Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during resurgence driven by Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare clinical severity of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 infection with BA.1 and earlier variant infections among laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Western Cape, South Africa, using timing of infection to infer the lineage/variant causing infection. METHODS: We included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 1-21 May 2022 (BA.4/BA.5 wave) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of (i) death and (ii) severe hospitalization/death (all within 21 days of diagnosis) using Cox regression adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, admission pressure, vaccination and prior infection. RESULTS: Among 3,793 patients from the BA.4/BA.5 wave and 190,836 patients from previous waves the risk of severe hospitalization/death was similar in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 waves (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93; 1.34). Both Omicron waves had lower risk of severe outcomes than previous waves. Prior infection (aHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24; 0.36) and vaccination (aHR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07; 0.40 for at least 3 doses vs. no vaccine) were protective. CONCLUSION: Disease severity was similar amongst diagnosed COVID-19 cases in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 periods in the context of growing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 due to prior infection and vaccination, both of which were strongly protective.

Emerging and re-emerging fungal threats in Africa.

The emergence of deadly fungal infections in Africa is primarily driven by a disproportionately high burden of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, lack of access to quality health care, and the unavailability of effective antifungal drugs. Immunocompromised people in Africa are therefore at high risk of infection from opportunistic fungal pathogens such as Cryptococcus neoformans and Pneumocystis jirovecii, which are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and related socioeconomic impacts. Other emerging fungal threats include Emergomyces spp., Histoplasma spp., Blastomyces spp., and healthcare-associated multi-drug resistant Candida auris. Socioeconomic development and the Covid-19 pandemic may influence shifts in epidemiology of invasive fungal diseases on the continent. This review discusses the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and current management strategies available for these emerging fungal diseases in Africa. We also discuss gaps in knowledge, policy, and research to inform future efforts at managing these fungal threats.

Effects of tuberculosis and/or HIV-1 infection on COVID-19 presentation and immune response in Africa.

Few studies from Africa have described the clinical impact of co-infections on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we investigate the presentation and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in an African setting of high HIV-1 and tuberculosis prevalence by an observational case cohort of SARS-CoV-2 patients. A comparator group of non SARS-CoV-2 participants is included. The study includes 104 adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 29.8% are HIV-1 co-infected. Two or more co-morbidities are present in 57.7% of participants, including HIV-1 (30%) and active tuberculosis (14%). Amongst patients dually infected by tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2, clinical features can be typical of either SARS-CoV-2 or tuberculosis: lymphopenia is exacerbated, and some markers of inflammation (D-dimer and ferritin) are further elevated (p < 0.05). Amongst HIV-1 co-infected participants those with low CD4 percentage strata exhibit reduced total, but not neutralising, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. SARS-CoV-2 specific CD8 T cell responses are present in 35.8% participants overall but undetectable in combined HIV-1 and tuberculosis. Death occurred in 30/104 (29%) of all COVID-19 patients and in 6/15 (40%) of patients with coincident SARS-CoV-2 and tuberculosis. This shows that in a high incidence setting, tuberculosis is a common co-morbidity in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is adversely affected by co-existent HIV-1 and tuberculosis.

Colchicine and aspirin in community patients with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57-1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions. INTERPRETATION: The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and Thistledown Foundation. TRANSLATIONS: For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Colchicine and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disease is accompanied by a dysregulated immune response and hypercoagulability. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) inpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of disease progression in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: The ACT inpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial was done at 62 clinical centres in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 72 h of hospitalisation or worsening clinically if already hospitalised were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 1·2 mg followed by 0·6 mg 2 h later and then 0·6 mg twice daily for 28 days versus usual care; and in a second (1:1) randomisation, to the combination of rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome, assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population, for the colchicine randomisation was the composite of the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death; and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomisation was the composite of major thrombosis (myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischaemia, or pulmonary embolism), the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. The trial is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 2, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, at 62 sites in 11 countries, 2749 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to the control. 2611 patients were included in the analysis of colchicine (n=1304) versus control (n=1307); 2119 patients were included in the analysis of rivaroxaban and aspirin (n=1063) versus control (n=1056). Follow-up was more than 98% complete. Overall, 368 (28·2%) of 1304 patients allocated to colchicine and 356 (27·2%) of 1307 allocated to control had a primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·21, p=0·58); and 281 (26·4%) of 1063 patients allocated to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and 300 (28·4%) of 1056 allocated to control had a primary outcome (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·78-1·09, p=0·32). Results were consistent in subgroups defined by vaccination status, disease severity at baseline, and timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms. There was no increase in the number of patients who had at least one serious adverse event for colchicine versus control groups (87 [6·7%] of 1304 vs 90 [6·9%] of 1307) or with rivaroxaban and aspirin versus control groups (85 [8·0%] vs 91 [8·6%]). Among patients assigned to colchicine, 8 (0·61%) had adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug, mostly gastrointestinal in nature. 17 (1·6%) patients assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin had bleeding compared with seven (0·66%) of those allocated to control (p=0·042); the number of serious bleeding events was two (0·19%) versus six (0·57%), respectively (p=0·18). No patients assigned to rivaroxaban and aspirin had serious adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug. INTERPRETATION: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, neither colchicine nor the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin prevent disease progression or death. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Thistledown Foundation. TRANSLATIONS: For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 admissions in a population with a high prevalence of HIV and tuberculosis: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is still a paucity of evidence on the outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PWH) and those co-infected with tuberculosis (TB), particularly in areas where these conditions are common. We describe the clinical features, laboratory findings and outcome of hospitalised PWH and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-uninfected COVID-19 patients as well as those co-infected with tuberculosis (TB). METHODS: We conducted a multicentre cohort study across three hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa. All adults requiring hospitalisation with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia from March to July 2020 were analysed. RESULTS: PWH comprised 270 (19%) of 1434 admissions. There were 47 patients with active tuberculosis (3.3%), of whom 29 (62%) were PWH. Three-hundred and seventy-three patients (26%) died. The mortality in PWH (n = 71, 26%) and HIV-uninfected patients (n = 296, 25%) was comparable. In patients with TB, PWH had a higher mortality than HIV-uninfected patients (n = 11, 38% vs n = 3, 20%; p = 0.001). In multivariable survival analysis a higher risk of death was associated with older age (Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) 1.03 95%CI 1.02-1.03, p < 0.001), male sex (AHR1.38 (95%CI 1.12-1.72, p = 0.003) and being "overweight or obese" (AHR 1.30 95%CI 1.03-1.61 p = 0.024). HIV (AHR 1.28 95%CI 0.95-1.72, p 0.11) and active TB (AHR 1.50 95%CI 0.84-2.67, p = 0.17) were not independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 death. Risk factors for inpatient mortality in PWH included CD4 cell count < 200 cells/mm3, higher admission oxygen requirements, absolute white cell counts, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios, C-reactive protein, and creatinine levels. CONCLUSION: In a population with high prevalence of HIV and TB, being overweight/obese was associated with increased risk of mortality in COVID-19 hospital admissions, emphasising the need for public health interventions in this patient population.

Efficacy and Safety of Intensified Versus Standard Prophylactic Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on nonfatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. Methods: We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) vs prophylactic anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 through 19 January 2022. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events (at end of follow-up or discharge) and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. Results: Eleven RCTs were included (N = 5873). Intensified vs prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a mortality reduction up to 45 days (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .79-1.10]). There was a possible signal of mortality reduction for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, .49-1.44]; I 2 = 75%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced (RR, 0.53 [95% CI, .41-.69]; I 2 = 0%), with effect driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing (interaction P = .04). Major bleeding was increased with intensified anticoagulation (RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.17-2.56]) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting. Conclusions: Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on mortality among hospitalized adults with COVID-19 and is associated with increased bleeding risk. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend toward reduced mortality in non-ICU settings requires exploration in additional RCTs. Clinical Trials Registration. CRD42021273449 (PROSPERO).

Efficacy and safety of intensified versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in patients with Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in Covid-19. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on non-fatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. Methods We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus prophylactic anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 through 19 January 2022. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events (at end of follow-up or discharge) and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. Results Eleven RCTs were included (n = 5873). Intensified versus prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a mortality reduction up to 45 days (relative risk (RR) 0.93;95%CI 0.79–1.10). There was a possible signal of mortality reduction for non-ICU patients, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies;RR 0.84;95% CI 0.49 - 1.44;I2 = 75%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced (RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.41–0.69;I2 = 0%), with effect driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing (interaction P = 0.04). Major bleeding was increased with intensified anticoagulation (RR 1.73, 95%CI 1.17–2.56) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting. Conclusion Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and is associated with increased bleeding risk. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend towards reduced mortality in non-ICU settings requires exploration in additional RCTs.

The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) Trials: Design, Baseline Characteristics, and Challenges.

Background: Effective treatments for COVID-19 are urgently needed, but conducting randomized trials during the pandemic has been challenging. Methods: The Anti-Coronavirus Therapy (ACT) trials are parallel factorial international trials that aimed to enroll 3500 outpatients and 2500 inpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. The outpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and aspirin vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is hospitalization or death, and for the aspirin randomization, it is major thrombosis, hospitalization, or death. The inpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death, and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomization, it is major thrombotic events, need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death. Results: At the completion of enrollment on February 10, 2022, the outpatient trial had enrolled 3917 patients, and the inpatient trial had enrolled 2611 patients. Challenges encountered included lack of preliminary data about the interventions under evaluation, uncertainties related to the expected event rates, delays in regulatory and ethics approvals, and in obtaining study interventions, as well as the changing pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The ACT trials will determine the efficacy of anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine, and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin given alone or in combination with rivaroxaban, across the spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Lessons learned from the conduct of these trials will inform planning of future trials.

Contexte: Il est urgent de mettre au point des traitements efficaces contre la COVID-19, mais il n'est pas facile de réaliser des essais à répartition aléatoire dans un contexte pandémique. Méthodologie: Les essais internationaux factoriels ACT (Anti-Coronavirus Therapy) avaient un objectif d'inscription de 3 500 patients externes et de 2 500 patients hospitalisés présentant une COVID-19 symptomatique. L'essai mené auprès de patients externes visait à évaluer la colchicine par rapport aux soins habituels, et l'aspirine par rapport aux soins habituels. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal au terme de la répartition aléatoire des patients était l'hospitalisation ou le décès dans le groupe traité par la colchicine, et la thrombose majeure, l'hospitalisation ou le décès dans le groupe traité par l'aspirine. L'essai mené auprès de patients hospitalisés visant à évaluer la colchicine par rapport aux soins habituels, et un traitement associant le rivaroxaban à 2,5 mg deux fois par jour et l'aspirine à 100 mg une fois par jour par rapport aux soins habituels. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal au terme de la répartition aléatoire des patients était le recours à l'oxygénothérapie à haut débit ou à la ventilation mécanique ou le décès dans le groupe traité par la colchicine, et la survenue de manifestations thrombotiques majeures, le recours à l'oxygénothérapie à haut débit ou à la ventilation mécanique ou le décès dans le groupe traité par l'association rivaroxaban-aspirine. Résultats: À la fin de la période d'inscription, le 10 février 2022, 3 917 patients externes et 2 611 patients hospitalisés formaient la population des essais. Certains aspects se sont révélés problématiques, notamment le manque de données préliminaires sur les interventions à évaluer, les incertitudes liées aux taux d'événements prévus, les retards touchant les approbations réglementaires et éthiques et les interventions de recherche, de même que l'évolution de la pandémie de COVID-19. Conclusions: Les essais ACT détermineront l'efficacité du traitement anti-inflammatoire par la colchicine et du traitement antithrombotique par l'aspirine, administrée seule ou en association avec le rivaroxaban, contre la COVID-19 légère, modérée ou sévère. Les leçons tirées de ces essais orienteront la planification d'essais ultérieurs.

Assessing the clinical severity of the Omicron variant in the Western Cape Province, South Africa, using the diagnostic PCR proxy marker of RdRp target delay to distinguish between Omicron and Delta infections - a survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: At present, it is unclear whether the extent of reduced risk of severe disease seen with SARS-Cov-2 Omicron variant infection is caused by a decrease in variant virulence or by higher levels of population immunity. METHODS: RdRp target delay (RTD) in the Seegene AllplexTM 2019-nCoV PCR assay is a proxy marker for the Delta variant. The absence of this proxy marker in the transition period was used to identify suspected Omicron infections. Cox regression was performed for the outcome of hospital admission in those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the Seegene AllplexTM assay from November 1 to December 14, 2021 in the Western Cape Province, South Africa, in the public sector. Adjustments were made for vaccination status and prior diagnosis of infection. RESULTS: A total of 150 cases with RTD and 1486 cases without RTD were included. Cases without RTD had a lower hazard of admission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.91). Complete vaccination was protective against admission, with an aHR of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.26-0.77). CONCLUSION: Omicron has resulted in a lower risk of hospital admission compared with contemporaneous Delta infection, when using the proxy marker of RTD. Under-ascertainment of reinfections with an immune escape variant remains a challenge to accurately assessing variant virulence.

Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Omicron-driven fourth wave compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare COVID-19 outcomes in the Omicron-driven fourth wave with prior waves in the Western Cape, assess the contribution of undiagnosed prior infection to differences in outcomes in a context of high seroprevalence due to prior infection and determine whether protection against severe disease conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination was maintained. METHODS: In this cohort study, we included public sector patients aged ≥20 years with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between 14 November and 11 December 2021 (wave four) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of the following outcomes using Cox regression: death, severe hospitalisation or death and any hospitalisation or death (all ≤14 days after diagnosis) adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, geography, vaccination and prior infection. RESULTS: We included 5144 patients from wave four and 11,609 from prior waves. The risk of all outcomes was lower in wave four compared to the Delta-driven wave three (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for death 0.27 [0.19; 0.38]. Risk reduction was lower when adjusting for vaccination and prior diagnosed infection (aHR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.29; 0.59) and reduced further when accounting for unascertained prior infections (aHR: 0.72). Vaccine protection was maintained in wave four (aHR for outcome of death: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10; 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In the Omicron-driven wave, severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced mostly due to protection conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination, but intrinsically reduced virulence may account for a modest reduction in risk of severe hospitalisation or death compared to the Delta-driven wave.

Convalescent plasma in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial (PROTECT-Patient Trial).

There is a need for effective therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia. Convalescent plasma has antiviral activity and early observational studies suggested benefit in reducing COVID-19 severity. We investigated the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in a population with a high HIV prevalence and where few therapeutic options were available. We performed a double-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in one private and three public sector hospitals in South Africa. Adult participants with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring non-invasive oxygen were randomized 1:1 to receive a single transfusion of 200 mL of either convalescent plasma or 0.9% saline solution. The primary outcome measure was hospital discharge and/or improvement of ≥ 2 points on the World Health Organisation Blueprint Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement by day 28 of enrolment. The trial was stopped early for futility by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. 103 participants, including 21 HIV positive individuals, were randomized at the time of premature trial termination: 52 in the convalescent plasma and 51 in the placebo group. The primary outcome occurred in 31 participants in the convalescent plasma group and and 32 participants in the placebo group (relative risk 1.03 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). Two grade 1 transfusion-related adverse events occurred. Participants who improved clinically received convalescent plasma with a higher median anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titre compared with those who did not (298 versus 205 AU/mL). Our study contributes additional evidence for recommendations against the use of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 pneumonia. Safety and feasibility in this population supports future investigation for other indications.

Relationship of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 response to COVID-19 severity and impact of HIV-1 and tuberculosis coinfection.

T cells are involved in control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but limited knowledge is available on the relationship between antigen-specific T cell response and disease severity. Here, we used flow cytometry to assess the magnitude, function, and phenotype of SARS coronavirus 2-specific (SARS-CoV-2-specific) CD4+ T cells in 95 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 38 of them being HIV-1 and/or tuberculosis (TB) coinfected, and 38 non-COVID-19 patients. We showed that SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cell attributes, rather than magnitude, were associated with disease severity, with severe disease being characterized by poor polyfunctional potential, reduced proliferation capacity, and enhanced HLA-DR expression. Moreover, HIV-1 and TB coinfection skewed the SARS-CoV-2 T cell response. HIV-1-mediated CD4+ T cell depletion associated with suboptimal T cell and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, and a decrease in the polyfunctional capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells was observed in COVID-19 patients with active TB. Our results also revealed that COVID-19 patients displayed reduced frequency of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-specific CD4+ T cells, with possible implications for TB disease progression. These results corroborate the important role of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in COVID-19 pathogenesis and support the concept of altered T cell functions in patients with severe disease.

The utility of high-flow nasal oxygen for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a resource-constrained setting: A multi-centre prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The utility of heated and humidified high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for severe COVID-19-related hypoxaemic respiratory failure (HRF), particularly in settings with limited access to intensive care unit (ICU) resources, remains unclear, and predictors of outcome have been poorly studied. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with COVID-19-related HRF treated with HFNO at two tertiary hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were successfully weaned from HFNO, whilst failure comprised intubation or death on HFNO. FINDINGS: The median (IQR) arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) was 68 (54-92) in 293 enroled patients. Of these, 137/293 (47%) of patients [PaO2/FiO2 76 (63-93)] were successfully weaned from HFNO. The median duration of HFNO was 6 (3-9) in those successfully treated versus 2 (1-5) days in those who failed (p<0.001). A higher ratio of oxygen saturation/FiO2 to respiratory rate within 6 h (ROX-6 score) after HFNO commencement was associated with HFNO success (ROX-6; AHR 0.43, 0.31-0.60), as was use of steroids (AHR 0.35, 95%CI 0.19-0.64). A ROX-6 score of ≥3.7 was 80% predictive of successful weaning whilst ROX-6 ≤ 2.2 was 74% predictive of failure. In total, 139 patents (52%) survived to hospital discharge, whilst mortality amongst HFNO failures with outcomes was 129/140 (92%). INTERPRETATION: In a resource-constrained setting, HFNO for severe COVID-19 HRF is feasible and more almost half of those who receive it can be successfully weaned without the need for mechanical ventilation.

COVID-19-We urgently need to start developing an exit strategy.

AIM: The purpose of this perspective is to review the options countries have to exit the draconian "lockdowns" in a carefully staged manner. METHODS: Experts from different countries experiencing Corona Virus Infectious Disease 2019 (COVID-19) reviewed evidence and country-specific approaches and the results of their interventions. RESULTS: Three factors are essential: 1. Reintroduction from countries with ongoing community transmission; 2. The need for extensive testing capacity and widespread community testing, and 3. An adequate supply of personal protective equipment, PPE, to protect health care workers. Discussed at length are lifting physical distancing, how to open manufacturing and construction, logistics, and the opening of higher educational institutions and schools. The use of electronic surveillance is considered. CONCLUSION: Each country should decide on the best path forward. However, we can learn from each other, and the approaches are, in reality, very similar.