Spleen tyrosine kinase inhibition restores myeloid homeostasis in COVID-19.

Spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) is a previously unidentified therapeutic target that inhibits neutrophil and macrophage activation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Fostamatinib, a SYK inhibitor, was studied in a phase 2 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial and was associated with improvements in many secondary end points related to efficacy. Here, we used a multiomic approach to evaluate cellular and soluble immune mediator responses of patients enrolled in this trial. We demonstrated that SYK inhibition was associated with reduced neutrophil activation, increased circulation of mature neutrophils (CD10+CD33-), and decreased circulation of low-density granulocytes and polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells (HLA-DR-CD33+CD11b-). SYK inhibition was also associated with normalization of transcriptional activity in circulating monocytes relative to healthy controls, an increase in frequency of circulating nonclassical and HLA-DRhi classical monocyte populations, and restoration of interferon responses. Together, these data suggest that SYK inhibition may mitigate proinflammatory myeloid cellular and soluble mediator responses thought to contribute to immunopathogenesis of severe COVID-19.

Fostamatinib for the Treatment of Hospitalized Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospitalization is characterized by robust antibody production, dysregulated immune response, and immunothrombosis. Fostamatinib is a novel spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor that we hypothesize will ameliorate Fc activation and attenuate harmful effects of the anti-COVID-19 immune response. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in hospitalized adults requiring oxygen with COVID-19 where patients receiving standard of care were randomized to receive fostamatinib or placebo. The primary outcome was serious adverse events by day 29. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients underwent randomization (30 to fostamatinib and 29 to placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in 10.5% of patients in the fostamatinib group compared with 22% in placebo (P = .2). Three deaths occurred by day 29, all receiving placebo. The mean change in ordinal score at day 15 was greater in the fostamatinib group (-3.6 ±â€…0.3 vs -2.6 ±â€…0.4, P = .035) and the median length in the intensive care unit was 3 days in the fostamatinib group vs 7 days in placebo (P = .07). Differences in clinical improvement were most evident in patients with severe or critical disease (median days on oxygen, 10 vs 28, P = .027). There were trends toward more rapid reductions in C-reactive protein, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and ferritin levels in the fostamatinib group. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the addition of fostamatinib to standard of care was safe and patients were observed to have improved clinical outcomes compared with placebo. These results warrant further validation in larger confirmatory trials. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04579393.

Professional roles and relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study among US clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare delivery in the USA, but there has been little empirical work describing the impact of these changes on clinicians. We conducted a study to address the following question: how has the pandemic impacted US clinicians' professional roles and relationships? DESIGN: Inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Clinical settings across the USA in April and May of 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians with leadership and/or clinical roles during the COVID-19 pandemic. MEASURES: Emergent themes related to professional roles and relationships. RESULTS: Sixty-one clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews. Study participants were practising in 15 states across the USA, and the majority were White physicians from large academic centres. Three overlapping and inter-related themes emerged from qualitative analysis of interview transcripts: (1) disruption: boundaries between work and home life became blurred and professional identity and usual clinical roles were upended; (2) constructive adaptation: some clinicians were able to find new meaning in their work and described a spirit of collaboration, shared goals, open communication and mutual respect among colleagues; and (3) discord and estrangement: other clinicians felt alienated from their clinical roles and experienced demoralising work environments marked by division, value conflicts and mistrust. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians encountered marked disruption of their professional roles, identities and relationships during the pandemic to which they and their colleagues responded in a range of different ways. Some described a spirit of collaboration and camaraderie, while others felt alienated by their new roles and experienced work environments marked by division, value conflicts and mistrust. Our findings highlight the importance of effective teamwork and efforts to support clinician well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Role of Antibody Testing for SARS-CoV-2: Is There One?

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) brought with it rapid development of both molecular and serologic assays for identification of COVID-19 infections. While Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) is required for clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 molecular tests, submission for EUA is currently a voluntary process for manufacturers of serologic assays. The absence of FDA oversight of serologic tests is concerning given that the commercially available serologic assays are highly variable, differing in their format, the antibody class detected, the targeted antigen, and the acceptable specimen types. An added complication is the lack of a clear understanding for how such assays should be utilized and what the reported results ultimately indicate or, perhaps more importantly, what they do not indicate. Here, we provide a brief summary of the performance of a number of serologic assays reported in the literature, comment on what we do and do not know regarding our immune response to SARS-CoV-2, and provide a number of scenarios for which serologic testing will play a role during our global response to this pandemic.

Performance evaluation of antibody-based point-of-care devices intended for the identification of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2.

The novel coronavirus outbreak caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The local outbreak quickly rose to pandemic level that has spread to more than 188 countries with more than 19 million cases and 732,467 deaths worldwide. The current recommendation for testing is RT-PCR based tests of nasopharyngeal or alternatively nasal- and/or oropharyngeal swabs that detects infection with SARS-CoV-2 to diagnose acute infection. However, there is an urgent need for a quick and accurate antibody-based point-of-care test method to quickly identify evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among people who might be missed through active case finding and surveillance efforts. Serology tests measure the presence of antibodies in serum after infection. Here we compared the performance characteristics of 6 commercially available antibody-based point-of-care devices and their potential for identification of individuals infected at some time by SARS-CoV-2.

US Clinicians' Experiences and Perspectives on Resource Limitation and Patient Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about how US clinicians have responded to resource limitation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objective: To describe the perspectives and experiences of clinicians involved in institutional planning for resource limitation and/or patient care during the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used inductive thematic analysis of semistructured interviews conducted in April and May 2020 with a national group of clinicians (eg, intensivists, nephrologists, nurses) involved in institutional planning and/or clinical care during the COVID-19 pandemic across the United States. Main Outcomes and Measures: Emergent themes describing clinicians' experience providing care in settings of resource limitation. Results: The 61 participants (mean [SD] age, 46 [11] years; 38 [63%] women) included in this study were practicing in 15 US states and were more heavily sampled from areas with the highest rates of COVID-19 infection at the time of interviews (ie, Seattle, New York City, New Orleans). Most participants were White individuals (39 [65%]), were attending physicians (45 [75%]), and were practicing in large academic centers (≥300 beds, 51 [85%]; academic centers, 46 [77%]). Three overlapping and interrelated themes emerged from qualitative analysis, as follows: (1) planning for crisis capacity, (2) adapting to resource limitation, and (3) multiple unprecedented barriers to care delivery. Clinician leaders worked within their institutions to plan a systematic approach for fair allocation of limited resources in crisis settings so that frontline clinicians would not have to make rationing decisions at the bedside. However, even before a declaration of crisis capacity, clinicians encountered varied and sometimes unanticipated forms of resource limitation that could compromise care, require that they make difficult allocation decisions, and contribute to moral distress. Furthermore, unprecedented challenges to caring for patients during the pandemic, including the need to limit in-person interactions, the rapid pace of change, and the dearth of scientific evidence, added to the challenges of caring for patients and communicating with families. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study highlighted the complexity of providing high-quality care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the scope of institutional planning to address resource limitation challenges that can arise long before declarations of crisis capacity may help to support frontline clinicians, promote equity, and optimize care as the pandemic evolves.

Neutralizing Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Convalescent Sera.

Passive transfer of antibodies from COVID-19 convalescent patients is being used as an experimental treatment for eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections. The United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guidelines for convalescent plasma initially recommended target antibody titers of 160. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in sera from recovered COVID-19 patients using plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT) at moderate (PRNT50) and high (PRNT90) stringency thresholds. We found that neutralizing activity significantly increased with time post symptom onset (PSO), reaching a peak at 31-35 days PSO. At this point, the number of sera having neutralizing titers of at least 160 was approximately 93% (PRNT50) and approximately 54% (PRNT90). Sera with high SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels (>960 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay titers) showed maximal activity, but not all high-titer sera contained neutralizing antibody at FDA recommended levels, particularly at high stringency. These results underscore the value of serum characterization for neutralization activity.