Viral and Host Factors Are Associated With Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Persistent mortality in adults hospitalized due to acute COVID-19 justifies pursuit of disease mechanisms and potential therapies. The aim was to evaluate which virus and host response factors were associated with mortality risk among participants in Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO/ACTIV-3) trials. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 2625 adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection randomized to 1 of 5 antiviral products or matched placebo in 114 centers on 4 continents. Uniform, site-level collection of participant baseline clinical variables was performed. Research laboratories assayed baseline upper respiratory swabs for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and plasma for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (viral Ag), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Associations between factors and time to mortality by 90 days were assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Viral Ag ≥4500 ng/L (vs <200 ng/L; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.07; 1.29-3.34), viral RNA (<35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.42; 1.09-5.34], ≥35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.84; 1.29-6.28], vs below detection), respiratory support (<4 L O2 [aHR, 1.84; 1.06-3.22]; ≥4 L O2 [aHR, 4.41; 2.63-7.39], or noninvasive ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula [aHR, 11.30; 6.46-19.75] vs no oxygen), renal impairment (aHR, 1.77; 1.29-2.42), and IL-6 >5.8 ng/L (aHR, 2.54 [1.74-3.70] vs ≤5.8 ng/L) were significantly associated with mortality risk in final adjusted analyses. Viral Ag, viral RNA, and IL-6 were not measured in real-time. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline virus-specific, clinical, and biological variables are strongly associated with mortality risk within 90 days, revealing potential pathogen and host-response therapeutic targets for acute COVID-19 disease.

Native mitral valve endocarditis due to Corynebacterium striatum, an uncommon pathogen.

Corynebacterium striatum, a commensal gram-positive rod, is an emerging cause of human disease in individuals with multiple comorbidities and in immunocompromised patient populations. New microbiologic laboratory tests including molecular diagnostics with greater sensitivity to detect pathogens facilitate appropriate clinical diagnosis and treatment to decrease patient morbidity and mortality. Here we report a case of community-acquired C. striatum infective endocarditis of a native mitral valve in a patient with multiple comorbidities.

Risk of Infections With Long-Term Left Ventricular Assist Device Support.

The average life expectancy post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has significantly increased in recent years. Impaired cellular immunity post-LVAD implantation has been suggested. It is not clear if a prolonged duration of LVAD support will lead to an increase in infections and possibly cause opportunistic infections, as seen in immunocompromised patients. METHODS:  We retrospectively reviewed all the patients who underwent new continuous-flow (C-F) LVAD implantation between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Patients were followed until heart transplant, LVAD explantation, death, or December 31, 2017. We defined LVAD infections as per the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) definition: VAD-specific, VAD-related, and non-VAD infections. The primary outcome was to calculate the incidence of LVAD infections per 1000 days of LVAD support. Secondary outcomes were to assess the cause of death and the effect of bloodstream infections on LVAD thrombosis, stroke, and death. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 94 patients underwent a C-F LVAD implantation. Five patients were lost in follow-up; 89 patients were included in the study. The mean age at LVAD implantation was 54 (SD+15) years. Out of 89 patients, 67 (75%) were men, and 53/89 (71%) received LVAD as destination therapy (DT). At the time of LVAD implantation, 34/89 (38%) patients had ITERMACS (interagency registry for mechanically assisted circulatory support) score 1 (cardiogenic shock). The median duration of LVAD support was 387+493 days, with an interquartile range of 140 to 1083 days. The incidence rate of infections post-LVAD implantation decreased from 3.2 /1000 LVAD days (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.54-4.03) during the first year of LVAD support to 0.78/1000 LVAD days (95% CI, 0.38-1.65) during the following third year of LVAD support. Similarly, the incidence of VAD-specific infections in the first year post-LVAD implantation versus the third-year post LVAD implantation decreased from 0.83/1000 LVAD days (95% CI, 0.53-1.30) to 0.33/1000 LVAD days (95% CI, 0.10-1.04). On univariate survival analysis, an increased risk of death was associated with a one-year increase in age at LVAD implantation (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09), p=0.01), the presence of infection within 30 days before LVAD implantation (HR 2.44 (95% CI, 1.09-5.48), p=0.03), underlying ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 2.96 (95% CI, 1.28-6.80), p=0.01), and lower ITERMACS profile HR 3.64 (95% CI, 1.09-12.13, p=0.04). Bloodstream infections (BSIs) were not associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.63 (95% CI, 0.56-4.80, p=0.37). Univariate survival analysis for poor outcomes (LVAD thrombosis, stroke, or death) showed BSIs increased the risk of having a poor outcome (HR 2.39 (95% CI, 1.02-5.57), p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS:  The incidence rate of post-LVAD infections decreased significantly over time. LVAD implantation may not be contributing to immune suppression as previously suggested. In our study, BSIs were found to have a significantly increased hazard ratio for a poor outcome post-LVAD implantation.

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral load using combination therapy with casirivimab/imdevimab and remdesivir.

Evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 viral load is an independent predictor of disease severity and mortality. A 61-year-old woman presented with severe COVID-19 and was treated with casirivimab/imdevimab and remdesivir. Quantitative nasopharyngeal (NP) viral loads were trended throughout the treatment course. Baseline NP viral load was 25,860,901 copies/mL (7.4 log10). Casirivimab/imdevimab was administered, with subsequent reduction in NP viral load to 26,049 copies/mL (4.4 log10) on hospital day 4. A repeat NP viral load on day 7 was 13,113 copies/mL (4.1 log10). Despite uncertainty regarding correlation with reduction in viral load and outcomes, NP viral load may be considered when selecting treatment options and evaluating treatment response in hospitalized patients with early infection.

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery.

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Effectiveness of casirivimab/imdevimab in an intensive care unit patient with acute respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Casirivimab/imdevimab, a cocktail of monoclonal antibodies, is currently approved for emergency use in high-risk ambulatory patients with early COVID-19 to reduce risk of hospitalization and/or death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the United States, there is no approved monoclonal antibody therapy for patients hospitalized for complications due to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. We describe here the use of casirivimab/imdevimab in a 52-year-old fully vaccinated, immunocompromised man admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Strongyloides stercoralis and cytomegalovirus coinfection in a patient with a transplanted kidney.

Cytomegalovirus is a major opportunistic infection after transplantation with significant morbidity and mortality for solid organ transplant recipients. Unrecognized infection with Strongyloides stercoralis may result in significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Coinfection with multiple pathogens is possible, leading to diagnostic delays, and may make treatment more challenging. We report a case of coinfection with S. stercoralis and cytomegalovirus in a kidney transplant patient that resulted in pneumonitis, gastritis, and cholecystitis.

Design and implementation of an international, multi-arm, multi-stage platform master protocol for trials of novel SARS-CoV-2 antiviral agents: Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO/ACTIV-3).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Safe and effective therapies for COVID-19 are urgently needed. In order to meet this need, the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines public-private partnership initiated the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 is a multi-arm, multi-stage platform master protocol, which facilitates the rapid evaluation of the safety and efficacy of novel candidate antiviral therapeutic agents for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Five agents have so far entered the protocol, with rapid answers already provided for three of these. Other agents are expected to enter the protocol throughout 2021. This protocol contains a number of key design and implementation features that, along with challenges faced by the protocol team, are presented and discussed. METHODS: Three clinical trial networks, encompassing a global network of clinical sites, participated in the protocol development and implementation. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 utilizes a multi-arm, multi-stage design with an agile and robust approach to futility and safety evaluation at 300 patients enrolled, with subsequent expansion to full sample size and an expanded target population if the agent shows an acceptable safety profile and evidence of efficacy. Rapid recruitment to multiple agents is enabled through the sharing of placebo, the confining of agent-specific information to protocol appendices, and modular consent forms. In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, a thorough safety data collection and Data and Safety Monitoring Board schedule was developed for the study of potential therapeutic agents with limited in-human data in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: As of 8 August 2021, five agents have entered the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 master protocol and a total of 1909 participants have been randomized to one of these agents or matching placebo. There were a number of challenges faced by the study team that needed to be overcome in order to successfully implement Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 across a global network of sites. These included ensuring drug supply and reliable recruitment allowing for changing infection rates across the global network of sites, the need to balance the collection of data and samples without overburdening clinical staff and obtaining regulatory approvals across a global network of sites. CONCLUSION: Through a robust multi-network partnership, the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 protocol has been successfully used across a global network of sites for rapid generation of efficacy data on multiple novel antiviral agents. The protocol design and implementation features used in this protocol, and the approaches to address challenges, will have broader applicability. Mechanisms to facilitate improved communication and harmonization among country-specific regulatory bodies are required to achieve the full potential of this approach in dealing with a global outbreak.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Actinomyces causing a brain abscess.

Actinomycosis is an uncommon, chronic granulomatous disease caused by the filamentous, gram-positive bacterium Actinomyces israelii. It causes indolent, painful wound infections commonly presenting with oral-cervicofacial manifestations, but other infections of the chest wall and gastrointestinal and genital tract are also seen. A high level of suspicion is required for diagnosis, as it may be missed or mistaken for malignancy. Severe cases may involve the central nervous system and require surgical intervention. We present a case report of actinomycosis causing a brain abscess.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 via PCR and serological testing in asymptomatic healthcare workers.

The prevalence and seroconversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic health care workers in the US is unclear. Our study utilized real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 testing and serological evaluation to detect IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 antigens in asymptomatic health care workers. A total of 197 subjects with a mean age of 35 years were recruited into the study. While most (67%) reported prolonged contact with known COVID-19 patients, only 8 (4.2%) tested positive on RT-PCR and 23 (11.7%) had detectable levels of IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2. Out of 19 subjects with detectable IgG antibody at week 1, 11 (57.9%) lost their antibody response by week 3. No statistically significant difference was found in baseline characteristics or exposure status between subjects with positive and negative results on RT-PCR or antibody positivity. In conclusion, we found a low incidence of PCR positivity for SARS-CoV-2 in a high-risk group. This likely demonstrates the effectiveness of proper personal protective equipment use and low transmission risk in health care settings. The detectable IgG antibody titer was low, and a significant portion of subjects lost their antibody response on repeat testing. This may mean that antibody response in asymptomatic patients is categorically different than in symptomatic hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Acute myocardial infarction secondary to mucormycosis after lung transplantation.

We present a case of a 57-year-old man who underwent bilateral lung transplantation for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. His immediately post-operative course was complicated by fever and cardiac arrest. Despite supportive care and broad-spectrum antibiotics, he experienced continued clinical decline. Autopsy results indicated angioinvasive mucormycosis and coronary arteritis resulting in acute myocardial infarction as the cause of death.

A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Design and implementation of an international, multi-arm, multi-stage platform master protocol for trials of novel SARS-CoV-2 antiviral agents: Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO/ACTIV-3).

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective therapies for COVID-19 are urgently needed. In order to meet this need, the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) public-private partnership initiated the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO). TICO is a multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) platform master protocol, which facilitates the rapid evaluation of the safety and efficacy of novel candidate anti-viral therapeutic agents for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Four agents have so far entered the protocol, with rapid answers already provided for three of these. Other agents are expected to enter the protocol throughout 2021. This protocol contains a number of key design and implementation features that, along with challenges faced by the protocol team, are presented and discussed. PROTOCOL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION: Three clinical trial networks, encompassing a global network of clinical sites, participated in the protocol development and implementation. TICO utilizes a MAMS design with an agile and robust approach to futility and safety evaluation at 300 patients enrolled, with subsequent expansion to full sample size and an expanded target population if the agent shows an acceptable safety profile and evidence of efficacy. Rapid recruitment to multiple agents is enabled through the sharing of placebo as well as the confining of agent-specific information to protocol appendices, and modular consent forms. In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, a thorough safety data collection and DSMB schedule was developed for the study of agents with limited in-human data. CHALLENGES: Challenges included ensuring drug supply and reliable recruitment allowing for changing infection rates across the global network of sites, the need to balance the collection of data and samples without overburdening clinical staff, and obtaining regulatory approvals across a global network of sites. CONCLUSION: Through a robust multi-network partnership, the TICO protocol has been successfully used across a global network of sites for rapid generation of efficacy data on multiple novel antiviral agents. The protocol design and implementation features used in this protocol, and the approaches to address challenges, will have broader applicability. Mechanisms to facilitate improved communication and harmonization among country-specific regulatory bodies are required.

The dynamic treatment of SARS-CoV-2 disease.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged from China in December 2019 and progressed to become a global pandemic. Our understanding of its pathophysiology and potential management was initially extrapolated from previous epidemics of coronaviruses like SARS and MERS. SARS-CoV-2 is asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic in more than 80% of patients and requires no additional management; however, the remaining patients progress to pneumonia and hypoxemia with ranging severity, including a smaller group that requires intensive care unit admission. To date, there are no approved treatments for SARS-CoV-2, and current management is focused on supplemental oxygen and supportive care. The antiviral medication remdesivir recently received emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with severe disease. Multiple clinical trials evaluating different treatment modalities such as antivirals, immunomodulators, convalescent plasma, and monoclonal antibodies, among others, are still ongoing. We believe that patients present with clinical phenotypes that correlate with the spectrum of disease. Each phenotype may benefit from one or multiple interventions. We discuss treatments under evaluation in clinical trials and their potential application based on clinical phenotype presentation.