Background Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04327388 ; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 1...

RationalePulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for 3 consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of the patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need of supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival.ResultsOverall, 112 of 151 (75.4%) patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 of 150 (75.2%) in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups [15 days (95% confidence interval (CI), 13.0 to 17.0) and 16 days (95%CI, 13.8 to 18.2); hazard ratio (HR), 0.92; 95% CI 0.71–1.20; p=0.528]. No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to Intensive Care Unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR, 1.26; 95%CI, 0.74–2.16; p=0.176), or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.42–1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups.ConclusionsMethylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.Message of the studyPulse glucocorticoid therapy is used for severe and/or life threatening immuno-inflammatory diseases. The addition of pulse glucocorticoid therapy to the standard low dose of dexamethasone scheme was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Aims The aim of this study was to estimate a 48 hour prediction of moderate to severe respiratory failure, requiring mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods This was an observational prospective study that comprised consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to hospital from 21 February to 6 April 2020. The patients’ medical history, demographic, epidemiologic and clinical data were collected in an electronic patient chart. The dataset was used to train predictive models using an established machine learning framework leveraging a hybrid approach where clinical expertise is applied alongside a data-driven analysis. The study outcome was the onset of moderate to severe respiratory failure defined as PaO2/FiO2 ratio <150 mmHg in at least one of two consecutive arterial blood gas analyses in the following 48 hours. Shapley Additive exPlanations values were used to quantify the positive or negative impact of each variable included in each model on the predicted outcome. Results A total of 198 patients contributed to generate 1068 usable observations which allowed to build 3 predictive models based respectively on 31-variables signs and symptoms, 39-variables laboratory biomarkers and 91-variables as a composition of the two. A fourth “boosted mixed model” included 20 variables was selected from the model 3, achieved the best predictive performance (AUC = 0.84) without worsening the FN rate. Its clinical performance was applied in a narrative case report as an example. Conclusion This study developed a machine model with 84% prediction accuracy, which is able to assist clinicians in decision making process and contribute to develop new analytics to improve care at high technology readiness levels.

No abstract

Background: Despite the global efforts to antagonize carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) spreading, it remains an emerging threat with a related mortality exceeding 40% among critically ill patients. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence concerning the best infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies to fight CRAB spreading in endemic hospitals. Methods: The study was a critical review of the literature aiming to evaluate all available studies reporting IPC measures to control CRAB in ICU and outside ICU in both epidemic and endemic settings in the past 10 years. Results: Among the 12 included studies, the majority consisted of research reports of outbreaks mostly occurred in ICUs. The reported mortality reached 50%. Wide variability was observed related to the frequency of application of recommended CRAB IPC measures among the studies: environmental disinfection (100%); contact precautions (83%); cohorting staff and patients (75%); genotyping (66%); daily chlorhexidine baths (58%); active rectal screening (50%); closing or stopping admissions to the ward (33%). Conclusions: Despite effective control of CRAB spreading during the outbreaks, the IPC measures reported were heterogeneous and highly dependent on the different setting as well as on the structural characteristics of the wards. Reinforced ‘search and destroy’ strategies both on the environment and on the patient, proved to be the most effective measures for permanently eliminating CRAB spreading.

Little is known about SARS-CoV-2 evolution under Molnupiravir and Paxlovid, the only antivirals approved for COVID-19 treatment. By investigating SARS-CoV-2 variability in 8 Molnupiravir-treated, 7 Paxlovid-treated and 5 drug-naïve individuals at 4 time-points (Days 0-2-5-7), a higher genetic distance is found under Molnupiravir pressure compared to Paxlovid and no-drug pressure (nucleotide-substitutions/site mean±Standard error: 18.7 × 10−4 ± 2.1 × 10−4 vs. 3.3 × 10−4 ± 0.8 × 10−4 vs. 3.1 × 10−4 ± 0.8 × 10−4, P = 0.0003), peaking between Day 2 and 5. Molnupiravir drives the emergence of more G-A and C-T transitions than other mutations (P = 0.031). SARS-CoV-2 selective evolution under Molnupiravir pressure does not differ from that under Paxlovid or no-drug pressure, except for orf8 (dN > dS, P = 0.001); few amino acid mutations are enriched at specific sites. No RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) or main proteases (Mpro) mutations conferring resistance to Molnupiravir or Paxlovid are found. This proof-of-concept study defines the SARS-CoV-2 within-host evolution during antiviral treatment, confirming higher in vivo variability induced by Molnupiravir compared to Paxlovid and drug-naive, albeit not resulting in apparent mutation selection.

Objectives: Sex differences in COVID-19 severity and mortality have been described. Key aims of this analysis were to compare the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and mortality by sex and to explore whether variation in specific biomarkers could mediate this difference. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study among patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. A survival analysis was conducted to compare time to the composite endpoint of IMV or death according to sex. Interaction was formally tested to compare the risk difference by sex in subpopulations. Mediation analysis with a binary endpoint IMV or death (yes/no) by day 28 of follow-up for a number of inflammation/coagulation biomarkers in the context of counterfactual prediction was also conducted. Results: Among 415 patients, 134 were females (32%) and 281 males (67%), median age 66 years (IQR 54 e77). At admission, females showed a significantly less severe clinical and respiratory profiles with a higher PaO 2 /FiO 2 (254 mmHg vs. 191 mmHg; p 0.023). By 28 days from admission, 49.2% (95% CI 39.6 e58.9%) of males vs. 31.7% (17.9e45.4%) of females underwent IMV or death (log-rank p < 0.0001) and this amounted to a difference in terms of HR of 0.40 (0.26e0.63, p 0.0001). The area under the curve in Creactive protein (CRP) over the study period appeared to explain 85% of this difference in risk by sex. Discussion: Our analysis confirms a difference in the risk of COVID-19 clinical progression by sex and provides a hypothesis for potential mechanisms leading to this. Specifically, CRP showed a predominant role to mediate the difference in risk by sex.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in critically ill patients with COVID-19 represents a very huge global threat due to a higher incidence rate compared to non-COVID-19 patients and almost 50% of the 30-day mortality rate. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the first pathogen involved but uncommon non-fermenter gram-negative organisms such as Burkholderia cepacea and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia have emerged as other potential etiological causes. Against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative microorganisms, Ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) is considered a first-line option, even more so in case of a ceftolozane/tazobactam resistance or shortage. The aim of this report was to describe our experience with CZA in a case series of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the ICU with VAP due to difficult-to-treat (DTT) P. aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacea, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and to compare it with data published in the literature. A total of 23 patients were treated from February 2020 to March 2022: 19/23 (82%) VAPs were caused by Pseudomonas spp. (16/19 DTT), 2 by Burkholderia cepacea, and 6 by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia; 12/23 (52.1%) were polymicrobial. Septic shock was diagnosed in 65.2% of the patients and VAP occurred after a median of 29 days from ICU admission. CZA was prescribed as a combination regimen in 86% of the cases, with either fosfomycin or inhaled amikacin or cotrimoxazole. Microbiological eradication was achieved in 52.3% of the cases and the 30-day overall mortality rate was 14/23 (60.8%). Despite the high mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients, CZA, especially in combination therapy, could represent a valid treatment option for VAP due to DTT non-fermenter gram-negative bacteria, including uncommon pathogens such as Burkholderia cepacea and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.