Protocol for fever control using external cooling in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: SEPSISCOOL II randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Fever treatment is commonly applied in patients with sepsis but its impact on survival remains undetermined. Patients with respiratory and haemodynamic failure are at the highest risk for not tolerating the metabolic cost of fever. However, fever can help to control infection. Treating fever with paracetamol has been shown to be less effective than cooling. In the SEPSISCOOL pilot study, active fever control by external cooling improved organ failure recovery and early survival. The main objective of this confirmatory trial is to assess whether fever control at normothermia can improve the evolution of organ failure and mortality at day 60 of febrile patients with septic shock. This study will compare two strategies within the first 48 hours of septic shock: treatment of fever with cooling or no treatment of fever. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SEPSISCOOL II is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, adaptive, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, superiority trial in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with febrile septic shock. After stratification based on the acute respiratory distress syndrome status, patients will be randomised between two arms: (1) cooling and (2) no cooling. The primary endpoint is mortality at day 60 after randomisation. The secondary endpoints include the evolution of organ failure, early mortality and tolerance. The target sample size is 820 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is funded by the French health ministry and was approved by the ethics committee CPP Nord Ouest II (Amiens, France). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04494074.

Time to negative PCR conversion amongst high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 COVID-19 treated with sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the clinical and virological outcomes in Omicron BA.1- and BA.2-infected patients who received sotrovimab with those in patients who received nirmatrelvir for the prevention of severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this multi-centric, prospective ANRS 0003S CoCoPrev cohort study, patients at a high risk of progression of mild-to-moderate BA.1 or BA.2 COVID-19 who received sotrovimab or nirmatrelvir were included. The proportion of patients with progression to severe COVID-19, time between the start of treatment to negative PCR conversion, SARS-CoV-2 viral decay, and characterization of resistance variants were determined. A multi-variable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the time to negative PCR conversion and a mixed-effect model for the dynamics of viral decay. RESULTS: Amongst 255 included patients, 199 (80%) received ≥3 vaccine doses, 195 (76%) received sotrovimab, and 60 (24%) received nirmatrelvir. On day 28, new COVID-19-related hospitalization occurred in 4 of 193 (2%; 95% CI, 1-5%) sotrovimab-treated patients and 0 of 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p 0.24). One out of the 55 nirmatrelvir-treated patients died (2%; 95% CI, 0-10%). The median time to negative PCR conversion was 11.5 days (95% CI, 10.5-13) in the sotrovimab-treated patients vs. 4 days (95% CI, 4-9) in the nirmatrelvir-treated patients (p < 0.001). Viral decay was faster in the patients who received nirmatrelvir (p < 0.001). In the multi-variable analysis, nirmatrelvir and nasopharyngeal PCR cycle threshold values were independently associated with faster conversion to negative PCR (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.56-3.56; p < 0.0001 and hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; p 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of nirmatrelvir in high-risk patients compared with that of sotrovimab was associated with faster viral clearance. This may participate to decrease transmission and prevent viral resistance.

Convalescent plasma therapy for B-cell-depleted patients with protracted COVID-19.

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are widely used for the treatment of hematological malignancies or autoimmune disease but may be responsible for a secondary humoral deficiency. In the context of COVID-19 infection, this may prevent the elicitation of a specific SARS-CoV-2 antibody response. We report a series of 17 consecutive patients with profound B-cell lymphopenia and prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, negative immunoglobulin G (IgG)-IgM SARS-CoV-2 serology, and positive RNAemia measured by digital polymerase chain reaction who were treated with 4 units of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Within 48 hours of transfusion, all but 1 patient experienced an improvement of clinical symptoms. The inflammatory syndrome abated within a week. Only 1 patient who needed mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19 disease died of bacterial pneumonia. SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia decreased to below the sensitivity threshold in all 9 evaluated patients. In 3 patients, virus-specific T-cell responses were analyzed using T-cell enzyme-linked immunospot assay before convalescent plasma transfusion. All showed a maintained SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response and poor cross-response to other coronaviruses. No adverse event was reported. Convalescent plasma with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies appears to be a very promising approach in the context of protracted COVID-19 symptoms in patients unable to mount a specific humoral response to SARS-CoV-2.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure is the main cause of admission to intensive care unit in immunocompromised patients. In this subset of patients, the beneficial effects of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as compared to standard oxygen remain debated. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) is an alternative to standard oxygen or NIV, and its use in hypoxemic patients has been growing. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes of immunocompromised patients treated using HFNC alone or NIV as a first-line therapy for acute respiratory failure in an observational cohort study over an 8-year period. Patients with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure, those treated with standard oxygen alone or needing immediate intubation, and those with a do-not-intubate order were excluded. RESULTS: Among the 115 patients analyzed, 60 (52 %) were treated with HFNC alone and 55 (48 %) with NIV as first-line therapy with 30 patients (55 %) receiving HFNC and 25 patients (45 %) standard oxygen between NIV sessions. The rates of intubation and 28-day mortality were higher in patients treated with NIV than with HFNC (55 vs. 35 %, p = 0.04, and 40 vs. 20 %, p = 0.02 log-rank test, respectively). Using propensity score-matched analysis, NIV was associated with mortality. Using multivariate analysis, NIV was independently associated with intubation and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this observational cohort study including immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure, intubation and mortality rates could be lower in patients treated with HFNC alone than with NIV. The use of NIV remained independently associated with poor outcomes.