Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Vaccine against Omicron in Children 5 to 11 Years of Age.

BACKGROUND: Since it was first identified in early November 2021, the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread quickly and replaced the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant as the dominant variant in many countries. Data on the real-world effectiveness of vaccines against the omicron variant in children are lacking. METHODS: In a study conducted from January 21, 2022, through April 8, 2022, when the omicron variant was spreading rapidly, we analyzed data on children in Singapore who were 5 to 11 years of age. We assessed the incidences of all reported SARS-CoV-2 infections (confirmed on polymerase-chain-reaction [PCR] assay, rapid antigen testing, or both), SARS-CoV-2 infections confirmed on PCR assay, and coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19)-related hospitalizations among unvaccinated, partially vaccinated (≥1 day after the first dose of vaccine and up to 6 days after the second dose), and fully vaccinated children (≥7 days after the second dose). Poisson regression was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness from the incidence rate ratio of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 255,936 children were included in the analysis. Among unvaccinated children, the crude incidence rates of all reported SARS-CoV-2 infections, PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, and Covid-19-related hospitalizations were 3303.5, 473.8, and 30.0 per 1 million person-days, respectively. Among partially vaccinated children, vaccine effectiveness was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7 to 15.5) against all SARS-CoV-2 infections, 24.3% (95% CI, 19.5 to 28.9) against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 42.3% (95% CI, 24.9 to 55.7) against Covid-19-related hospitalization; in fully vaccinated children, vaccine effectiveness was 36.8% (95% CI, 35.3 to 38.2), 65.3% (95% CI, 62.0 to 68.3), and 82.7% (95% CI, 74.8 to 88.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: During a period when the omicron variant was predominant, BNT162b2 vaccination reduced the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19-related hospitalization among children 5 to 11 years of age.

A Risk Profile Using Simple Hematologic Parameters to Assess Benefits From Baricitinib in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-2.

BACKGROUND: The ACTT risk profile, which was developed from ACTT-1 (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1), demonstrated that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the high-risk quartile (characterized by low absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], high absolute neutrophil count [ANC], and low platelet count at baseline) benefited most from treatment with the antiviral remdesivir. It is unknown which patient characteristics are associated with benefit from treatment with the immunomodulator baricitinib. OBJECTIVE: To apply the ACTT risk profile to the ACTT-2 cohort to investigate potential baricitinib-related treatment effects by risk quartile. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of ACTT-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04401579). SETTING: Sixty-seven trial sites in 8 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 999; 85% U.S. participants). INTERVENTION: Baricitinib+remdesivir versus placebo+remdesivir. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, and recovery, all within 28 days; ALC, ANC, and platelet count trajectories. RESULTS: In the high-risk quartile, baricitinib+remdesivir was associated with reduced risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.86]; P = 0.020), decreased progression to IMV or death (HR, 0.57 [CI, 0.35 to 0.93]; P = 0.024), and improved recovery rate (HR, 1.53 [CI, 1.16 to 2.02]; P = 0.002) compared with placebo+remdesivir. After 5 days, participants receiving baricitinib+remdesivir had significantly larger increases in ALC and significantly larger decreases in ANC compared with control participants, with the largest effects observed in the high-risk quartile. LIMITATION: Secondary analysis of data collected before circulation of current SARS-CoV-2 variants. CONCLUSION: The ACTT risk profile identifies a subgroup of hospitalized patients who benefit most from baricitinib treatment and captures a patient phenotype of treatment response to an immunomodulator and an antiviral. Changes in ALC and ANC trajectory suggest a mechanism whereby an immunomodulator limits severe COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Pan-Sarbecovirus Neutralizing Antibodies in BNT162b2-Immunized SARS-CoV-1 Survivors.

Emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern pose a challenge to the effectiveness of current vaccines. A vaccine that could prevent infection caused by known and future variants of concern as well as infection with pre-emergent sarbecoviruses (i.e., those with potential to cause disease in humans in the future) would be ideal. Here we provide data showing that potent cross-clade pan-sarbecovirus neutralizing antibodies are induced in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1) infection who have been immunized with the BNT162b2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. The antibodies are high-level and broad-spectrum, capable of neutralizing not only known variants of concern but also sarbecoviruses that have been identified in bats and pangolins and that have the potential to cause human infection. These findings show the feasibility of a pan-sarbecovirus vaccine strategy. (Funded by the Singapore National Research Foundation and National Medical Research Council.).

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.).

Variant-specific IgA protects against Omicron infection.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of rapidly evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants, coupled with waning vaccine-induced immunity, has contributed to the rise of vaccine breakthrough infections. It is crucial to understand how vaccine-induced protection is mediated. METHODS: We examined two prospective cohorts of mRNA-vaccinated-and-boosted individuals during the Omicron wave of infection in Singapore. RESULTS: We found that, individuals, who remain uninfected over the follow-up period, had a higher variant-specific IgA, but not IgG, antibody response at 1-month post booster vaccination, compared with individuals who became infected. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that IgA may have a potential contributory role in protection against Omicron infection.

Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, and radiologic evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous remdesivir for either 5 days or 10 days. All patients received 200 mg of remdesivir on day 1 and 100 mg once daily on subsequent days. The primary end point was clinical status on day 14, assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. RESULTS: In total, 397 patients underwent randomization and began treatment (200 patients for 5 days and 197 for 10 days). The median duration of treatment was 5 days (interquartile range, 5 to 5) in the 5-day group and 9 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10) in the 10-day group. At baseline, patients randomly assigned to the 10-day group had significantly worse clinical status than those assigned to the 5-day group (P = 0.02). By day 14, a clinical improvement of 2 points or more on the ordinal scale occurred in 64% of patients in the 5-day group and in 54% in the 10-day group. After adjustment for baseline clinical status, patients in the 10-day group had a distribution in clinical status at day 14 that was similar to that among patients in the 5-day group (P = 0.14). The most common adverse events were nausea (9% of patients), worsening respiratory failure (8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase level (7%), and constipation (7%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; GS-US-540-5773 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04292899.).

Treatment outcomes with benzylpenicillin and non-benzylpenicillin antibiotics, and the performance of the penicillin zone-edge test versus molecular detection of blaZ in penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) bacteraemia.

OBJECTIVES: The blaZ gene encodes penicillinase, which inactivates penicillin. As there were reports on suboptimal sensitivity for the penicillin zone-edge test, a phenotypic method for blaZ detection, we investigated treatment outcomes in patients with penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) bacteraemia (phenotypically negative for penicillinase), subjecting isolates to molecular testing for blaZ retrospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 121 patients with a first episode of PSSA bacteraemia from 1 January 2012 to 31 October 2015 at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), Singapore. Patients were grouped into IV benzylpenicillin and non-benzylpenicillin groups. The primary outcome was overall treatment failure, defined as either 30 day all-cause mortality and/or 90 day relapse. The penicillin (P10) zone-edge test was repeated on archived PSSA isolates, concurrently with penicillin MIC determination via gradient diffusion and PCR for blaZ. RESULTS: Among 121 patients, 57 patients (47.1%) received IV benzylpenicillin as the predominant antibiotic. There was no significant difference in overall treatment failure between treatment with the benzylpenicillin [7/57 (12.3%)] versus non-benzylpenicillin groups [12/64 (18.8%)] (P = 0.33) or cloxacillin/cefazolin [6/37 (16.2%)] (P = 0.59). For 112 PSSA isolates available for testing, repeat penicillin zone-edge testing was negative for penicillinase production, corroborating previous results. A single PSSA isolate with a negative penicillin zone-edge test was found to be positive for blaZ. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences in overall treatment failure between patients with PSSA bacteraemia treated with benzylpenicillin, anti-staphylococcal ß-lactams cefazolin/cloxacillin and other antimicrobials, when using the penicillin zone-edge test as the phenotypic method for blaZ screening.

Clinical trials on the pharmacological treatment of long COVID: A systematic review.

The postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC), also known as post-acute coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) or the long COVID syndrome (long COVID) is an emerging public health concern. A substantial proportion of individuals may remain symptomatic months after initial recovery. An updated review of published and ongoing trials focusing on managing long COVID will help identify gaps and address the unmet needs of patients suffering from this potentially debilitating syndrome. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the international databases and clinical trial registries from inception to 31 July 2022. This review included 6 published trials and 54 trial registration records. There is significant heterogeneity in the characterization of long COVID and ascertainment of primary outcomes. Most of the trials are focused on individual symptoms of long COVID or isolated organ dysfunction, classified according to cardiovascular, respiratory and functional capacity, neurological and psychological, fatigue, and olfactory dysfunction. Most of the interventions are related to the mechanisms causing the individual symptoms. Although the six published trials showed significant improvement in the symptoms or organ dysfunction studied, these initial studies lack internal and external validity limiting the generalizability. This review provides an update of the pharmacological agents that could be used to treat long COVID. Further standardization of the diagnostic criteria, inclusion of participants with concomitant chronic cardiometabolic diseases and standardization of outcomes will be essential in future clinical trials.

Real-world effectiveness of sotrovimab and remdesivir for early treatment of high-risk hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A propensity score adjusted retrospective cohort study.

Early treatment of high-risk COVID-19 patients may prevent disease progression. However, there are limited data to support treatment of hospitalized or fully vaccinated patients with mild-to-moderate disease. In this retrospective cohort study, we studied the effect of early use of sotrovimab and remdesivir in high-risk hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We included PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the National Centre for Infectious Diseases who presented within the first 5 days of illness, and who were not requiring oxygen or ICU care at presentation. Sotrovimab- and remdesivir-treated groups were compared with control (no early treatment). A multiple propensity-score adjusted multivariable regression analysis was conducted with a composite primary endpoint of in-hospital deterioration (oxygen requirement, ICU admission, or mortality). Of 1118 patients, 841 were in the control group, 106 in the sotrovimab group and 169 in the remdesivir group. The median age was 63 years (IQR 46-74 years) and 505 (45.2%) were female. In unvaccinated patients, both remdesivir and sotrovimab treatment were protective (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.19, 95% CI 0.064-0.60 and 0.18 [95% CI 0.066-0.47]), respectively. Contrarily, among the vaccinated patients there was no significant treatment effect with early remdesivir treatment (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 0.83-7.57, p = 0.10). Remdesivir and sotrovimab treatment, given early in the disease course to unvaccinated high-risk patients, was effective in reducing the risk of in-hospital deterioration and severe disease. This effect was not seen in fully vaccinated patients, which may be due to a small sample size or residual confounding.

Prolonged inflammation in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resolves 2 years after infection.

Long-term complications from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are concerning, as survivors can develop subclinical multiorgan dysfunction. It is unknown if such complications are due to prolonged inflammation, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination may reduce sequela. We conducted a prospective longitudinal study on hospitalized patients over 24 months. Clinical symptoms were collected by self-reporting during follow-up, along with blood samples for quantification of inflammatory markers and immune cell frequencies. All patients were given one dose of mRNA vaccine at 12-16 months. Their immune profiles at 12 and 24 months were compared. Approximately 37% and 39% of our patients reported post-COVID-19 symptoms at 12 and 24 months, respectively. The proportion of symptomatic patients with more than one symptom decreased from 69% at 12 months to 56% at 24 months. Longitudinal cytokine profiling revealed a cluster of individuals with persistently high inflammatory cytokine levels 12 months after infection. Patients with prolonged inflammation showed elevated terminally differentiated memory T cells in their blood; 54% had symptoms at 12 months. The majority of inflammatory markers and dysregulated immune cells in vaccinated patients recovered to a healthy baseline at 24 months, even though symptoms persisted. Post-COVID-19 symptoms can linger for 2 years after the initial infection and are associated with prolonged inflammation. Prolonged inflammation in hospitalized patients resolves after 2 years. We define a set of analytes associated with persistent inflammation and presence of symptoms, which could be useful biomarkers for identifying and monitoring high-risk survivors.

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.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Remdesivir for the Prevention of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation or Death in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Post Hoc Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial-1 Cohort Data.

This post hoc analysis of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) shows a treatment effect of remdesivir (RDV) on progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Additionally, we create a risk profile that better predicts progression than baseline oxygen requirement alone. The highest risk group derives the greatest treatment effect from RDV.

The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform Trial Protocol: New Tools for an Old Foe.

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream (SAB) infection is a common and severe infectious disease, with a 90-day mortality of 15%-30%. Despite this, <3000 people have been randomized into clinical trials of treatments for SAB infection. The limited evidence base partly results from clinical trials for SAB infections being difficult to complete at scale using traditional clinical trial methods. Here we provide the rationale and framework for an adaptive platform trial applied to SAB infections. We detail the design features of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial that will enable multiple questions to be answered as efficiently as possible. The SNAP trial commenced enrolling patients across multiple countries in 2022 with an estimated target sample size of 7000 participants. This approach may serve as an exemplar to increase efficiency of clinical trials for other infectious disease syndromes.

Robust Virus-Specific Adaptive Immunity in COVID-19 Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Δ382 Variant Infection.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs) that have become dominant as the pandemic progresses bear the ORF8 mutation together with multiple spike mutations. A 382-nucleotide deletion (Δ382) in the ORF7b and ORF8 regions has been associated with milder disease phenotype and less systemic inflammation in COVID-19 patients. However, its impact on host immunity against SARS-CoV-2 remains undefined. Here, RNA-sequencing was performed to elucidate whole blood transcriptomic profiles and identify contrasting immune signatures between patients infected with either wildtype or Δ382 SARS-CoV-2 variant. Interestingly, the immune landscape of Δ382 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients featured an increased adaptive immune response, evidenced by enrichment of genes related to T cell functionality, a more robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity, as well as a more rapid antibody response. At the molecular level, eukaryotic initiation factor 2 signaling was found to be upregulated in patients bearing Δ382, and its associated genes were correlated with systemic levels of T cell-associated and pro-inflammatory cytokines. This study provides more in-depth insight into the host-pathogen interactions of ORF8 with great promise as a therapeutic target to combat SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Investigation of three clusters of COVID-19 in Singapore: implications for surveillance and response measures.

BACKGROUND: Three clusters of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) linked to a tour group from China, a company conference, and a church were identified in Singapore in February, 2020. METHODS: We gathered epidemiological and clinical data from individuals with confirmed COVID-19, via interviews and inpatient medical records, and we did field investigations to assess interactions and possible modes of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Open source reports were obtained for overseas cases. We reported the median (IQR) incubation period of SARS-CoV-2. FINDINGS: As of Feb 15, 2020, 36 cases of COVID-19 were linked epidemiologically to the first three clusters of circumscribed local transmission in Singapore. 425 close contacts were quarantined. Direct or prolonged close contact was reported among affected individuals, although indirect transmission (eg, via fomites and shared food) could not be excluded. The median incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 was 4 days (IQR 3-6). The serial interval between transmission pairs ranged between 3 days and 8 days. INTERPRETATION: SARS-CoV-2 is transmissible in community settings, and local clusters of COVID-19 are expected in countries with high travel volume from China before the lockdown of Wuhan and institution of travel restrictions. Enhanced surveillance and contact tracing is essential to minimise the risk of widespread transmission in the community. FUNDING: None.

Cefazolin versus ceftriaxone as definitive treatment for Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteraemia: a retrospective multicentre study in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Ceftriaxone is the preferred treatment for bacteraemia caused by non-MDR (antibiotic-susceptible) Klebsiella pneumoniae. Excessive and widespread ceftriaxone use creates selection pressure for ESBLs. Cefazolin is an alternative, although there are theoretical concerns that SHV-1 ß-lactamase in K. pneumoniae may inactivate cefazolin in an inoculum-dependent manner. OBJECTIVES: In this retrospective study, we investigated the outcomes in K. pneumoniae bacteraemia patients treated with IV cefazolin versus IV ceftriaxone as definitive therapy. METHODS: A total of 917 patients infected with K. pneumoniae from 1 January to 31 December 2016 in three public acute care hospitals in Singapore were screened for study eligibility. Consecutive unique episodes of monomicrobial bacteraemia caused by cefazolin- and/or ceftriaxone-susceptible K. pneumoniae were analysed (n = 284). RESULTS: There were 143 patients (50.4%) in the cefazolin group and 141 patients (49.6%) in the ceftriaxone group. Demographics, baseline illness severity and risk factors for healthcare-associated bacteraemia were comparable in the two treatment groups. The primary outcome of 28 day all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the cefazolin and ceftriaxone groups (10.5% versus 7.1%, P = 0.403). Both in the crude analysis and using a multivariable logistic regression model with inverse probability weighting based on propensity score, cefazolin treatment was not associated with increased risk of 28 day mortality (OR 1.51 with ceftriaxone as the reference group, 95% CI 0.67-3.53; adjusted OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.33-7.40). CONCLUSIONS: Cefazolin may be a ceftriaxone-sparing alternative treatment for antibiotic-susceptible K. pneumoniae bacteraemia. This observation may provide sufficient clinical equipoise for a randomized controlled trial.

Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Poor Platelet Recovery in Adult Dengue With Thrombocytopenia: A Multicenter, Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Platelet transfusion is common in dengue patients with thrombocytopenia. We previously showed in a randomized clinical trial that prophylactic platelet transfusion did not reduce clinical bleeding. In this study, we aimed to characterize the predictors and clinical outcomes of poor platelet recovery in transfused and nontransfused participants. METHODS: We analyzed patients from the Adult Dengue Platelet Study with laboratory-confirmed dengue with ≤20 000 platelets/µL and without persistent mild bleeding or any severe bleeding in a post hoc analysis. Poor platelet recovery was defined as a platelet count of ≤20 000/µL on Day 2. We recruited 372 participants from 5 acute care hospitals located in Singapore and Malaysia between 29 April 2010 and 9 December 2014. Of these, 188 were randomly assigned to the transfusion group and 184 to the control group. RESULTS: Of 360 patients, 158 had poor platelet recovery. Age, white cell count, and day of illness at study enrollment were significant predictors of poor platelet recovery after adjustment for baseline characteristics and platelet transfusion. Patients with poor platelet recovery had longer hospitalizations but no significant difference in other clinical outcomes, regardless of transfusion. We found a significant interaction between platelet recovery and transfusion; patients with poor platelet recovery were more likely to bleed if given a prophylactic platelet transfusion (odds ratio 2.34, 95% confidence interval 1.18-4.63). CONCLUSIONS: Dengue patients with thrombocytopenia who were older or presented earlier and with lower white cell counts were more likely to have poor platelet recovery. In patients with poor platelet recovery, platelet transfusion does not improve outcomes and may actually increase the risk of bleeding. The mechanisms of poor platelet recovery need to be determined. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01030211.

Oral vs Intravenous Antibiotics for Patients With Klebsiella pneumoniae Liver Abscess: A Randomized, Controlled Noninferiority Study.

BACKGROUND: Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess (KLA) is emerging worldwide due to hypermucoviscous strains with a propensity for metastatic infection. Treatment includes drainage and prolonged intravenous antibiotics. We aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics were noninferior to continued intravenous antibiotics for KLA. METHODS: This noninferiority, parallel group, randomized, clinical trial recruited hospitalized adults with liver abscess and K. pneumoniae isolated from blood or abscess fluid who had received ≤7 days of effective antibiotics at 3 sites in Singapore. Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral (ciprofloxacin) or intravenous (ceftriaxone) antibiotics for 28 days. If day 28 clinical response criteria were not met, further oral antibiotics were prescribed until clinical response was met. The primary endpoint was clinical cure assessed at week 12 and included a composite of absence of fever in the preceding week, C-reactive protein <20 mg/L, and reduction in abscess size. A noninferiority margin of 12% was used. RESULTS: Between November 2013 and October 2017, 152 patients (mean age, 58.7 years; 25.7% women) were recruited, following a median 5 days of effective intravenous antibiotics. A total of 106 (69.7%) underwent abscess drainage; 71/74 (95.9%) randomized to oral antibiotics met the primary endpoint compared with 72/78 (92.3%) randomized to intravenous antibiotics (risk difference, 3.6%; 2-sided 95% confidence interval, -4.9% to 12.8%). Effects were consistent in the per-protocol population. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 12/72 (16.7%) in the oral group and 13/77 (16.9%) in the intravenous group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotics were noninferior to intravenous antibiotics for the early treatment of KLA. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01723150.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Surveillance and Containment Measures for the First 100 Patients with COVID-19 in Singapore - January 2-February 29, 2020.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and has since spread globally, resulting in >95,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide by March 5, 2020 (1). Singapore adopted a multipronged surveillance strategy that included applying the case definition at medical consults, tracing contacts of patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, enhancing surveillance among different patient groups (all patients with pneumonia, hospitalized patients in intensive care units [ICUs] with possible infectious diseases, primary care patients with influenza-like illness, and deaths from possible infectious etiologies), and allowing clinician discretion (i.e., option to order a test based on clinical suspicion, even if the case definition was not met) to identify COVID-19 patients. Containment measures, including patient isolation and quarantine, active monitoring of contacts, border controls, and community education and precautions, were performed to minimize disease spread. As of March 5, 2020, a total of 117 COVID-19 cases had been identified in Singapore. This report analyzes the first 100 COVID-19 patients in Singapore to determine the effectiveness of the surveillance and containment measures. COVID-19 patients were classified by the primary means by which they were detected. Application of the case definition and contact tracing identified 73 patients, 16 were detected by enhanced surveillance, and 11 were identified by laboratory testing based on providers' clinical discretion. Effectiveness of these measures was assessed by calculating the 7-day moving average of the interval from symptom onset to isolation in hospital or quarantine, which indicated significant decreasing trends for both local and imported COVID-19 cases. Rapid identification and isolation of cases, quarantine of close contacts, and active monitoring of other contacts have been effective in suppressing expansion of the outbreak and have implications for other countries experiencing outbreaks.