities in North America, including foreign-born persons, who receive immunomodulating agents for COVID-19 may be at risk for reactivation of latent infections. We develop a screening and management pathway for such patients.

Immunomodulation as Treatment for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review of Current Modalities and Future Directions.

In severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, viral load peaks early and declines quickly after symptom onset. Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is marked by aberrant innate and adaptive immune responses with an abnormal cytokine profile and multiorgan system dysfunction that persists well after viral clearance. A purely antiviral treatment strategy may therefore be insufficient, and antiviral agents have not shown a benefit later in the illness course. A number of immunomodulatory strategies are being tested, including corticosteroids, cytokine and anticytokine therapies, small molecule inhibitors, and cellular therapeutics. To date, the only drug to show a mortality benefit for COVID-19 in a randomized, controlled trial is dexamethasone. However, there remains uncertainty about which patients may benefit most and about longer-term complications, including secondary infections. Here, we review the immune dysregulation of severe COVID-19 and the existing data behind various immunomodulatory strategies, and we consider future directions of study.

Efficacy of Tocilizumab in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor blockade in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) who are not receiving mechanical ventilation is unclear. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hyperinflammatory states, and at least two of the following signs: fever (body temperature >38°C), pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive standard care plus a single dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. The primary outcome was intubation or death, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The secondary efficacy outcomes were clinical worsening and discontinuation of supplemental oxygen among patients who had been receiving it at baseline, both assessed in time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: We enrolled 243 patients; 141 (58%) were men, and 102 (42%) were women. The median age was 59.8 years (range, 21.7 to 85.4), and 45% of the patients were Hispanic or Latino. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 1.81; P = 0.64), and the hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 to 2.10; P = 0.73). At 14 days, 18.0% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 14.9% of the patients in the placebo group had had worsening of disease. The median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was 5.0 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.6) in the tocilizumab group and 4.9 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.8) in the placebo group (P = 0.69). At 14 days, 24.6% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 21.2% of the patients in the placebo group were still receiving supplemental oxygen. Patients who received tocilizumab had fewer serious infections than patients who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab was not effective for preventing intubation or death in moderately ill hospitalized patients with Covid-19. Some benefit or harm cannot be ruled out, however, because the confidence intervals for efficacy comparisons were wide. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04356937.).

Temporal and spatial heterogeneity of host response to SARS-CoV-2 pulmonary infection.

The relationship of SARS-CoV-2 pulmonary infection and severity of disease is not fully understood. Here we show analysis of autopsy specimens from 24 patients who succumbed to SARS-CoV-2 infection using a combination of different RNA and protein analytical platforms to characterize inter-patient and intra-patient heterogeneity of pulmonary virus infection. There is a spectrum of high and low virus cases associated with duration of disease. High viral cases have high activation of interferon pathway genes and a predominant M1-like macrophage infiltrate. Low viral cases are more heterogeneous likely reflecting inherent patient differences in the evolution of host response, but there is consistent indication of pulmonary epithelial cell recovery based on napsin A immunohistochemistry and RNA expression of surfactant and mucin genes. Using a digital spatial profiling platform, we find the virus corresponds to distinct spatial expression of interferon response genes demonstrating the intra-pulmonary heterogeneity of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Disproportionate burden of coronavirus disease 2019 among racial minorities and those in congregate settings among a large cohort of people with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Many people living with HIV (PLWH) have comorbidities which are risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or have exposures that may lead to acquisition of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2. There are few studies, however, on the demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentation, or outcomes of COVID-19 in people with HIV. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk factors, clinical manifestations, and outcomes in a large cohort of PLWH with COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically identified all PLWH who were diagnosed with COVID-19 at a large hospital from 3 March to 26 April 2020 during an outbreak in Massachusetts. We analyzed each of the cases to extract information including demographics, medical comorbidities, clinical presentation, and illness course after COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: We describe a cohort of 36 PLWH with confirmed COVID-19 and another 11 patients with probable COVID-19. Almost 85% of PLWH with confirmed COVID-19 had a comorbidity associated with severe disease, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, or hypertension. Approximately 77% of PLWH with COVID-19 were non-Hispanic Black or Latinx whereas only 40% of the PLWH in our clinic were Black or Latinx. Nearly half of PLWH with COVID-19 had exposure to congregate settings. In addition to people with confirmed COVID-19, we identified another 11 individuals with probable COVID-19, almost all of whom had negative PCR testing. CONCLUSION: In the largest cohort to date of PLWH and confirmed COVID-19, almost all had a comorbidity associated with severe disease, highlighting the importance of non-HIV risk factors in this population. The racial disparities and frequent link to congregate settings in PLWH and COVID-19 need to be explored urgently.

Liver Biochemistries in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to elevated liver biochemistries in approximately half of patients on presentation. To date, data are limited regarding the trend of liver biochemistries over the course of illness. We aimed to evaluate the trend, etiology, and outcomes associated with liver biochemistries in COVID-19. APPROACH AND RESULTS: A total of 60 patients with COVID-19 were admitted between March 21 and March 28, 2020. The mean age was 57 years, 65% were male, and 28% were Hispanic. At the study conclusion, 6 patients were deceased, 28 were discharged, and 26 remained admitted. Patients who remained admitted were followed for a median of 12 days. Of 60 patients, 41 (69%) had at least one abnormal liver biochemistry on admission. Median aspartate aminotransferase (AST) was higher than alanine aminotransferase (ALT) at admission (46 vs. 30 U/L) and during the hospital course. Aminotransferases rose above normal in 54 (93%) patients, whereas alkaline phosphatase and total bilirubin elevations were rare. Ten (17%) patients developed aminotransferases more than 5 times the upper limit of normal. AST highly correlated with ALT throughout the illness course (r = 0.97; P < 0.0001), whereas correlations with markers of muscle injury and inflammation were weak. Statin use was common before (40%) and during admission (80%) at our center, with no difference in peak liver biochemistries between users and nonusers. No demographic or comorbid illness was associated with liver injury. Admission AST (69 vs. 49; P < 0.05), peak AST (364 vs. 77; P = 0.003), and peak ALT (220 vs. 52; P = 0.002) were higher in intubated patients. CONCLUSIONS: AST-dominant aminotransferase elevation is common in COVID-19, mirrors disease severity, and appears to reflect true hepatic injury.

Rethinking the role of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19.

There are currently no proven or approved treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Early anecdotal reports and limited in vitro data led to the significant uptake of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and to lesser extent chloroquine (CQ), for many patients with this disease. As an increasing number of patients with COVID-19 are treated with these agents and more evidence accumulates, there continues to be no high-quality clinical data showing a clear benefit of these agents for this disease. Moreover, these agents have the potential to cause harm, including a broad range of adverse events including serious cardiac side effects when combined with other agents. In addition, the known and potent immunomodulatory effects of these agents which support their use in the treatment of auto-immune conditions, and provided a component in the original rationale for their use in patients with COVID-19, may, in fact, undermine their utility in the context of the treatment of this respiratory viral infection. Specifically, the impact of HCQ on cytokine production and suppression of antigen presentation may have immunologic consequences that hamper innate and adaptive antiviral immune responses for patients with COVID-19. Similarly, the reported in vitro inhibition of viral proliferation is largely derived from the blockade of viral fusion that initiates infection rather than the direct inhibition of viral replication as seen with nucleoside/tide analogs in other viral infections. Given these facts and the growing uncertainty about these agents for the treatment of COVID-19, it is clear that at the very least thoughtful planning and data collection from randomized clinical trials are needed to understand what if any role these agents may have in this disease. In this article, we review the datasets that support or detract from the use of these agents for the treatment of COVID-19 and render a data informed opinion that they should only be used with caution and in the context of carefully thought out clinical trials, or on a case-by-case basis after rigorous consideration of the risks and benefits of this therapeutic approach.