Select Agent Regulatory Challenges in a Patient Care Setting: Review and Recommendations.

The Federal Select Agent Program ensures the safe and secure possession, use, and transfer of biological select agents and toxins through the select agent regulations (42 CFR §73, 7 CFR §331, and 9 CFR §121). These regulations are primarily written for interpretation by diagnostic and research laboratories, with limited text pertaining to the care of individuals infected with a select agent. The regulations applicable to patient care settings are ambiguous, resulting in challenges with regulatory compliance. The COVID-19 pandemic called attention to these shortcomings and the need to clarify and modify the select agent regulations. In this article, we discuss 3 select agent regulation phrases regarding patient care that need clarification-specifically, the window of time to transfer, patient care setting, and conclusion of patient care-and provide recommendations for improvement. These recommendations include implementing minimum security standards to safeguard patient specimens against theft, loss, or release prior to the appropriate transfer or destruction of the material and increasing the time allowed for the transfer or destruction of specimens before entities are subject to the select agent regulations. We encourage the Federal Select Agent Program to release a policy statement clarifying the select agent regulations regarding patient care discussed herein and to lengthen the designated time to destroy or transfer agents to a registered entity. Addressing these challenges will aid in compliance with the select agent regulations in patient care settings.

Fecal microbiota transplantation promotes reduction of antimicrobial resistance by strain replacement.

Multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) colonization is a fundamental challenge in antimicrobial resistance. Limited studies have shown that fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) can reduce MDRO colonization, but its mechanisms are poorly understood. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of FMT for MDRO decolonization in renal transplant recipients called PREMIX (NCT02922816). Eleven participants were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to FMT or an observation period followed by delayed FMT if stool cultures were MDRO positive at day 36. Participants who were MDRO positive after one FMT were treated with a second FMT. At last visit, eight of nine patients who completed all treatments were MDRO culture negative. FMT-treated participants had longer time to recurrent MDRO infection versus PREMIX-eligible controls who were not treated with FMT. Key taxa (Akkermansia muciniphila, Alistipes putredinis, Phocaeicola dorei, Phascolarctobacterium faecium, Alistipes species, Mesosutterella massiliensis, Barnesiella intestinihominis, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii) from the single feces donor used in the study that engrafted in recipients and metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids and bile acids in FMT-responding participants uncovered leads for rational microbiome therapeutic and diagnostic development. Metagenomic analyses revealed a previously unobserved mechanism of MDRO eradication by conspecific strain competition in an FMT-treated subset. Susceptible Enterobacterales strains that replaced baseline extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing strains were not detectable in donor microbiota manufactured as FMT doses but in one case were detectable in the recipient before FMT. These data suggest that FMT may provide a path to exploit strain competition to reduce MDRO colonization.

Evaluating Demographic Representation in Clinical Trials: Use of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment Trial (ACTT) as a Test Case.

Background: Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population, especially when the population affected is undefined. Methods: We evaluated the utility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), the COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 United States (US) Census data to determine demographic representation in the 4 stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at US ACTT sites, with respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots. Results: US ACTT sites enrolled 3509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with US Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants aged ≥65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and the US Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets. Conclusions: Although surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, they are a better comparator than US Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

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.

Impact of belatacept and tacrolimus on cytomegalovirus viral load control and relapse in moderate and high-risk cytomegalovirus serostatus kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Belatacept improves long-term graft survival, but control of some primary viral infections may be impaired. We evaluated the impact of belatacept and tacrolimus on cytomegalovirus (CMV) viral control, remission and relapse in CMV high-risk and moderate-risk recipients. METHODS: Using a multistate Markov model, we evaluated viral load state transitions of 173 kidney transplant recipients with at least one episode of viremia within 1 year after transplant: state 1, undetectable/low viral load; state 2, moderate viremia; and state 3, severe viremia. RESULTS: Among high-risk recipients, belatacept-treated recipients exhibited a significantly higher probability of entering moderate viremia (.36; 95% CI = .31, .41) than tacrolimus-treated recipients (.20; 95% CI = .13, .29). The expected number of days in viremic states differed. High-risk belatacept-treated recipients persisted in moderate viremia for significantly longer (128 days, 95% CI = 110, 146) than did tacrolimus-treated recipients (70.0 days, 95% CI = 45.2, 100) and showed a trend of shorter duration in low/undetectable viral load state (172 days, 95% CI = 148, 195) than did tacrolimus-treated recipients (239 days, 95% CI = 195, 277). Moderate-risk recipients showed better viral load control and with no differences by immunosuppression. CONCLUSION: High-risk belatacept-treated recipients showed defects in sustaining viral control relative to tacrolimus-treated recipients. Avoidance of initial use belatacept in high-risk recipients or development of modified management protocols should be considered.

Unraveling the Treatment Effect of Baricitinib on Clinical Progression and Resource Utilization in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Secondary Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Randomized Trial-2.

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

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.

The Evolution of the National Special Pathogen System of Care.

Infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics have repeatedly threatened public health and have severely strained healthcare delivery systems throughout the past century. Pathogens causing respiratory illness, such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses, as well as the highly communicable viral hemorrhagic fevers, pose a large threat to the healthcare delivery system in the United States and worldwide. Through the Hospital Preparedness Program, within the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, a nationwide Regional Ebola Treatment Network (RETN) was developed, building upon a state- and jurisdiction-based tiered hospital approach. This network, spearheaded by the National Emerging Special Pathogens Training and Education Center, developed a conceptual framework and plan for the evolution of the RETN into the National Special Pathogen System of Care (NSPS). Building the NSPS strategy involved reviewing the literature and the initial framework used in forming the RETN and conducting an extensive stakeholder engagement process to identify gaps and develop solutions. From this, the NSPS strategy and implementation plan were formed. The resulting NSPS strategy is an ambitious but critical effort that will have impacts on the mitigation efforts of special pathogen threats for years to come.

Lassa Virus Infection: a Summary for Clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: This summary on Lassa virus (LASV) infection and Lassa fever disease (LF) was developed from a clinical perspective to provide clinicians with a condensed, accessible understanding of the current literature. The information provided highlights pathogenesis, clinical features, and diagnostics emphasizing therapies and vaccines that have demonstrated potential value for use in clinical or research environments. METHODS: We conducted an integrative literature review on the clinical and pathological features, vaccines, and treatments for LASV infection, focusing on recent studies and in vivo evidence from humans and/or non-human primates (NHPs), when available. RESULTS: Two antiviral medications with potential benefit for the treatment of LASV infection and 1 for post-exposure prophylaxis were identified, although a larger number of therapeutic candidates are currently being evaluated. Multiple vaccine platforms are in pre-clinical development for LASV prevention, but data from human clinical trials are not yet available. CONCLUSION: We provide succinct summaries of medical countermeasures against LASV to give the busy clinician a rapid reference. Although there are no approved drugs or vaccines for LF, we provide condensed information from a literature review for measures that can be taken when faced with a suspected infection, including investigational treatment options and hospital engineering controls.

Prepared to Act: Lessons Learned by the Special Pathogens Research Network, Based on Collaborations with the NIAID-Led Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

The need for well-controlled clinical trials is fundamental to advancing medicine. Care should be taken to maintain high standards in trial design and conduct even during emergency medical events such as an infectious disease outbreak. In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 emerged and rapidly impacted populations around the globe. The need for effective therapeutics was immediately evident, prompting the National Institutes of Health to initiate the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. The Special Pathogens Research Network, made up of 10 Regional Emerging Special Pathogens Treatment Centers, was approached to participate in this trial and readily joined the trial on short notice. By trial closure, the Special Pathogens Research Network sites, making up 19% of all study sites, enrolled 26% of the total participants. The initial resources available and experience in running clinical trials at each treatment center varied from minimal experience and few staff to extensive experience and a large staff. Based on experiences during the first phase of this trial, the Special Pathogens Research Network members provided feedback regarding operational lessons learned and recommendations for conducting future studies during a pandemic. Communication, collaboration, information technology, regulatory processes, and access to resources were identified as important topics to address. Key stakeholders including institutions, institutional review boards, and study personnel must maintain routine communication to efficiently and effectively activate when future research needs arise. Regular and standardized training for new personnel will aid in transitions and project continuity, especially in a rapidly evolving environment. Trainings should include local just-in-time training for new staff and sponsor-designed modules to refresh current staff knowledge. We offer recommendations that can be used by institutions and sponsors to determine goals and needs when preparing to set up this type of trial for critical, short-notice needs.

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Donor Screening Updates and Research Gaps for Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

In this review, we discuss stool donor screening considerations to mitigate potential risks of pathogen transmission through fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. SOT recipients have a higher risk for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and are more likely to have severe CDI. FMT has been shown to be a valuable tool in the treatment of recurrent CDI (RCDI); however, guidelines for screening for opportunistic infections transmitted through FMT are underdeveloped. We review reported adverse effects of FMT as they pertain to an immunocompromised population and discuss the current understanding and recommendations for screening found in the literature while noting gaps in research. We conclude that while FMT is being performed in the SOT population, typically with positive results, there remain many unanswered questions which may have major safety implications and warrant further study.

Deconstructing the Treatment Effect of Remdesivir in the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1: Implications for Critical Care Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) found that remdesivir therapy hastened recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but the pathway for this improvement was not explored. We investigated how the dynamics of clinical progression changed along 4 pathways: recovery, improvement in respiratory therapy requirement, deterioration in respiratory therapy requirement, and death. METHODS: We analyzed trajectories of daily ordinal severity scores reflecting oxygen requirements of 1051 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who participated in ACTT-1. We developed competing risks models that estimate the effect of remdesivir therapy on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration, and multistate models that utilize the entirety of each patient's clinical course to characterize the effect of remdesivir on progression along the 4 pathways above. RESULTS: Based on a competing risks analysis, remdesivir reduced clinical deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .59-.91) and increased clinical improvement (HR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.39) relative to baseline. Our multistate models indicate that remdesivir inhibits worsening to ordinal scores of greater clinical severity among patients on room air or low-flow oxygen (HR, 0.74; 95% CI: .57-.94) and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: .53-1.00) at baseline. We also find that remdesivir reduces expected intensive care respiratory therapy utilization among patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir speeds time to recovery by preventing worsening to clinical states that would extend the course of hospitalization and increase intensive respiratory support, thereby reducing the overall demand for hospital care.

National Landscape of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Positive Deceased Organ Donors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Organ transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) presents risks of donor-derived infections. Understanding clinical, immunologic, and virologic characteristics of HIV-positive donors is critical for safety. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of donors with HIV-positive and HIV false-positive (FP) test results within the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in Action studies of HIV D+/R+ transplantation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602262, NCT03500315, and NCT03734393). We compared clinical characteristics in HIV-positive versus FP donors. We measured CD4 T cells, HIV viral load (VL), drug resistance mutations (DRMs), coreceptor tropism, and serum antiretroviral therapy (ART) detection, using mass spectrometry in HIV-positive donors. RESULTS: Between March 2016 and March 2020, 92 donors (58 HIV positive, 34 FP), representing 98.9% of all US HOPE donors during this period, donated 177 organs (131 kidneys and 46 livers). Each year the number of donors increased. The prevalence of hepatitis B (16% vs 0%), syphilis (16% vs 0%), and cytomegalovirus (CMV; 91% vs 58%) was higher in HIV-positive versus FP donors; the prevalences of hepatitis C viremia were similar (2% vs 6%). Most HIV-positive donors (71%) had a known HIV diagnosis, of whom 90% were prescribed ART and 68% had a VL <400 copies/mL. The median CD4 T-cell count (interquartile range) was 194/µL (77-331/µL), and the median CD4 T-cell percentage was 27.0% (16.8%-36.1%). Major HIV DRMs were detected in 42%, including nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (33%), integrase strand transfer inhibitors (4%), and multiclass (13%). Serum ART was detected in 46% and matched ART by history. CONCLUSION: The use of HIV-positive donor organs is increasing. HIV DRMs are common, yet resistance that would compromise integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based regimens is rare, which is reassuring regarding safety.

Racial and Ethnic Differences and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Presenting to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of remdesivir and dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 treatment, few large multi-hospital-system US studies have described clinical characteristics and outcomes of minority COVID-19 patients who present to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This cohort study from the Cerner Real World Database (87 US health systems) from 1 December 2019 to 30 September 2020 included PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients who self-identified as non-Hispanic Black (Black), Hispanic White (Hispanic), or non-Hispanic White (White). The main outcome was hospitalization among ED patients. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit care, and in-hospital mortality. Descriptive statistics and Poisson regression compared sociodemographics, comorbidities, receipt of remdesivir or dexamethasone, and outcomes by racial/ethnic groups and geographic region. RESULTS: 94 683 COVID-19 patients presented to the ED. Blacks comprised 26.7% and Hispanics 33.6%. Nearly half (45.1%) of ED patients presented to hospitals in the South. 31.4% (n = 29 687) were hospitalized. Lower proportions of Blacks were prescribed dexamethasone (29.4%; n = 7426) compared with Hispanics (40.9%; n = 13 021) and Whites (37.5%; n = 14 088). Hospitalization risks, compared with Whites, were similar in Blacks (RR: .94; 95% CI: .82-1.08; P = .4) and Hispanics (.99; .81-1.21; P = .91), but risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in Blacks (1.18; 1.06-1.31; P = .002) and Hispanics (1.28; 1.13-1.44; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Minority patients were overrepresented among COVID-19 ED patients, and while their risks of hospitalization were similar to Whites, in-hospital mortality risk was higher. Interventions targeting upstream social determinants of health are needed to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19.

Early steps to kidney transplantation among persons with HIV and end-stage renal disease in ESRD network 6.

INTRODUCTION: End-stage renal disease is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in persons with HIV (PWH). Limited data exist on access to kidney transplantation for this population. METHODS: A dataset inclusive of incident dialysis patients between 2012 and 2016 with follow-up through December 2017 that identifies PWH and the general dialysis population of Network 6 (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina) was created through merging the United States Renal Data System with the southeastern early transplant access registry. Early steps to kidney transplantation and patient and dialysis facility-level characteristics that serve as barriers to transplantation were described. RESULTS: Twenty-three thousand four hundred fourteen patients were identified; 469 were PWH. Compared to non-HIV individuals, PWH were younger (49 vs. 58 years, p < 0.001), predominantly Black (87% vs. 56% p < 0.001) and male (72% vs. 56% p < 0.001). PWH were less likely to be referred to kidney transplant within 1 year of starting dialysis (36% vs. 41% p < 0.001) and waitlisted within 1 year of evaluation-start (14% vs. 30%, p = 0.05). PWH (vs. non-PWH) waited longer for referral, evaluation-start, and waitlisting and in multivariable analysis; HIV positivity was associated with a lower probability of referral (hazard ratios [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.62-0.80), evaluation (HR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.55-0.80), and waitlisting (HR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.20-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted interventions are needed to improve access to kidney transplants, particularly in waitlisting, for PWH.

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).

Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells.

Ending the COVID-19 pandemic will require long-lived immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Here, we evaluate 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally up to 8 months and find durable broad-based immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibit a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells. SARS-CoV-2 infection also boosts antibody titers to SARS-CoV-1 and common betacoronaviruses. In addition, spike-specific IgG+ memory B cells persist, which bodes well for a rapid antibody response upon virus re-exposure or vaccination. Virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are polyfunctional and maintained with an estimated half-life of 200 days. Interestingly, CD4+ T cell responses equally target several SARS-CoV-2 proteins, whereas the CD8+ T cell responses preferentially target the nucleoprotein, highlighting the potential importance of including the nucleoprotein in future vaccines. Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.

Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells.

Ending the COVID-19 pandemic will require long-lived immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Here, we evaluate 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally up to eight months and find durable broad-based immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibit a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells. SARS-CoV-2 infection also boosts antibody titers to SARS-CoV-1 and common betacoronaviruses. In addition, spike-specific IgG+ memory B cells persist, which bodes well for a rapid antibody response upon virus re-exposure or vaccination. Virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are polyfunctional and maintained with an estimated half-life of 200 days. Interestingly, CD4+ T cell responses equally target several SARS-CoV-2 proteins, whereas the CD8+ T cell responses preferentially target the nucleoprotein, highlighting the potential importance of including the nucleoprotein in future vaccines. Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of toxoplasmosis among transplant recipients at two US academic medical centers.

Toxoplasma gondii can cause severe opportunistic infection in immunocompromised individuals, but diagnosis is often delayed. We conducted a retrospective review of solid organ transplant (SOT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients with toxoplasmosis between 2002 and 2018 at two large US academic transplant centers. Patients were identified by ICD-9 or ICD-10 toxoplasmosis codes, positive Toxoplasma polymerase chain reaction test result, or pathologic diagnosis. Data were collected regarding transplant type, time from transplant to toxoplasmosis diagnosis, clinical and radiographic features, and mortality at 30 and 90 days. Twenty patients were identified: 10 HSCT recipients (80% allogeneic HSCT) and 10 SOT recipients (60% deceased donor renal transplants). Rejection among SOT recipients (70%) and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis among HSCT recipients (50%) were frequent. Median time from transplant to toxoplasmosis diagnosis was longer for SOT than HSCT (1385 vs. 5 days, P-value .002). Clinical manifestations most commonly were encephalitis (65%), respiratory failure (40%), renal failure (40%), and distributive shock (40%). Cohort 30-day mortality was 45%, and 90-day mortality was 55%. Diagnosis was postmortem in 25% of the cohort. Further evaluation of toxoplasmosis screening is needed for noncardiac SOT recipients, HSCT recipients with GVHD, and periods of increased net immunosuppression.