Large-Scale HLA Tetramer Tracking of T Cells during Dengue Infection Reveals Broad Acute Activation and Differentiation into Two Memory Cell Fates.

T cells play important multifaceted roles during dengue infection, and understanding their responses is important for defining correlates of protective immunity and identifying effective vaccine antigens. Using mass cytometry and a highly multiplexed peptide-HLA (human leukocyte antigen) tetramer staining strategy, we probed T cells from dengue patients-a total of 430 dengue and control candidate epitopes-together with key markers of activation, trafficking, and differentiation. During acute disease, dengue-specific CD8+ T cells expressed a distinct profile of activation and trafficking receptors that distinguished them from non-dengue-specific T cells. During convalescence, dengue-specific T cells differentiated into two major cell fates, CD57+ CD127--resembling terminally differentiated senescent memory cells and CD127+ CD57--resembling proliferation-capable memory cells. Validation in an independent cohort showed that these subsets remained at elevated frequencies up to one year after infection. These analyses aid our understanding of the generation of T cell memory in dengue infection or vaccination.

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

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

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

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

Long-term Cardiovascular, Cerebrovascular, and Other Thrombotic Complications in COVID-19 Survivors: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors experience a wide range of long-term postacute sequelae. We examined the postacute risk and burden of new-incident cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic complications after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a highly vaccinated multiethnic Southeast Asian population, during Delta predominance. METHODS: This cohort study used national testing and healthcare claims databases in Singapore to build a cohort of individuals who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test between 1 September and 30 November 2021 when Delta predominated community transmission. Concurrently, we constructed a test-negative control group by enrolling individuals between 13 April 2020 and 31 December 2022 with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants in both groups were followed up for a median of 300 days. We estimated risks of new-incident cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic complications using doubly robust competing-risks survival analysis. Risks were reported using 2 measures: hazard ratio (HR) and excess burden (EB) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We included 106 012 infected cases and 1 684 085 test-negative controls. Compared with the control group, individuals with COVID-19 exhibited increased risk (HR, 1.157 [1.069-1.252]) and excess burden (EB, 0.70 [.53-.88]) of new-incident cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications. Risks decreased in a graded fashion for fully vaccinated (HR, 1.11 [1.02-1.22]) and boosted (HR, 1.10 [.92-1.32]) individuals. Conversely, risks and burdens of subsequent cardiovascular/cerebrovascular complications increased for hospitalized and severe COVID-19 cases (compared to nonhospitalized cases). CONCLUSIONS: Increased risks and excess burdens of new-incident cardiovascular/cerebrovascular complications were reported among infected individuals; risks can be attenuated with vaccination and boosting.

Risks of SARS-CoV-2 JN.1 infection and COVID-19 associated emergency-department (ED) visits/hospitalizations following updated boosters and prior infection: a population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Data on protection afforded by updated COVID-19 vaccines (bivalent/XBB 1.5 monovalent) against the emergent JN.1 variant remains limited. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study amongst all boosted Singaporeans aged ≥18 years during a COVID-19 wave predominantly driven by JN.1, from 26th November 2023 to 13th January 2024. Multivariable Cox regression was utilised to assess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 associated emergency-department (ED) visits/hospitalizations, stratified by vaccination status/prior infection; with individuals last boosted ≥1 year utilized as the reference category. Vaccination and infection status were classified using national registries. RESULTS: 3,086,562 boosted adult Singaporeans were included in the study population, accounting for 146,863,476 person-days of observation. During the JN.1 outbreak, 28,160 SARS-CoV-2 infections were recorded, with 2,926 hospitalizations and 3,747 ED-visits. Compared with individuals last boosted ≥1 year prior with ancestral monovalent vaccines, receipt of an updated XBB.1.5 booster 8-120 days prior was associated with lower risk of JN.1 infection (adjusted-hazard-ratio, aHR = 0.59[0.52-0.66]), COVID-19 associated ED-visits (aHR = 0.50[0.34-0.73]) and hospitalizations(aHR = 0.58[0.37-0.91]), while receipt of a bivalent booster 121-365 days prior was associated with lower risk of JN.1 infection (aHR = 0.92[0.88-0.95]) and ED-visits (aHR = 0.80[0.70-0.90]). Lower risk of COVID-19 hospitalization during the JN.1 outbreak (aHR = 0.57[0.33-0.97]) was still observed following receipt of an updated XBB.1.5 booster 8-120 days prior, even when analysis was restricted to previously infected individuals. CONCLUSION: Recent receipt of updated boosters conferred protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and ED-visits/hospitalization during a JN.1 variant wave, in both previously infected and uninfected individuals. Annual booster doses confer protection during COVID-19 endemicity.

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

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

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Intravenous fluid therapy in hospitalized adult dengue patients without shock: Impact on subsequent severe dengue and potential adverse effects.

There is a lack of evidence on the optimal administration of intravenous (IV) fluids in hospitalized adult dengue patients without compensated and hypotensive shock. This study utilized a well-established cohort of dengue patients to compare risks of progressing to severe dengue (SD) over time for patients who were administered IV fluid versus others who were not. We included adult patients (n = 4781) who were hospitalized for dengue infection from 2005 to 2008. Cases were patients who developed SD (n = 689) and controls were patients who did not up until discharge (n = 4092). We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and risk of SD over time between groups administered different volumes of IV fluids versus the no IV fluid comparison group using Cox models with time-dependent covariates. The doubly-robust estimation approach was used to control for the propensity of fluid administration given clinical characteristics of patients. Subgroup analyses by age, sex, and dengue warning signs before IV fluid administration were conducted. High (>2000 mL/day) IV fluids volume was associated with a higher risk of development of SD for those who had warning signs (HR: 1.77 [1.05-2.97], p: 0.0713) and for those below 55 years old (HR: 1.53 [1.04-2.25], p: 0.0713). Low (<1000 mL/day) IV fluids volume was protective against SD for patients without warning signs (HR: 0.757 [0.578-0.990], p: 0.0883), no lethargy (HR: 0.770 [0.600-0.998], p: 0.0847), and females (HR: 0.711 [0.516-0.980], p: 0.0804). Over the course of hospitalization, there were no significant differences in IV fluid administration and SD risk in most subgroups, except in those who experienced lethargy and were administered IV fluid volume or quantity. Administering high volumes of IV fluids may be associated with an increased risk of SD during hospitalization for adult dengue patients without shock. Judicious use of IV fluids as supportive therapy is warranted.

Variant-specific IgA protects against Omicron infection.

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

Long-term Real-world Protection Afforded by Third mRNA Doses Against Symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections, Coronavirus Disease 19-related Emergency Attendances and Hospitalizations Amongst Older Singaporeans During an Omicron XBB Wave.

BACKGROUND: Literature on long-term real-world vaccine effectiveness of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) booster vaccines (up to and beyond 360 days) is scarce. We report estimates of protection against symptomatic infection, emergency department (ED) attendances and hospitalizations up to and beyond 360 days post-receipt of booster messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines among Singaporeans aged ≥60 years during an Omicron XBB wave. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study including all Singaporeans aged ≥60 years with no documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had previously received ≥3 doses of mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273), over a 4-month period during transmission of Omicron XBB. We reported the adjusted incidence-rate-ratio (IRR) for symptomatic infections, ED attendances and hospitalizations at different time-intervals from both first and second boosters, using Poisson regression; with the reference group being those who received their first booster 90 to 179 days prior. RESULTS: In total, 506 856 boosted adults were included, contributing 55 846 165 person-days of observation. Protection against symptomatic infections among those who received a third vaccine dose (first booster) waned after 180 days with increasing adjusted IRRs; however, protection against ED attendances and hospitalizations held up, with comparable adjusted IRRs with increasing time from third vaccine doses (≥360 days from third dose: adjusted IRR [ED attendances] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .62-.85; adjusted IRR [hospitalization] = 0.58, 95% CI = .49-.70). CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the benefit of a booster dose in reducing ED attendances and hospitalizations amongst older adults aged ≥60 years with no documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, during an Omicron XBB wave; up to and beyond 360 days post-booster. A second booster provided further reduction.

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

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

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficient recall of SARS-CoV-2 variant-reactive B cells and T responses in the elderly upon heterologous mRNA vaccines as boosters.

Waning antibody levels against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the emergence of variants of concern highlight the need for booster vaccinations. This is particularly important for the elderly population, who are at a higher risk of developing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease. While studies have shown increased antibody responses following booster vaccination, understanding the changes in T and B cell compartments induced by a third vaccine dose remains limited. We analyzed the humoral and cellular responses in subjects who received either a homologous messenger RNA(mRNA) booster vaccine (BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 + BNT162b2; ''BBB") or a heterologous mRNA booster vaccine (BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 + mRNA-1273; ''BBM") at Day 0 (prebooster), Day 7, and Day 28 (postbooster). Compared with BBB, elderly individuals (≥60 years old) who received the BBM vaccination regimen display higher levels of neutralizing antibodies against the Wuhan and Delta strains along with a higher boost in immunoglobulin G memory B cells, particularly against the Omicron variant. Circulating T helper type 1(Th1), Th2, Th17, and T follicular helper responses were also increased in elderly individuals given the BBM regimen. While mRNA vaccines increase antibody, T cell, and B cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 1 month after receiving the third dose booster, the efficacy of the booster vaccine strategies may vary depending on age group and regimen combination.

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

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

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

Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA and Inactivated Whole-Virus Vaccines Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection and Severe Disease in Singapore.

Compared with individuals vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty, recipients of Sinovac-CoronaVac and Sinopharm were 2.37 (95% CI, 2.29-2.46) and 1.62 (95% CI, 1.43-1.85) times more likely to be infected with coronavirus disease 19, respectively, while individuals vaccinated with Moderna were 0.42 (95% CI, 0.25-0.70) times less likely to develop severe disease.