Background To date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK). Methods We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18–60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8–12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04860739 ), and is ongoing. Findings Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84–85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53–8161·96) at day 14 (p<0·0001). IgG against trimeric spike protein increased from 98·40 BAU/mL (95% CI 85·69–112·99) to 3684·87 BAU/mL (3429·87–3958·83). The interventional:control ratio was 77·69 (95% CI 59·57–101·32) for RBD protein and 36·41 (29·31–45·23) for trimeric spike protein IgG. Reactions were mild (n=1210 [68%]) or moderate (n=530 [30%]), with injection site pain (n=395 [88%]), induration (n=159 [35%]), headache (n=199 [44%]), and myalgia (n=194 [43%]) the most commonly reported adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation BNT162b2 given as a second dose in individuals prime vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S induced a robust immune response, with an acceptable and manageable reactogenicity profile. Funding Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Translations For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Background The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. MethodsIn this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. Findings Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2•5% (95% CI 1•4-4•3) for patients with phenotype A, 30•5% (28•5-32•6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60•7% (53•7-67•2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0•0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5•3% [95% CI 3•4-8•1] for phenotype A, 31•3% [28•5-34•2] for phenotype B, and 59•5% [48•8-69•3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3•7% [2•0-6•4] for phenotype A, 23•7% [21•8-25•7] for phenotype B, and 51•4% [41•9-60•7] for phenotype C).Interpretation Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three...

Objectives: Primary objective: to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment on prevention of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Secondary objectives:-To evaluate the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment on prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.-To evaluate the efficacy of melatonin to prevent the development of severe COVID-19 in the participants enrolled in this study who develop SARS-CoV-2 infection along the trial.-To evaluate the duration of COVID-19 symptoms in participants receiving melatonin before the infection.-To evaluate seroconversion timing post-symptom onset.

Background: The Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) is a validated tool for assessing causality in cases of suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI). However, RUCAM cannot discriminate between concomitant hepatotoxic drugs with the same temporal sequence.Objective: To analyse the utility of the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) for assisting updated RUCAM in 45 patients and 40 controls with a clinical diagnosis of DILI.Methods: Suspected DILI cases were detected through the Prospective Pharmacovigilance Program from Laboratory Signals in Hospital (PPLSH) or by consultations. The controls completed the drug therapy with no adverse reactions during the study period. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed to calculate the optimal cut-off value for the stimulation index (SI), corresponding to the largest sum for the specificity and sensitivity values of LTT for true DILI cases.Results: Out of 45 patients diagnosed with DILI, 42 cases were detected by the PPLSH, two cases by consultation and one case by both methods. Most DILI cases (64.4%) arose during hospitalization. According to the biochemical parameters, 24 cases (53.3%) had the hepatocellular phenotype, 14 (31.1%) had the cholestatic phenotype, and 7 cases (15.6%) had the mixed phenotype. Considering the severity criteria, 7 (15.5%) cases were classified as moderate DILI, and 4 (8.9%) were severe DILI; there were no fatal cases. A total of 149 drugs (median/case, 3; IQR, 2–5) were suspected to be involved in the DILI cases (RUCAM score ≥3). In 8 cases, only one drug was suspected, and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) was identified in 29% of the cases. Of all DILI cases, 46 (30.9%) of the 149 suspected drugs produced positive LTT results, and the LTT was positive in 34 (75.5%) of the 45 patients. No exposed controls produced positive LTT results. The optimal cut-off of 1.95 for the SI was obtained with a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 100% (area under the curve, 0.91; 95% asymptotic confidence interval 0.84–0.97; p &lt; 0.001). The sensitivity of the hepatocellular phenotype was 92%.Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that LTT is an add on strengthening causality in cases of suspected idiosyncratic DILI, especially for patients with several suspected drugs and a hepatocellular phenotype.

Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI) is the fourth leading cause of liver damage in Western countries, increasingly becoming a matter of concern for drug prescription. 1 Despite data on antidepressant-induced liver injury being scarce, 0.5%-3% of patients treated with antidepressants may develop hepatitis, 2,3 being the most susceptible population the elderly and those with polypharmacy. 2 Liver damage is in most cases idiosyncratic and unpredictable, and it is generally unrelated to drug dosage. 2 Patients with DILI by antidepressants should be presumed to have increased risk of developing DILI with the same antidepressant or with any other antidepressant that may display cross-toxicity, limiting therapeutic options.

We evaluated in this randomised, double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Healthcare workers fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in five hospitals in Spain and were randomised 1:1 to receive melatonin 2 mg administered orally for 12 weeks or placebo. The main outcome was the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A total of 344 volunteers were screened, and 314 were randomised: 151 to placebo and 163 to melatonin; 308 received the study treatment (148 placebo; 160 melatonin). We detected 13 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 2.6% in the placebo arm and 5.5% in the melatonin arm (p = 0.200). A total of 294 adverse events were detected in 127 participants (139 in placebo; 155 in melatonin). We found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events related to treatment: 43 in the placebo arm and 67 in the melatonin arm (p = 0.040), and in the number of participants suffering from somnolence related to treatment: 8.8% (n = 14) in the melatonin versus 1.4% (n = 2) in the placebo arm (p = 0.008). No severe adverse events related to treatment were reported. We cannot confirm our hypothesis that administration of melatonin prevents the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

Many factors have been described to contribute to voriconazole (VCZ) interpatient variability in plasma concentrations, especially CYP2C19 genetic variability. In 2014, Hicks et al. presented data describing the correlation between VCZ plasma concentrations and CYP2C19 diplotypes in immunocompromised pediatric patients and utilized pharmacokinetic modeling to extrapolate a more suitable VCZ dose for each CYP2C19 diplotype. In 2017, in our hospital, a clinical protocol was developed for individualization of VCZ in immunocompromised patients based on preemptive genotyping of CYP2C19 and dosing proposed by Hicks et al., Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) clinical guidelines, and routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). We made a retrospective review of a cohort of 28 immunocompromised pediatric patients receiving VCZ according to our protocol. CYP2C19 gene molecular analysis was preemptively performed using PharmArray®. Plasma trough concentrations were measured by immunoassay analysis until target concentrations (1–5.5 μg/ml) were reached. Sixteen patients (57.14%) achieved VCZ trough target concentrations in the first measure after the initial dose based on PGx. This figure is similar to estimations made by Hicks et al. in their simulation (60%). Subdividing by phenotype, our genotyping and TDM-combined strategy allow us to achieve target concentrations during treatment/prophylaxis in 90% of the CYP2C19 Normal Metabolizers (NM)/Intermediate Metabolizers (IM) and 100% of the Rapid Metabolizers (RM) and Ultrarapid Metabolizers (UM) of our cohort. We recommended modifications of the initial dose in 29% (n = 8) of the patients. In RM ≥12 years old, an increase of the initial dose resulted in 50% of these patients achieving target concentrations in the first measure after initial dose adjustment based only on PGx information. Our experience highlights the need to improve VCZ dose predictions in children and the potential of preemptive genotyping and TDM to this aim. We are conducting a multicenter, randomized clinical trial in patients with risk of aspergillosis in order to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of VCZ individualization: VORIGENIPHARM (EudraCT: 2019-000376-41).

Background In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). Objective This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. Methods Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. Results In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited “to contribute to scientific knowledge” (n=80, 53.0%), followed by “to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection” (n=33, 21.9%) and “the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2” (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). Conclusions Health care workers’ reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.