Does COVID-19 Vaccination with BNT162b2 Influence HIV-Related Immunological and Virological Markers? Data from 235 Persons Living with HIV at Cotugno Hospital, Naples, Italy: Immune Response After Second and Third Doses, and Influence on Immunovirological Markers.

Few data are available on the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on CD4 counts and HIV-RNA in persons living with HIV (PLWH). We present the data of 235 PLWH who were vaccinated with BNT162b2 in March 2021-February 2022 at the "Cotugno" hospital in Naples. PLWH treated at the "Cotugno" hospital, who were vaccinated at the hospital vaccination center, without prior COVID-19 and for whom immunological/virological data were available in the last 12 months and in the 6 months after vaccination were included. Antispike Ab were available for 187 and 64 PLWH after the second and third doses: PLWH with antispikes >33 binding antibodies units (BAU)/mL increased from 91% to 98%. Antinucleocapsid Ab performed in 147 and 56 patients identified 19 (13%) asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic COVID-19 infections after the second dose and an additional 15 (27%) after the third dose. Immunological/virological data were collected before vaccination (T0), after the second dose (T1), and after the third dose (T2). The absolute number of CD4 increased after the third dose (median 663, 657, and 707 at T0, T1, and T2; p < 0.000 T0 vs. T2). The proportion of patients with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL increases significantly after the second dose (73%; 85.7%; 87.7%; p < 0.000 T0 vs. T2). The presence of COVID-19 asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic infections (demonstrated by the presence of antinucleocapsid Ab) significantly increases SARS-CoV-2 antispike Ab after second dose, but not after third dose. Asymptomatic/paucisymptomatic COVID-19 infections do not have influence on CD4 cell number and HIV-RNA level. Similarly, the presence of not-controlled HIV-RNA (HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL) does not influence antispike Ab response. According to our data, the response to SARS-CoV2 vaccination is effective in people living with HIV. Vaccination against COVID-19 appears to positively affect immunological and virological levels in people living with HIV.

SARS-CoV-2 infection: a hurricane that does not ignore chronic hepatitis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly compromised screening, laboratory controls, clinical surveillance and treatment of chronic hepatitis patients and worsened their outcome, as evidenced by its significant correlation with advanced cirrhosis, liver decompensation and mortality. RESULTS: This pandemic significantly impaired also the sector of liver transplantation, whose wards, operating rooms, outpatients' facilities, and healthcare personnel have been dedicated to patients with COVID-19. In addition, screening and treatment for HBV infection have been delayed or suspended in in most countries, with an increased risk of viral reactivation. Similar delay or suspension have also occurred for universal hepatitis B vaccination programs in many countries. Likewise, COVID-19 pandemic has made unreachable the goal of elimination of HCV infection as a worldwide public-health issue predicted for 2030 by the WHO. CONCLUSION: This review article demonstrates how COVID-19 pandemic is causing serious damage to the sector of liver disease, which has quickly lost the beneficial effects of years of study, research, and clinical and technological application, as well as considerable financial investments.

Risk and Prevention of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation during Immunosuppression for Non-Oncological Diseases.

Reactivation of overt or occult HBV infection (HBVr) is a well-known, potentially life-threatening event which can occur during the course of immunosuppressive treatments. Although it has been described mainly in subjects receiving therapy for oncological or hematological diseases, the increasing use of immunosuppressant agents in non-oncological patients observed in recent years has raised concerns about the risk of reactivation in several other settings. However, few data can be found in the literature on the occurrence of HBVr in these populations, and few clear recommendations on its management have been defined. The present paper was written to provide an overview of the risk of HBV reactivation in non-neoplastic patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs, particularly for rheumatological, gastrointestinal, dermatological and neurological diseases, and for COVID-19 patients receiving immunomodulating agents; and to discuss the potential strategies for prevention and treatment of HBVr in these settings.

Dementia as Risk Factor for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the outcome of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and dementia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter, observational, 1:2 matched case-control study all 23 patients with a history of dementia, hospitalized with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection from February 28th 2020 to January 31st 2021 were enrolled. For each Case, 2 patients without dementia observed in the same period study, pair matched for gender, age (±5 years), PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio at admission (<200, or >200), number of comorbidities (±1; excluding dementia) were chosen (Control group). RESULTS: The majority of patients were males (60.9% of Cases and Controls) and very elderly [median age 82 years (IQR: 75.5-85) in the Cases and 80 (IQR: 75.5-83.75) in the Controls]. The prevalence of co-pathologies was very high: all the Cases and 43 (93.5%) Controls showed a Charlson comorbidity index of at least 2. During hospitalization the patients in the Case group less frequently had a moderate disease of COVID-19 (35 vs. 67.4%, p = 0.02), more frequently a severe disease (48 vs. 22%, p = 0.03) and more frequently died (48 vs. 22%, p = 0.03). Moreover, during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), 14 (60.8%) patients in the Case group and 1 (2.1%; p < 0.000) in the Control group showed signs and symptoms of delirium. CONCLUSION: Patients with dementia are vulnerable and have an increased risk of a severe disease and death when infected with COVID-19.

More Severe COVID-19 in Patients With Active Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity presentation between oncologic and non-oncologic patients and to evaluate the impact of cancer type and stage on COVID-19 course. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, retrospective study involving 13 COVID-19 Units in Campania region from February to May 2020. We defined as severe COVID-19 presentation the cases that required mechanical ventilation and/or admission to Intensive Care Units (ICU) and/or in case of death. RESULTS: We enrolled 371 COVID-19 patients, of whom 34 (9.2%) had a history or a diagnosis of cancer (24 solid, 6 onco-hematological). Oncologic patients were older (p<0.001), had more comorbidities (p<0.001) and showed a higher rate of severe COVID-19 presentation (p=0.001) and of death (p<0.001). Compared to 12 patients with non-active cancer and to 337 without cancer, the 17 patients with active cancer had more comorbidities and showed a higher rate of severe COVID-19 and of mortality (all p values <0.001). Compared to the 281 non-severe patients, the 90 subjects with a severe presentation of COVID-19 were older (p<0.01), with more comorbidities (p<0.001) and with a higher rate of cancer (p=0.001). At multivariate analysis, age (OR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11) and suffering from cancer in an active stage (OR 5.33, 95% CI: 1.77-16.53) were independently associated with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Since the higher risk of severe evolution of COVID-19, cancer patients, especially those with an active malignancy, should be candidates for early evaluation of symptoms and early treatment for COVID-19.

Impact of DAA-Based Regimens on HCV-Related Extra-Hepatic Damage: A Narrative Review.

Two-third of patients with chronic hepatitis C show extrahepatic manifestations due to HCV infection of B lymphocytes, such as mixed cryoglobulinemia and non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma, or develop a chronic inflammatory status that may favor the development of adverse cardiovascular events, kidney diseases or metabolic abnormalities.DAAs treatments induce HCV eradication in 95% of treated patients, which also improves the clinical course of extrahepatic manifestations, but with some limitations. After HCV eradication a good compensation of T2DM has been observed, but doubts persist about the possibility of obtaining a stable reduction in fasting glucose and HbA1c levels.Chronic HCV infection is associated with low total and LDL cholesterol serum levels, which however increase significantly after HCV elimination, possibly due to the disruption of HCV/lipid metabolism interaction. Despite this adverse effect, HCV eradication exerts a favorable action on cardiovascular system, possibly by eliminating numerous other harmful effects exerted by HCV on this system.DAA treatment is also indicated for the treatment of patients with mixed cryoglobulinemia syndrome, since HCV eradication results in symptom reduction and, in particular, is effective in cryoglobulinemic vasculitis. Furthermore, HCV eradication exerts a favorable action on HCV-related lymphoproliferative disorders, with frequent remission or reduction of clinical manifestations.There is also evidence that HCV clearance may improve impaired renal functions, but same conflicting data persist on the effect of some DAAs on eGFR.

Burden, risk assessment, surveillance and management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health workers (HWs) are at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and a possible source of nosocomial transmission clusters. Despite the increased risk, the best surveillance strategy and management of exposed HWs are not yet well known. The aim of this review was to summarize and critically analyze the existing evidence related to this topic in order to support public health strategies aimed at protecting HWs in the hospital setting. MAIN TEXT: A comprehensive computerized literature research from 1 January 2020 up to 22 May 2020 was made to identify studies analyzing the burden of infection, risk assessment, surveillance and management of HWs exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Among 1623 citation identified using MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar and manual search, we included 43 studies, 14 webpages and 5 ongoing trials. Health workers have a high risk of acquiring infection while caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. In particular, some types exposures and their duration, as well as the inadequate or non-use of personal protective equipment (PPE) are associated with increased infection risk. Strict infection prevention and control procedures (IPC), adequate training programs on the appropriate use of PPE and close monitoring of HWs with symptom surveillance and testing are essential to significantly reduce the risk. At the moment there is not enough evidence to provide precise indications regarding pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). CONCLUSIONS: During the spread of COVID-19 outbreak, numerous published papers investigated the epidemiology, risk assessment and prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2. However, more high-quality studies are needed to provide valid recommendations for better management and for the clinical and microbiological surveillance of healthcare personnel.

A Focus on the Nowadays Potential Antiviral Strategies in Early Phase of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): A Narrative Review.

Background: The outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the related disease (COVID-19) has rapidly spread to a pandemic proportion, increasing the demands on health systems for the containment and management of COVID-19. Nowadays, one of the critical issues still to be pointed out regards COVID-19 treatment regimens and timing: which drug, in which phase, for how long? Methods: Our narrative review, developed using MEDLINE and EMBASE, summarizes the main evidences in favor or against the current proposed treatment regimens for COVID-19, with a particular focus on antiviral agents. Results: Although many agents have been proposed as possible treatment, to date, any of the potential drugs against SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be safe and effective for treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of definitive evidence, remdesivir remains the only antiviral with encouraging effects in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Conclusions: In such a complex moment of global health emergency, it is hard to demand scientific evidence. Nevertheless, randomized clinical trials aiming to identify effective and safe drugs against SARS-CoV-2 infection are urgently needed in order to confirm or reject the currently available evidence.