CD177, a specific marker of neutrophil activation, is a hallmark of COVID-19 severity and death

COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibits wide inter-individual clinical variability, from silent infection to severe disease and death. The identification of high-risk patients is a continuing challenge in routine care. We aimed to identify factors that influence clinical worsening. We analyzed 52 cell populations, 71 analytes, and RNA-seq gene expression in the blood of severe patients from the French COVID cohort upon hospitalization (n = 61). COVID-19 patients showed severe abnormalities of 27 cell populations relative to healthy donors (HDs). Forty-two cytokines, neutrophil chemo-attractants, and inflammatory components were elevated in COVID-19 patients. Supervised gene expression analyses showed differential expression of genes for neutrophil activation, interferon signaling, T- and B-cell receptors, EIF2 signaling, and ICOS-ICOSL pathways in COVID-19 patients. Unsupervised analysis confirmed the prominent role of neutrophil activation, with a high abundance of CD177, a specific neutrophil activation marker. CD177 was the most highly differentially-expressed gene contributing to the clustering of severe patients and its abundance correlated with CD177 protein serum levels. CD177 levels were higher in COVID-19 patients from both the French and "confirmatory" Swiss cohort (n = 203) than in HDs (P< 0.01) and in ICU than non-ICU patients (P< 0.001), correlating with the time to symptoms onset (P = 0.002). Longitudinal measurements showed sustained levels of serum CD177 to discriminate between patients with the worst prognosis, leading to death, and those who recovered (P = 0.01). These results highlight neutrophil activation as a hallmark of severe disease and CD177 assessment as a reliable prognostic marker for routine care.

SARS-CoV-2 N-antigenemia: A new alternative to nucleic acid amplification techniques

Background. Molecular assays on nasopharyngeal swabs remain the cornerstone of COVID-19 diagnostic. Despite massive worldwide efforts, the high technicalities of nasopharyngeal sampling and molecular assays, as well as scarce resources of reagents, limit our testing capabilities. Several strategies failed, to date, to fully alleviate this testing process (e.g. saliva sampling or antigen testing on nasopharyngeal samples). We assessed the performances of a new ELISA microplate assay quantifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-antigen) in serum or plasma. Methods. The specificity of the assay, determined on 63 non-COVID patients, was 98.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.3 to 100). Performances were determined on 227 serum samples from 165 patients with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection included in the French COVID and CoV-CONTACT cohorts. Findings. Sensitivity was 132/142, 93.0% (95% CI, 84.7 to 100), within the first two weeks after symptoms onset. A subset of 73 COVID-19 patients had a serum collected within 24 hours following or preceding a positive nasopharyngeal swab. Among patients with high nasopharyngeal viral loads, Ct value below 30 and 33, only 1/50 and 4/67 tested negative for N-antigenemia, respectively. Among patients with a negative nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, 8/12 presented positive N-antigenemia. The lower respiratory tract was explored for 6/8 patients, showing positive PCR in 5 cases. Interpretation. This is the first demonstration of the N-antigen antigenemia during COVID-19. Its detection presented a robust sensitivity, especially within the first 14 days after symptoms onset and high nasopharyngeal viral loads. These findings have to be confirmed with higher representation of outpatients. This approach could provide a valuable new option for COVID-19 diagnosis, only requiring a blood draw and easily scalable in all clinical laboratories.

ISARIC COVID-19 Clinical Data Report: 8 June 2020

ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium) partnerships and outbreak preparedness initiatives enabled the rapid launch of standardised clinical data collection on COVID-19 in Jan 2020. Extensive global participation has resulted in a large, standardised collection of comprehensive clinical data from hundreds of sites across dozens of countries. Data are analysed regularly and reported publicly to inform patient care and public health response. This report, our 17th report, is a part of a series published over the past 2 years. Data have been entered for 800,459 individuals from 1701 partner institutions and networks across 60 countries. The comprehensive analyses detailed in this report includes hospitalised individuals of all ages for whom data collection occurred between 30 January 2020 and up to and including 5 January 2022, AND who have laboratory-confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection or clinically diagnosed COVID-19. For the 699,014 cases who meet eligibility criteria for this report, selected findings include: O_LImedian age of 58 years, with an approximately equal (50/50) male:female sex distribution C_LIO_LI29% of the cohort are at least 70 years of age, whereas 4% are 0-19 years of age C_LIO_LIthe most common symptom combination in this hospitalised cohort is shortness of breath, cough, and history of fever, which has remained constant over time C_LIO_LIthe five most common symptoms at admission were shortness of breath, cough, history of fever, fatigue/malaise, and altered consciousness/confusion, which is unchanged from the previous reports C_LIO_LIage-associated differences in symptoms are evident, including the frequency of altered consciousness increasing with age, and fever, respiratory and constitutional symptoms being present mostly in those 40 years and above C_LIO_LI16% of patients with relevant data available were admitted at some point during their illness into an intensive care unit (ICU), which is slightly lower than previously reported (19%) C_LIO_LIantibiotic agents were used in 35% of patients for whom relevant data are available (669,630), a significant reduction from our previous reports (80%) which reflects a shifting proportion of data contributed by different institutions; in ICU/HDU admitted patients with data available (50,560), 91% received antibiotics C_LIO_LIuse of corticosteroids was reported in 24% of all patients for whom data were available (677,012); in ICU/HDU admitted patients with data available (50,646), 69% received corticosteroids C_LIO_LIoutcomes are known for 632,518 patients and the overall estimated case fatality ratio (CFR) is 23.9% (95%CI 23.8-24.1), rising to 37.1% (95%CI 36.8-37.4) for patients who were admitted to ICU/HDU, demonstrating worse outcomes in those with the most severe disease C_LI To access previous versions of ISARIC COVID-19 Clinical Data Report please use the link below: https://isaric.org/research/covid-19-clinical-research-resources/evidence-reports/

Review and methodological analysis of trials currently testing treatment and prevention options for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) globally.

BackgroundAs COVID-19 cases continue to rise globally within an unprecedented short period of time, solid evidence from large randomised controlled trials is still lacking. Currently, numerous trials testing potential treatment and preventative options are undertaken globally. ObjectivesWe summarised all currently registered clinical trials examining treatment and prevention options for COVID-19. Additionally, we evaluated the quality of the retrieved interventional studies. Data sourcesClinicaltrials.gov, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were systematically searched. Study eligibility criteriaRegistered clinical trials examining treatment and/or prevention options for COVID-19 were included. No language, country or study design restrictions were applied. We excluded withdrawn or cancelled studies and trials not reporting therapeutic or preventative strategies for COVID-19. Participants and interventionsNo restrictions in terms of participants age and medical background or type of intervention were enforced. MethodsThe registries were searched using the term "coronavirus" or "COVID-19" from their inception until 26th March 2020. Additional manual search of the registries was also performed. Eligible studies were summarised and tabulated. Interventional trials were methodologically analysed, excluding expanded access studies and trials testing Traditional Chinese Medicine. ResultsIn total, 309 trials evaluating therapeutic management options, 23 studies assessing preventive strategies and 3 studies examining both were retrieved. Interventional treatment studies were mostly randomised (n=150, 76%) and open-label (n=73, 37%) with a median number of planned inclusions of 90 (IQR 40-200). Major categories of interventions that are currently being investigated are discussed. ConclusionNumerous clinical trials have been registered since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarised data on these trials will assist physicians and researchers to promote patient care and guide future research efforts for COVID-19 pandemic containment. However, up to the end of March, 2020, significant information on reported trials was often lacking.

A brief review of antiviral drugs evaluated in registered clinical trials for COVID-19

BackgroundAlthough a number of antiviral agents have been evaluated for coronaviruses there are no approved drugs available. To provide an overview of the landscape of therapeutic research for COVID-19, we conducted a review of registered clinical trials. MethodsA review of currently registered clinical trials was performed on registries, including the Chinese (chictr.org.cn) and US (clinicaltrials.gov) databases to identify relevant studies up to March, 7th 2020. The search was conducted using the search terms "2019-nCoV", "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "Hcov-19", "new coronavirus", "novel coronavirus". We included interventional clinical trials focusing on patients with COVID-19 and assessing antiviral drugs or agents. FindingsOut of the 353 studies identified, 115 clinical trials were selected for data extraction. Phase IV trials were the most commonly reported study type (n=27, 23%). However, 62 trials (54%) did not describe the phase of the study. Eighty percent (n=92) of the trials were randomized with parallel assignment and the median number of planned inclusions was 63 (IQR, 36-120). Open-label studies were the most frequent (46%) followed by double-blind (13%) and single blind studies (10%). The most frequently assessed therapies were: stem cells therapy (n=23 trials), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=15), chloroquine (n=11), umifenovir (n=9), hydroxychloroquine (n=7), plasma treatment (n=7), favipiravir (n=7), methylprednisolone (n=5), and remdesivir (n=5). Remdesivir was tested in 5 trials with a median of 400 (IQR, 394-453) planned inclusions per trial, while stem cells therapy was tested in 23 trials, but had a median of 40 (IQR, 23-60) planned inclusions per trial. Lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with the highest total number of planned inclusions (2606) followed by remdesivir (2155). Only 52% of the clinical trials reported the treatment dose (n=60) and only 34% (n=39) the duration. The primary outcome was clinical in 76 studies (66%), virological in 27 (23%); radiological in 9 (8%) or immunological in three studies (3%). InterpretationNumerous clinical trials have been registered since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, however, a number of information regarding drugs or trial design were lacking. FundingNone