Since SARS-CoV-2-based disease (COVID-19) spreads as a pandemic, the necessity of a highly sensitive molecular diagnosis that can drastically reduce false negatives reverse transcription PCR (rtPCR) results, raises as a major clinical need. Here we evaluated the performance of a ddPCR-based assay to quantify SARS-CoV-2 titer in 55 suspected COVID-19 cases with negative rtPCR results thanks to in-house ddPCR assay (targeting RdRp and host RNaseP). Samples were collected at ASST-GOM Niguarda between February and May 2020 at hospital admission. Clinical and imaging data were obtained for clinical staging and definition of disease severity. Patients were mainly female (45.5%) with a median age of 73 (57-84) years. ddPCR-based assay detected SARS-CoV-2 genome in nasopharyngeal samples of 19 (34.5%) patients (median viral-load: 128 copies/mL, IQR: 72-345). In 15 of them (78.9%), chest CT showed a classical COVID-19 bilateral interstitial pneumonia; 14 patients (73.7%) showed severe COVID-19 manifestations. ddPCR did not identify any trace of SARS-CoV-2 genome in the respiratory samples of the remaining 36 patients. The serological assay performed in a subgroup of 34 patients at the later stage of illness (from 3 days to 90 days after) confirmed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in all patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in ddPCR (100%). Contrariwise, negative tests were observed in 95.0% ddPCR negative patients (P<0.001). Thanks to a ddPCR-based assay, we achieved a rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in rtPCR-negative respiratory

Background: As the novel SARS-CoV-2 pandemic occurred, no specific treatment was yet available. Inflammatory response secondary to viral infection might be the driver of severe diseases. We report the safety and efficacy (in terms of overall survival and hospital discharge) of the anti-IL6 tocilizumab (TCZ) in subjects with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective, single-center analysis included all the patients consecutively admitted to our Hospital with severe or critical COVID-19 who started TCZ treatment from March 13th to April 03rd, 2020. A 1:2 matching to patients not treated with TCZ was performed according to age, sex, severity of disease, P/F, Charlson Comorbidity Index and length of time between symptoms onset and hospital admittance. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests to compare the groups were applied. Kaplan Meier probability curves and Cox regression models for survival, hospital discharge and orotracheal intubation were used. Results: Seventy-four patients treated with TCZ were matched with 148 matched controls. They were mainly males (81.5%), Caucasian (82.0%) and with a median age of 59 years. The majority (69.8%) showed critical stage COVID-19 disease. TCZ use was associated with a better overall survival (HR 0.499 [95% CI 0.262-0.952], p = 0.035) compared to controls but with a longer hospital stay (HR 1.658 [95% CI 1.088-2.524], p = 0.019) mainly due to biochemical, respiratory and infectious adverse events. Discussion: TCZ use resulted potentially effective on COVID-19 in terms of overall survival. Caution is warranted given the potential occurrence of adverse events. Financial support: Some of the tocilizumab doses used in the subjects included in this analysis were provided by the "Multicenter study on the efficacy and tolerability of tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia" (EudraCT Number: 2020-001110-38) supported by the Italian National Agency for Drugs (AIFA). No specific funding support was planned for study design, data collection and analysis and manuscript writing of this paper.

Aim To compare the efficacy of two different therapies (amino acid glycine abrasive powder and a desiccant material) and their combination in the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis. Materials and Methods This was an examiner‐blind randomized clinical trial, with 2‐factorial design with a follow‐up of 6 months. The combination of the two factors resulted in four interventions: (a) non‐surgical debridement alone (C); (b) non‐surgical debridement and a desiccant material (H); (c) non‐surgical debridement and glycine powder (G); and (d) non‐surgical debridement, desiccant material and glycine powder (HG). Results Sixty‐four patients with peri‐implantitis were randomized, 16 for each intervention. After six months, two implants failed in the G intervention. Mean pocket depth reduction was higher in patients treated with the desiccant material (estimated difference: 0.5 mm; 95% CI from 0.1 to 0.9 mm, p = .0229) while there was no difference in the patients treated with glycine powder (estimated difference: 0.1 mm; 95% CI from −0.3 to 0.5 mm, p = .7333). VAS for pain during intervention and VAS for pain after one week were higher for patients treated with glycine powder (p = .0056 and p = .0339, respectively). The success criteria and other variables did not reveal differences between interventions. Conclusions In this 6‐month follow‐up study, pocket reduction was more pronounced in patients using the desiccant material. Pain was higher in patients using glycine. All the interventions resulted in low success rate.

Objectives We aimed to develop and validate a risk score to predict severe respiratory failure (SRF) among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Methods We performed a multicentre cohort study among hospitalized (>24 hours) patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 22 February to 3 April 2020, at 11 Italian hospitals. Patients were divided into derivation and validation cohorts according to random sorting of hospitals. SRF was assessed from admission to hospital discharge and was defined as: Sp o 2 <93% with 100% Fi o 2 , respiratory rate >30 breaths/min or respiratory distress. Multivariable logistic regression models were built to identify predictors of SRF, β-coefficients were used to develop a risk score. Trial Registration NCT04316949 . Results We analysed 1113 patients (644 derivation, 469 validation cohort). Mean (±SD) age was 65.7 (±15) years, 704 (63.3%) were male. SRF occurred in 189/644 (29%) and 187/469 (40%) patients in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. At multivariate analysis, risk factors for SRF in the derivation cohort assessed at hospitalization were age ≥70 years (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.66–4.50), obesity (OR 4.62; 95% CI 2.78–7.70), body temperature ≥38°C (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.30–2.29), respiratory rate ≥22 breaths/min (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.01–7.01), lymphocytes ≤900 cells/mm 3 (OR 2.69; 95% CI 1.60–4.51), creatinine ≥1 mg/dL (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.59–3.56), C-reactive protein ≥10 mg/dL (OR 5.91; 95% CI 4.88–7.17) and lactate dehydrogenase ≥350 IU/L (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.11–5.11). Assigning points to each variable, an individual risk score (PREDI-CO score) was obtained. Area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.89 (0.86–0.92). At a score of >3, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 71.6% (65%–79%), 89.1% (86%–92%), 74% (67%–80%) and 89% (85%–91%), respectively. PREDI-CO score showed similar prognostic ability in the validation cohort: area under the receiver-operator curve 0.85 (0.81–0.88). At a score of >3, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 80% (73%–85%), 76% (70%–81%), 69% (60%–74%) and 85% (80%–89%), respectively. Conclusion PREDI-CO score can be useful to allocate resources and prioritize treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID‐19 patients hospitalized in general wards Methods This is a multicentre, open‐label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID‐19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in‐hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Results The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6.5, 95% CI: 1.5–11.6). The absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggests that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically nonsignificant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. Conclusions No DVT developed in COVID‐19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.

IMPORTANCEConvalescent plasma (CP) has been generally unsuccessful in preventing worsening of respiratory failure or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of CP plus standard therapy (ST) vs ST alone in preventing worsening respiratory failure or death in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial enrolled (1:1 ratio) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive CP plus ST or ST alone between July 15 and December 8, 2020, at 27 clinical sites in Italy. Hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia and a partial pressure of oxygen-to-fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ) ratio between 350 and 200 mm Hg were eligible. INTERVENTIONS Patients in the experimental group received intravenous high-titer CP (Ն1:160, by microneutralization test) plus ST. The volume of infused CP was 200 mL given from 1 to a maximum of 3 infusions. Patients in the control group received ST, represented by remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and low-molecular weight heparin, according to the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco recommendations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was a composite of worsening respiratory failure (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio <150 mm Hg) or death within 30 days from randomization. RESULTSOf the 487 randomized patients (241 to CP plus ST; 246 to ST alone), 312 (64.1%) were men; the median (IQR) age was 64 (54.0-74.0) years. The modified intention-to-treat population included 473 patients. The primary end point occurred in 59 of 231 patients (25.5%) treated with CP and ST and in 67 of 239 patients (28.0%) who received ST (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.59-1.33; P = .54). Adverse events occurred more frequently in the CP group (12 of 241 [5.0%]) compared with the control group (4 of 246 [1.6%]; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia, hightiter anti-SARS-CoV-2 CP did not reduce the progression to severe respiratory failure or death within 30 days. (continued) Key Points Question Is convalescent plasma useful in preventing worsening respiratory failure or death in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia? Findings In this randomized clinical trial of 487 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and a partial pressure of arterial oxygen-to-fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ) ratio between 350 and 200 mm Hg at enrollment, the rate of the primary clinical end point (need for mechanical ventilation, defined as PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio <150 mm Hg, or death) was not significantly different between the convalescent plasma group and the control group. Meaning In this trial, convalescent plasma did not reduce the progression to severe respiratory failure or death within 30 days.

Objectives To assess the efficacy of corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Methods Multicenter observational study from February 22 through June 30, 2020. We included consecutive adult patients with severe COVID-19 defined as respiratory rate ≥30 breath per minute, oxygen saturation ≤93% on ambient air or arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤300 mmHg. We excluded patients treated with other immunomodulant drugs, receiving low dose of corticosteroids and those receiving corticosteroids after 72h from admission. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality form hospital admission. The main exposure variable was corticosteroid therapy at dosage of ≥0.5 mg/kg of prednisone equivalents. It was introduced as binomial covariate in a logistic regression model for primary endpoint and inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score. Results Of 1717 patients with COVID-19 evaluated, 513 patients were included in the study; of these 170 (33%) were treated with corticosteroids. During the hospitalization 166 (34%) patients reached the primary outcome [60/170 (35%) in the corticosteroid group and 106/343 (31%) in the non-corticosteroid group]. At multivariable analysis corticosteroid treatment was not associated with lower 30-day mortality rate [aOR 0.59 (0.20-1.74), p=0.33]. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, corticosteroids were not associated to lower 30-day mortality [average treatment effect 0.05 (95% -0.02 to 0.09), p=0.12]. However, subgroup analysis revealed that in patients with PO 2 /FiO 2 < 200 mmHg at admission [135 patients, 52 (38%) treated with corticosteroids] corticosteroid treatment was associated to a lower risk of 30-day mortality [23/52 (44%) vs 45/83 (54%), aOR 0.20 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.90), p=0.036]. Conclusion Our study shows that the effect of corticosteroid treatment on mortality might be limited to critically ill COVID-19 patients.

ObjectiveExplore the impact of COVID-19 on patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation (LT) and on their post-LT course.DesignData from consecutive adult LT candidates with COVID-19 were collected across Europe in a dedicated registry and were analysed.ResultsFrom 21 February to 20 November 2020, 136 adult cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 33 centres in 11 European countries were collected, with 113 having COVID-19. Thirty-seven (37/113, 32.7%) patients died after a median of 18 (10–30) days, with respiratory failure being the major cause (33/37, 89.2%). The 60-day mortality risk did not significantly change between first (35.3%, 95% CI 23.9% to 50.0%) and second (26.0%, 95% CI 16.2% to 40.2%) waves. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed Laboratory Model for End-stage Liver Disease (Lab-MELD) score of ≥15 (Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 15–19, HR 5.46, 95% CI 1.81 to 16.50; MELD score≥20, HR 5.24, 95% CI 1.77 to 15.55) and dyspnoea on presentation (HR 3.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 7.51) being the two negative independent factors for mortality. Twenty-six patients underwent an LT after a median time of 78.5 (IQR 44–102) days, and 25 (96%) were alive after a median follow-up of 118 days (IQR 31–170).ConclusionsIncreased mortality in LT candidates with COVID-19 (32.7%), reaching 45% in those with decompensated cirrhosis (DC) and Lab-MELD score of ≥15, was observed, with no significant difference between first and second waves of the pandemic. Respiratory failure was the major cause of death. The dismal prognosis of patients with DC supports the adoption of strict preventative measures and the urgent testing of vaccination efficacy in this population. Prior SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic infection did not affect early post-transplant survival (96%).