Abstract
Prophylactic low molecular weight heparin (pLMWH) is currently recommended in COVID-19 to reduce the risk of coagulopathy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the antinflammatory ...effects of pLMWH could translate in lower rate of clinical progression in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients admitted to a COVID-hospital in Rome with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild/moderate pneumonia were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was the time from hospital admission to orotracheal intubation/death (OTI/death). A total of 449 patients were included: 39% female, median age 63 (IQR, 50–77) years. The estimated probability of OTI/death for patients receiving pLMWH was: 9.5% (95% CI 3.2–26.4) by day 20 in those not receiving pLMWH vs. 10.4% (6.7–15.9) in those exposed to pLMWH; p-value = 0.144. This risk associated with the use of pLMWH appeared to vary by PaO
2
/FiO
2
ratio: aHR 1.40 (95% CI 0.51–3.79) for patients with an admission PaO
2
/FiO
2
≤ 300 mmHg and 0.27 (0.03–2.18) for those with PaO
2
/FiO
2
> 300 mmHg; p-value at interaction test 0.16. pLMWH does not seem to reduce the risk of OTI/death mild/moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, especially when respiratory function had already significantly deteriorated. Data from clinical trials comparing the effect of prophylactic vs. therapeutic dosage of LMWH at various stages of COVID-19 disease are needed.
Direct-acting antivirals are highly effective for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, regardless race/ethnicity. We aimed to evaluate demographic, virological and clinical data of ...HCV-infected migrants vs. natives consecutively enrolled in the PITER cohort.
Migrants were defined by country of birth and nationality that was different from Italy. Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test and multiple logistic regression were used.
Of 10,669 enrolled patients, 301 (2.8%) were migrants: median age 47 vs. 62 years, (p < 0.001), females 56.5% vs. 45.3%, (p < 0.001), HBsAg positivity 3.8% vs. 1.4%, (p < 0.05). Genotype 1b was prevalent in both groups, whereas genotype 4 was more prevalent in migrants (p < 0.05). Liver disease severity and sustained virologic response (SVR) were similar. A higher prevalence of comorbidities was reported for natives compared to migrants (p < 0.05). Liver disease progression cofactors (HBsAg, HIV coinfection, alcohol abuse, potential metabolic syndrome) were present in 39.1% and 47.1% (p > 0.05) of migrants and natives who eradicated HCV, respectively.
Compared to natives, HCV-infected migrants in care have different demographics, HCV genotypes, viral coinfections and comorbidities and similar disease severity, SVR and cofactors for disease progression after HCV eradication. A periodic clinical assessment after HCV eradication in Italians and migrants with cofactors for disease progression is warranted.
Telemedicine and teleconsultation can be powerful and useful tools for patients to hamper the physical barriers to access to health care services during COVID-19 pandemic. We describe the ...teleconsultation (TC) model in the Lazio Region. It uses a hub-and-spoke network system on geographic regional basis using a web based digital platform, termed ADVICE with the aim to connect regional Emergency Departments (EDs) and Infectious Diseases (ID) acute and critical care settings for patients with acute ID syndrome. Between January 2020 and June 2021, the ADVICE platform received 18.686 TCs: of them, 10838 requests (58%) were for ID TCs in 7996 patients, followed by 2555(13%) requests for trauma, 2286(12%) for acute complex syndrome and 1681 (8%) for Stroke TCs. Three quarter of ID TCs were requested for SARS-COV-2 infection, followed by sepsis management in 7% and tuberculosis in 6%. In 5416 TCs, 68%, diagnostic investigations and therapeutic prescriptions were recommended before admission, in 1941 TCs, 24%, the recommendation was patient admission and in 608 TCs, 7%, was to discharge patient at home. Telemedicine have ensured high-profile consultations for ID patients and during COVID-19 the use of this resource optimized clinical patient management.
The study was undertaken in order to provide a snapshot from real clinical practice of virological presentation and outcome of patients developing immunosuppression‐driven HBV reactivation. Seventy ...patients with HBV reactivation were included (66.2% treated with rituximab, 10% with corticosteroids and 23.8% with other immunosuppressive drugs). Following HBV reactivation, patients received anti‐HBV treatment for a median (IQR) follow‐up of 31(13‐47) months. At baseline‐screening, 72.9% of patients were HBsAg‐negative and 27.1% HBsAg‐positive. About 71.4% had a diagnosis of biochemical reactivation median (IQR) HBV DNA and ALT: 6.9 (5.4‐7.8) log IU/mL and 359 (102‐775) U/L. Moreover, 10% of patients died from hepatic failure. Antiviral prophylaxis was documented in 57.9% and 15.7% of HBsAg‐positive and HBsAg‐negative patients at baseline‐screening (median IQR prophylaxis duration: 2415‐33 and 2517‐36 months, respectively). Notably, HBV reactivation occurred 2‐24 months after completing the recommended course of anti‐HBV prophylaxis in 35.3% of patients. By analysing treatment outcome, the cumulative probability of ALT normalization and of virological suppression was 97% and 69%, respectively. Nevertheless, in patients negative to HBsAg at baseline‐screening, only 27% returned to HBsAg‐negative status during prolonged follow‐up, suggesting the establishment of chronic infection. In conclusion, most patients received a diagnosis of HBV reactivation accompanied by high ALT and 10% died for hepatic failure, supporting the importance of strict monitoring for an early HBV reactivation diagnosis. Furthermore, HBV reactivation correlates with high risk of HBV chronicity in patients negative for HBsAg at baseline‐screening, converting a silent into a chronic infection, requiring long‐term antiviral treatment. Finally, a relevant proportion of patients experienced HBV reactivation after completing the recommended course of anti‐HBV prophylaxis, suggesting the need to reconsider proper duration of prophylaxis particularly in profound immunosuppression.
Several biomarkers have been identified to predict the outcome of COVID-19 severity, but few data are available regarding sex differences in their predictive role. Aim of this study was to identify ...sex-specific biomarkers of severity and progression of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in COVID-19.
Plasma levels of sex hormones (testosterone and 17β-estradiol), sex-hormone dependent circulating molecules (ACE2 and Angiotensin1-7) and other known biomarkers for COVID-19 severity were measured in male and female COVID-19 patients at admission to hospital. The association of plasma biomarker levels with ARDS severity at admission and with the occurrence of respiratory deterioration during hospitalization was analysed in aggregated and sex disaggregated form.
Our data show that some biomarkers could be predictive both for males and female patients and others only for one sex. Angiotensin1-7 plasma levels and neutrophil count predicted the outcome of ARDS only in females, whereas testosterone plasma levels and lymphocytes counts only in males.
Sex is a biological variable affecting the choice of the correct biomarker that might predict worsening of COVID-19 to severe respiratory failure. The definition of sex specific biomarkers can be useful to alert patients to be safely discharged versus those who need respiratory monitoring.
The outcome of COVID-19 appears to be influenced by vitamin D status of population. Although epidemiological data indicate that COVID-19 produces more severe symptoms and higher mortality in elderly ...in comparison to young patients and in men in comparison to women to date sex and age differences in vitamin D status in infected patients have not been evaluated yet. In this study we evaluated the levels of circulating 25(OH)D in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 divided accordingly to their sex and age. We also correlated 25(OH)D levels with patient’s respiratory status (i.e., PaO2/FiO2 ratio) and with sex hormones plasma levels to analyze the potential relationship of these parameters. We found no significant differences in plasma levels of 25(OH)D between pre- and post-menopausal female patients and age matched male patients. Interestingly, the 25(OH)D plasma levels positively correlated to PaO2/FiO2 ratio only in young patients, regardless of their sex. We also found a significantly positive correlation between 17β-estradiol and 25(OH)D in elderly women and between testosterone and 25(OH)D in elderly men, supporting the role of sex hormones in maintaining 25(OH)D levels. In conclusion, we suggest that a synergy between vitamin D and sex hormones could contribute to the age-related outcome of COVID-19.
Integrase-strand-transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are known to rapidly reduce HIV-1 plasma viral load, replication cycles, and new viral integrations, thus potentially limiting viral evolution. Here, we ...assessed the role of INSTIs on HIV-1 V3 evolution in a cohort of 89 HIV-1-infected individuals starting an INSTI- (
N
= 41, dolutegravir:
N
= 1; elvitegravir:
N
= 3; raltegravir:
N
= 37) or a non-INSTI-based (
N
= 48) combined antiretroviral therapy (cART), with two plasma RNA V3 genotypic tests available (one before baseline and one during cART). V3 sequences were analysed for genetic distance (Tajima-Nei model) and positive selection (dN/dS ratio). Individuals were mainly infected by B subtype (71.9%). Median (interquartile-range, IQR) plasma viral load and CD4 + T cell count at baseline were 4.8 (3.5–5.5) log
10
copies/mL and 207 (67–441) cells/mm
3
, respectively. Genetic distance (median, IQR) between the V3 sequences obtained during cART and those obtained at baseline was 0.04 (0.01–0.07). By considering treatment, genetic distance was significantly lower in INSTI-treated than in non-INSTI-treated individuals (median IQR: 0.030.01–0.04 vs. 0.050.02–0.08,
p
= 0.026). In line with this, a positive selection (defined as dN/dS ≥ 1) was observed in 36.6% of V3 sequences belonging to the INSTI-treated group and in 56.3% of non-INSTI group (
p
= 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression confirmed the independent correlation of INSTI-based regimens with a lower probability of both V3 evolution (adjusted odds-ratio: 0.35 confidence interval (CI) 0.13–0.88,
p
= 0.027) and positive selection (even if with a trend) (adjusted odds-ratio: 0.46 CI 0.19–1.11,
p
= 0.083). Overall, this study suggests a role of INSTI-based regimen in limiting HIV-1 V3 evolution over time. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.
Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe ...COVID-19.
In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76).
Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% 95% CI 81–94 in arm A vs 85% 74–93, HR 1.07 0.8–1.5 in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% 77–96 vs 79% 63–91, HR 1.55 0.9–2.6; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% 79–96) vs (73% 55–89, HR 1.53 0.9–2.7; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths.
The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results.
This study was supported by INMI “Lazzaro Spallanzani” Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.
Background: Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in ...severe COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76). Findings: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% 95% CI 81–94 in arm A vs 85% 74–93, HR 1.07 0.8–1.5 in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% 77–96 vs 79% 63–91, HR 1.55 0.9–2.6; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% 79–96) vs (73% 55–89, HR 1.53 0.9–2.7; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results. Funding: This study was supported by INMI “Lazzaro Spallanzani” Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.
PDF
