Immune cell kinetics and antibody response in COVID-19 patients with low-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis.

Low-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBLlo ) has been associated with an underlying immunodeficiency and has recently emerged as a new risk factor for severe COVID-19. Here, we investigated the kinetics of immune cell and antibody responses in blood during COVID-19 of MBLlo versus non-MBL patients. For this study, we analyzed the kinetics of immune cells in blood of 336 COVID-19 patients (74 MBLlo and 262 non-MBL), who had not been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, over a period of 43 weeks since the onset of infection, using high-sensitivity flow cytometry. Plasma levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were measured in parallel by ELISA. Overall, early after the onset of symptoms, MBLlo COVID-19 patients showed increased neutrophil, monocyte, and particularly, plasma cell (PC) counts, whereas eosinophil, dendritic cell, basophil, and lymphocyte counts were markedly decreased in blood of a variable percentage of samples, and with a tendency toward normal levels from week +5 of infection onward. Compared with non-MBL patients, MBLlo COVID-19 patients presented higher neutrophil counts, together with decreased pre-GC B-cell, dendritic cell, and innate-like T-cell counts. Higher PC levels, together with a delayed PC peak and greater plasma levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies (at week +2 to week +4) were also observed in MBLlo patients. In summary, MBLlo COVID-19 patients share immune profiles previously described for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, associated with a delayed but more pronounced PC and antibody humoral response once compared with non-MBL patients.

Real-life evidence about the use of intravenous brivaracetam in urgent seizures: The BRIV-IV study.

PURPOSE: Urgent seizures are a medical emergency for which new therapies are still needed. This study evaluated the use of intravenous brivaracetam (IV-BRV) in an emergency setting in clinical practice. METHODS: BRIV-IV was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study. It included patients ≥18 years old who were diagnosed with urgent seizures (including status epilepticus (SE), acute repetitive seizures, and high-risk seizures) and who were treated with IV-BRV according to clinical practice in 14 hospital centers. Information was extracted from clinical charts and included in an electronic database. Primary effectiveness endpoints included the rate of IV-BRV responder patients, the rate of patients with a sustained response without seizure relapse in 12 h, and the time between IV-BRV administration and clinical response. Primary safety endpoints were comprised the percentage of patients with adverse events and those with adverse events leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 57.7 ± 21.5 years old with a prior diagnosis of epilepsy for 57.1% of patients. The most frequent etiologies were brain tumor-related (18.1%) and vascular (11.2%) epilepsy. SE was diagnosed in 55.3% of patients. The median time from urgent seizure onset to IV treatment administration was 60.0 min (range: 15.0-360.0), and the median time from IV treatment to IV-BRV was 90.0 min (range: 30.0-2400.0). Regarding dosage, the mean bolus infusion was 163.0 ± 73.0 mg and the mean daily dosage was 195.0 ± 87.0 mg. A total of 77.6% of patients responded to IV-BRV (66.3% with SE vs. 91% other urgent seizures) with a median response time of 30.0 min (range: 10.0-60.0). A sustained response was achieved in 62.8% of patients. However, adverse events were reported in 14.7%, which were predominantly somnolence and fatigue, with 4.5% leading to discontinuation. Eighty-six percent of patients were discharged with oral brivaracetam. CONCLUSION: IV-BRV in emergency settings was effective, and tolerability was good for most patients. However, a larger series is needed to confirm the outcomes.

Low molecular weight heparin is useful in adult COVID-19 inpatients. Experience during the first Spanish wave: observational study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The intensity of the thromboprophylaxis needed as a potential factor for preventing inpatient mortality due to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between anticoagulation intensity and COVID-19 survival. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain. METHODS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) status was ascertained based on prescription at admission. To control for immortal time bias, anticoagulant use was analyzed as a time-dependent variable. RESULTS: 690 patients were included (median age, 72 years). LMWH was administered to 615 patients, starting from hospital admission (89.1%). 410 (66.7%) received prophylactic-dose LMWH; 120 (19.5%), therapeutic-dose LMWH; and another 85 (13.8%) who presented respiratory failure, high D-dimer levels (> 3 mg/l) and non-worsening of inflammation markers received prophylaxis of intermediate-dose LMWH. The overall inpatient-mortality rate was 38.5%. The anticoagulant nonuser group presented higher mortality risk than each of the following groups: any LMWH users (HR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.40-3.15); the prophylactic-dose heparin group (HR 2.39; 95% CI, 1.57-3.64); and the users of heparin dose according to biomarkers (HR 6.52; 95% CI, 2.95-14.41). 3.4% of the patients experienced major hemorrhage. 2.8% of the patients developed an episode of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study showed that LMWH administered at the time of admission was associated with lower mortality among unselected adult COVID-19 inpatients. The magnitude of the benefit may have been greatest for the intermediate-dose subgroup. Randomized controlled trials to assess the benefit of heparin within different therapeutic regimes for COVID-19 patients are required.

Low molecular weight heparin is useful in adult COVID-19 inpatients. Experience during the first Spanish wave: observational study.

BACKGROUND: The intensity of the thromboprophylaxis needed as a potential factor for preventing inpatient mortality due to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between anticoagulation intensity and COVID-19 survival. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain. METHODS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) status was ascertained based on prescription at admission. To control for immortal time bias, anticoagulant use was analyzed as a time-dependent variable. RESULTS: 690 patients were included (median age, 72 years). LMWH was administered to 615 patients, starting from hospital admission (89.1%). 410 (66.7%) received prophylactic-dose LMWH; 120 (19.5%), therapeutic-dose LMWH; and another 85 (13.8%) who presented respiratory failure, high D-dimer levels (> 3 mg/l) and non-worsening of inflammation markers received prophylaxis of intermediate-dose LMWH. The overall inpatient-mortality rate was 38.5%. The anticoagulant nonuser group presented higher mortality risk than each of the following groups: any LMWH users (HR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.40-3.15); the prophylactic-dose heparin group (HR 2.39; 95% CI, 1.57-3.64); and the users of heparin dose according to biomarkers (HR 6.52; 95% CI, 2.95-14.41). 3.4% of the patients experienced major hemorrhage. 2.8% of the patients developed an episode of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study showed that LMWH administered at the time of admission was associated with lower mortality among unselected adult COVID-19 inpatients. The magnitude of the benefit may have been greatest for the intermediate-dose subgroup. Randomized controlled trials to assess the benefit of heparin within different therapeutic regimes for COVID-19 patients are required.

Date of Admission during COVID-19 Pandemic Impacted Patient Outcomes in Addition to the Higher Efficacy of Tocilizumab Plus High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy Compared to Tocilizumab Alone.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids combined with tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 comes from observational studies or subgroup analysis. Our aim was to compare outcomes between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received high-dose corticosteroid pulse therapy and TCZ and those who received TCZ. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 between 1 March and 23 April 2020. Patients treated with either TCZ (400-600 mg, one to two doses) and methylprednisolone pulses (MPD-TCZ group) or TCZ alone were analyzed for the occurrence of a combined endpoint of death and need for invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. The independence of both treatment groups was tested using machine learning classifiers, and relevant variables that were potentially different between the groups were measured through a mean decrease accuracy algorithm. RESULTS: An earlier date of admission was significantly associated with worse outcomes regardless of treatment type. Twenty patients died (27.0%) in the TCZ group, and 33 (44.6%) died or required intubation (n = 74), whereas in the MPD-TCZ group, 15 (11.0%) patients died and 29 (21.3%) patients reached the combined endpoint (n = 136; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively). Machine learning methodology using a random forest classifier confirmed significant differences between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: MPD and TCZ improved outcomes (death and invasive mechanical ventilation) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but confounding variables such as the date of admission during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered in observational studies.