T cell immunity toward SARS-CoV-2 spike (S-), membrane (M-), and nucleocapsid (N-) proteins may define COVID-19 severity. Therefore, we compare the SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cell responses in moderate, severe, and critical COVID-19 patients and unexposed donors. Overlapping peptide pools of all three proteins induce SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cell response with dominance of CD4 + over CD8 + T cells and demonstrate interindividual immunity against the three proteins. M-protein induces the highest frequencies of CD4 + T cells, suggesting its relevance for diagnosis and vaccination. The T cell response of critical COVID-19 patients is robust and comparable or even superior to non-critical patients. Virus clearance and COVID-19 survival are not associated with either SARS-CoV-2 T cell kinetics or magnitude of T cell responses, respectively. Thus, our data do not support the hypothesis of insufficient SARS-CoV-2-reactive immunity in critical COVID-19. Conversely, it indicates that activation of differentiated memory effector T cells could cause hyperreactivity and immunopathogenesis in critical patients.

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...

The gut microbiota contributes to maintaining human health and regulating immune responses. Severe COVID-19 illness is associated with a dysregulated pro-inflammatory immune response. The effect of SARS-CoV-2 on altering the gut microbiome and the relevance of the gut microbiome on COVID-19 severity needs to be clarified. In this prospective study, we analyzed the gut microbiome of 212 patients of a tertiary care hospital (117 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and 95 SARS-CoV-2 negative patients) using 16S rRNA gene sequencing of the V3-V4 region. Inflammatory markers and immune cells were quantified from blood. The gut microbiome in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients was characterized by a lower bacterial richness and distinct differences in the gut microbiome composition, including an enrichment of the phyla Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes and a decrease of Actinobacteria compared to SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. The relative abundance of several genera including Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus and Collinsella was lower in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients while the abundance of Bacteroides and Enterobacteriaceae was increased. Higher pro-inflammatory blood markers and a lower CD8+ T cell number characterized patients with severe COVID-19 illness. The gut microbiome of patients with severe/critical COVID-19 exhibited a lower abundance of butyrate-producing genera Faecalibacterium and Roseburia and a reduction in the connectivity of a distinct network of anti-inflammatory genera that was observed in patients with mild COVID-19 illness and in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Dysbiosis of the gut microbiome associated with a pro-inflammatory signature may contribute to the hyperinflammatory immune response characterizing severe COVID-19 illness.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract