Potential role of IgM-enriched immunoglobulin as adjuvant treatment in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 patients are characterized by a dysregulated host response to an infection, with uncontrolled pro- and anti- inflammatory pathway activation. Consistent proportion of patients require admission in intensive care units and are at risk of progression to severe forms of disease. These patients are generally admitted during later stages of the disease, when effective antiviral and monoclonal antibody are not indicated. We aimed to assess the potential role of IgM-enriched intra venous immunoglobulins (IGAM) preparations in this setting. METHODS: This retrospective, observational case-controlled study was conducted at a single-center University Hospital of Udine in the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region of Italy. Patients referring to the center between March 2020 and April 2021 was included. During the study period, patient who received Pentaglobin® IGAM treatment (N.=56), administered as compassionate use, was compared with a control group (N.=169) to assess, by propensity score analysis, clinical outcome. RESULTS: Untreated controls required, respect to patient treated with IGAM therapy, longer time to hospitalization with no significant differences in death and orotracheal intubation requirement. Significant differences in the two cohort were in: SOFA was higher in treated, while D-dimer and P/F ratio was better in the treatment cohort. Multivariate logistic regression analysis performed on the "matched sample," obtained by a weighting propensity score approach, identify, as significant protective factor for death outcome, the Pentaglobin® treatment (0.820 [0.698-0.963], P=0.016) and low C-reactive protein (1.001 [1.000-1.002], P=0.031) value while the delay of onset hospitalization is associate with a worst outcome (0.983 [0.967-0.999], P=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: The present study offers a significant insight concerning the use of IgM-enriched immunoglobulin preparations in patients with SARS-CoV-2 severe infection and also could identifying the specific immunological and biochemical profile of the patient who can more benefit from this therapeutic option.

Effect of heparin treatment on pulmonary embolism and in-hospital death in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) without overt deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was common in hospitalized coronavirus-induced disease (COVID)-19 patients and represented a diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic challenge. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic role of PE on mortality and the preventive effect of heparin on PE and mortality in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt DVT. METHODS: Data from 401 unvaccinated patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 33% females) consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit or the medical ward were included in a retrospective longitudinal study. PE was documented by computed tomography scan and DVT by compressive venous ultrasound. The effect of PE diagnosis and any heparin use on in-hospital death (primary outcome) was analyzed by a classical survival model. The preventive effect of heparin on either PE diagnosis or in-hospital death (secondary outcome) was analyzed by a multi-state model after having reclassified patients who started heparin after PE diagnosis as not treated. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 8 days (range 1-40 days). PE cumulative incidence and in-hospital mortality were 27% and 20%, respectively. PE was predicted by increased D-dimer levels and COVID-19 severity. Independent predictors of in-hospital death were age (hazards ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.08, p < 0.001), body mass index (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, p = 0.004), COVID-19 severity (severe versus mild/moderate HR 3.67, 95% CI 1.30-10.4, p = 0.014, critical versus mild/moderate HR 12.1, 95% CI 4.57-32.2, p < 0.001), active neoplasia (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.48-4.50, p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.15-5.27, p = 0.020), respiratory rate (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.11, p = 0.008), heart rate (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, p < 0.001), and any heparin treatment (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.67, p = 0.001). In the multi-state model, preventive heparin at prophylactic or intermediate/therapeutic dose, compared with no treatment, reduced PE risk and in-hospital death, but it did not influence mortality of patients with a PE diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: PE was common during the first waves pandemic in unvaccinated patients, but it was not a negative prognostic factor for in-hospital death. Heparin treatment at any dose prevented mortality independently of PE diagnosis, D-dimer levels, and disease severity.

Cytokines from Bench to Bedside: A Retrospective Study Identifies a Definite Panel of Biomarkers to Early Assess the Risk of Negative Outcome in COVID-19 Patients.

The main aim of this study was to identify the most relevant cytokines which, when assessed in the earliest stages from hospital admission, may help to select COVID-19 patients with worse prognosis. A retrospective observational study was conducted in 415 COVID-19 patients (272 males; mean age 68 ± 14 years) hospitalized between May 2020 and March 2021. Within the first 72 h from hospital admission, patients were tested for a large panel of biomarkers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), Mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM), Interferon-γ, interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-1ß, IL-8, IL-10, soluble IL2-receptor-α (sIL2Rα), IP10 and TNFα. Extensive statistical analyses were performed (correlations, t-tests, ranking tests and tree modeling). The mortality rate was 65/415 (15.7%) and a negative outcome (death and/or orotracheal intubation) affected 98/415 (23.6%) of cases. Univariate tests showed the majority of biomarkers increased in severe patients, but ranking tests helped to select the best variables to put on decisional tree modeling which identified IL-6 as the first dichotomic marker with a cut-off of 114 pg/mL. Then, a good synergy was found between IL-10, MR-proADM, sIL2Rα, IP10 and CRP in increasing the predictive value in classifying patients at risk or not for a negative outcome. In conclusion, beside IL-6, a panel of other cytokines representing the degree of immunoparalysis and the anti-inflammatory response (IP10, sIL2Rα and IL-10) showed synergic role when combined to biomarkers of systemic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction (CRP, MR-proADM) and may also better explain disease pathogenesis and suggests targeted intervention.