Treatment of chronic or relapsing COVID-19 in immunodeficiency.

BACKGROUND: Patients with some types of immunodeficiency can experience chronic or relapsing infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This leads to morbidity and mortality, infection control challenges, and the risk of evolution of novel viral variants. The optimal treatment for chronic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize a cohort of patients with chronic or relapsing COVID-19 disease and record treatment response. METHODS: We conducted a UK physician survey to collect data on underlying diagnosis and demographics, clinical features, and treatment response of immunodeficient patients with chronic (lasting ≥21 days) or relapsing (≥2 episodes) of COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 31 patients (median age 49 years). Their underlying immunodeficiency was most commonly characterized by antibody deficiency with absent or profoundly reduced peripheral B-cell levels; prior anti-CD20 therapy, and X-linked agammaglobulinemia. Their clinical features of COVID-19 were similar to those of the general population, but their median duration of symptomatic disease was 64 days (maximum 300 days) and individual patients experienced up to 5 episodes of illness. Remdesivir monotherapy (including when given for prolonged courses of ≤20 days) was associated with sustained viral clearance in 7 of 23 clinical episodes (30.4%), whereas the combination of remdesivir with convalescent plasma or anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs resulted in viral clearance in 13 of 14 episodes (92.8%). Patients receiving no therapy did not clear SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 can present as a chronic or relapsing disease in patients with antibody deficiency. Remdesivir monotherapy is frequently associated with treatment failure, but the combination of remdesivir with antibody-based therapeutics holds promise.

Outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiency in the UK.

In March 2020, the United Kingdom Primary Immunodeficiency Network (UKPIN) established a registry of cases to collate the outcomes of individuals with PID and SID following SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatment. A total of 310 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with PID or SID have now been reported in the UK. The overall mortality within the cohort was 17.7% (n = 55/310). Individuals with CVID demonstrated an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 18.3% (n = 17/93), individuals with PID receiving IgRT had an IFR of 16.3% (n = 26/159) and individuals with SID, an IFR of 27.2% (n = 25/92). Individuals with PID and SID had higher inpatient mortality and died at a younger age than the general population. Increasing age, low pre-SARS-CoV-2 infection lymphocyte count and the presence of common co-morbidities increased the risk of mortality in PID. Access to specific COVID-19 treatments in this cohort was limited: only 22.9% (n = 33/144) of patients admitted to the hospital received dexamethasone, remdesivir, an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-based therapeutic (e.g. REGN-COV2 or convalescent plasma) or tocilizumab as a monotherapy or in combination. Dexamethasone, remdesivir, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-based therapeutics appeared efficacious in PID and SID. Compared to the general population, individuals with PID or SID are at high risk of mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Increasing age, low baseline lymphocyte count, and the presence of co-morbidities are additional risk factors for poor outcome in this cohort.

Practical management of suspected hypersensitivity reactions to anti-tuberculosis drugs.

Tuberculosis (TB) is the commonest cause of death by a single infectious agent globally and ranks amongst the top ten causes of global mortality. The incidence of TB is highest in Low-Middle Income countries (LMICs). Prompt institution of, and compliance with, therapy are cornerstones for a favourable outcome in TB and to mitigate the risk of multiple drug resistant (MDR)-TB, which is challenging to treat. There is some evidence that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to anti-TB drugs occur in over 60% and 3%-4% of patients respectively. Both ADRs and HSRs represent significant barriers to treatment adherence and are recognised risk factors for MDR-TB. HSRs to anti-TB drugs are usually cutaneous and benign, occur within few weeks after commencement of therapy and are likely to be T-cell mediated. Severe and systemic T-cell mediated HSRs and IgE mediated anaphylaxis to anti-TB drugs are relatively rare, but important to recognise and treat promptly. T-cell-mediated HSRs are more frequent amongst patients with co-existing HIV infection. Some patients develop multiple sensitisation to anti-TB drugs. Whilst skin tests, patch tests and in vitro diagnostics have been used in the investigation of HSRs to anti-TB drugs, their predictive value is not established, they are onerous, require specialist input of an allergist and are resource-dependent. This is compounded by the global, unmet demand for allergy specialists, particularly in low-income countries (LICs)/LMICs and now the challenging circumstances of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. This narrative review provides a critical analysis of the limited published evidence on this topic and proposes a cautious and pragmatic approach to optimise and standardise the management of HSRs to anti-TB drugs. This includes clinical risk stratification and a dual strategy involving sequential re-challenge and rapid drug desensitisation. Furthermore, a concerted international effort is needed to generate real-time data on ADRs, HSRs, safety and clinical outcomes of these interventions.

Case report: Clearance of longstanding, immune-deficiency-associated, vaccine-derived polio virus infection following remdesivir therapy for chronic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The global polio eradication campaign has had remarkable success in reducing wild-type poliovirus infection, largely built upon the live attenuated Sabin oral poliovirus vaccine. Whilst rare, vaccine poliovirus strains may cause infection and subsequently revert to a neurovirulent type, termed vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV). Persistent, vaccine derived infection may occur in an immunocompromised host (iVDPV), where it is a recognised complication following receipt of the Sabin vaccine. This has significant implications for the global polio eradication campaign and there is currently no agreed global strategy to manage such patients.Here we describe a case of a 50-year-old man with common variable immune deficiency, persistently infected with a neurovirulent vaccine-derived type 2 poliovirus following vaccination in childhood. iVDPV infection had proven resistant to multiple prior attempts at treatment with human breast milk, ribavirin and oral administration of a normal human pooled immunoglobulin product. His iVDPV infection subsequently resolved after 12 days treatment with remdesivir, an adenosine analogue prodrug that is an inhibitor of viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, administered as treatment for a prolonged, moderate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. iVDPV from the patient, isolated prior to treatment, was subsequently demonstrated to be sensitive to remdesivir in vitro. Based on the observations made in this case, and the mechanistic rationale for use with iVDPV, there is strong justification for further clinical studies of remdesivir treatment as a potentially curative intervention in patients with iVDPV infection.

The role of a clinical pharmacist in spurious Penicillin allergy: a narrative review.

Background A label of penicillin allergy is held by 6-10% of the general population and 15-20% of inpatients. > 90% of these labels are found to be spurious after formal allergy assessment. Carrying an unnecessary label of penicillin allergy is not benign. Such patients may receive second line, more expensive antibiotics, representing a significant impediment to antimicrobial stewardship. Aim of the review To (a) Explain the burden of spurious penicillin allergy, and evaluate the safety of direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients (b) appraise the place for a clinical pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling programme. Method Narrative review. Search engines: PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane reviews. Search criteria: English language; search terms: penicillin allergy, antimicrobial stewardship, antimicrobial resistance, clostridium difficile, vancomycin resistant enterococci, risk stratification, clinical pharmacist and direct oral provocation test Results Penicillin allergy labels are associated with: longer hospital stay, higher readmission rates, enhanced risk of surgical site infections, risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, a delay in the first dose of an antibiotic in sepsis and higher healthcare costs. A direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients has proven to be safe. Discussion Recent studies including those led by a clinical pharmacist have demonstrated safety of a direct oral penicillin challenge in 'low risk' patients. This intervention needs validation within individual health services. Conclusion Direct oral penicillin challenge reduces the adverse impact of spurious penicillin allergy. A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling program needs further validation in prospective multi-centre studies.

T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 is critical to vaccine development, epidemiological surveillance and disease control strategies. This systematic review critically evaluates and synthesises the relevant peer-reviewed and pre-print literature published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: For this systematic review, keyword-structured literature searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Papers were independently screened by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements by a third researcher. Data were independently extracted into a pre-designed Excel template and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the MetaQAT tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 61 articles were included. 55 (90%) studies used observational designs, 50 (82%) involved hospitalised patients with higher acuity illness, and the majority had important limitations. Symptomatic adult COVID-19 cases consistently show peripheral T cell lymphopenia, which positively correlates with increased disease severity, duration of RNA positivity, and non-survival; while asymptomatic and paediatric cases display preserved counts. People with severe or critical disease generally develop more robust, virus-specific T cell responses. T cell memory and effector function has been demonstrated against multiple viral epitopes, and, cross-reactive T cell responses have been demonstrated in unexposed and uninfected adults, but the significance for protection and susceptibility, respectively, remains unclear. CONCLUSION: A complex pattern of T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection has been demonstrated, but inferences regarding population level immunity are hampered by significant methodological limitations and heterogeneity between studies, as well as a striking lack of research in asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic individuals. In contrast to antibody responses, population-level surveillance of the T cell response is unlikely to be feasible in the near term. Focused evaluation in specific sub-groups, including vaccine recipients, should be prioritised.

SARS-CoV-2 serology: Test, test, test, but interpret with caution!

SARS-CoV-2 serological tests are a subject of intense interest and have the potential to significantly enhance the diagnostic capability of healthcare services in the current pandemic. However, as with all novel assays, significant validation is required to understand the clinical relevance of results. We present the first study to assess clinician interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 serology scenarios. We identify common key assumptions regarding patient infectivity and protection that are not currently supported by the SARS-CoV-2 evidence base. In this rapidly developing field, we therefore strongly recommend serological assay results are accompanied by clear interpretive support from laboratory and infectious diseases specialists.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.