Background Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and antivirals have been approved for early therapy of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), however, in the real-life setting, there are difficulties to prescribe these therapies within few days from symptom onset as recommended, and effectiveness of combined use of these drugs have been hypothesised in most-at-risk patients (such as those immunocompromised) but data supporting this strategy are limited. Methods We describe the real-life experience of SARS-CoV-2 antivirals and/or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and focus on the hospitalisation rate due to the progression of COVID-19. Clinical results obtained through our risk-stratification algorithm and benefits achieved through a strategic proximity territorial centre are provided. We also report a case series with an in-depth evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 genome in relationship with treatment strategy and clinical evolution of patients. Results Two hundred eighty-eight patients were analysed; 94/288 (32.6%) patients were treated with mAb monotherapy, 171/288 (59.4%) patients were treated with antivirals, and 23/288 (8%) patients received both mAbs and one antiviral drug. Haematological malignancies were more frequent in patients treated with combination therapy than in the other groups (p = 0.0003). There was a substantial increase in the number of treated patients since the opening of the centre dedicated to early therapies for COVID-19. The provided disease-management and treatment appeared to be effective since 98.6% patients recovered without hospital admission. Moreover, combination therapy with mAbs and antivirals seemed successful because all patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 did not receive such therapies, while none of the most-at-risk patients treated with combination therapy were hospitalized or reported adverse events. Conclusions A low rate of COVID-19 progression requiring hospital admission was observed in patients included in this study. The dedicated COVID-19 proximity territorial service appeared to strengthen the regional sanitary system, avoiding the overwhelming of other services. Importantly, our results also support early combination therapy: it is possible that this strategy reduces the emergence of escape mutants of SARS-CoV-2, thereby increasing efficacy of early treatment, especially in immunocompromised individuals.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined as the presence of albuminuria and/or reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73m2, is considered a growing public health problem, with its prevalence and incidence having almost doubled in the past three decades. The implementation of novel biomarkers in clinical practice is crucial, since it could allow earlier diagnosis and lead to an improvement in CKD outcomes. Nevertheless, a clear guidance on how to develop biomarkers in the setting of CKD is not yet available. The aim of this review is to report the framework for implementing biomarkers in observational and intervention studies. Biomarkers are classified as either prognostic or predictive; the first type is used to identify the likelihood of a patient to develop an endpoint regardless of treatment, whereas the second type is used to determine whether the patient is likely to benefit from a specific treatment. Many single assays and complex biomarkers were shown to improve the prediction of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in CKD patients on top of the traditional risk factors. Biomarkers were also shown to improve clinical trial designs. Understanding the correct ways to validate and implement novel biomarkers in CKD will help to mitigate the global burden of CKD and to improve the individual prognosis of these high-risk patients.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a B-lymphoproliferative disease, which consists of the abnormal proliferation of CD19/CD5/CD20/CD23 positive lymphocytes in blood and lymphoid organs, such as bone marrow, lymph nodes and spleen. The neoplastic transformation and expansion of tumor B cells are commonly recognized as antigen-driven processes, mediated by the interaction of antigens with the B cell receptor (BCR) expressed on the surface of B-lymphocytes. The survival and progression of CLL cells largely depend on the direct interaction of CLL cells with receptors of accessory cells of tumor microenvironment. Recently, much interest has been focused on the role of tumor release of small extracellular vesicles (EVs), named exosomes, which incorporate a wide range of biologically active molecules, particularly microRNAs and proteins, which sustain the tumor growth. Here, we will review the role of CLL-derived exosomes as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of the disease.

Background The Sars-CoV-2 can cause severe pneumonia with multiorgan disease; thus, the identification of clinical and laboratory predictors of the progression towards severe and fatal forms of this illness is needed. Here, we retrospectively evaluated and integrated laboratory parameters of 45 elderly subjects from a long-term care facility with Sars-CoV-2 outbreak and spread, to identify potential common patterns of systemic response able to better stratify patients’ clinical course and outcome. Methods Baseline white blood cells, granulocytes’, lymphocytes’, and platelets’ counts, hemoglobin, total iron, ferritin, D-dimer, and interleukin-6 concentration were used to generate a principal component analysis. Statistical analysis was performed by using R statistical package version 4.0. Results We identified 3 laboratory patterns of response, renamed as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk, strongly associated with patients’ survival (p < 0.01). D-dimer, iron status, lymphocyte/monocyte count represented the main markers discriminating high- and low-risk groups. Patients belonging to the high-risk group presented a significantly longer time to ferritin decrease (p: 0.047). Iron-to-ferritin-ratio (IFR) significantly segregated recovered and dead patients in the intermediate-risk group (p: 0.012). Conclusions Our data suggest that a combination of few laboratory parameters, i.e. iron status, D-dimer and lymphocyte/monocyte count at admission and during the hospital stay, can predict clinical progression in COVID-19.

Objectives: the different analytical methods for measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) are not yet fully harmonized and no consensus exists on a threshold of 25(OH)D defining a deficiency status. In this study, we compared the results from the assays of serum 25(OH)D performed with three different methods to evaluate the presence of potential biases and how much these biases can influence the assignment of patients to specific 25(OH)D deficiency/sufficiency categories. Design and Methods: Liaison 25(OH) Vitamin D Total (DiaSorin Liaison XL), Elecsys Vitamin D Total II (Roche Elecsys) and Lumipulse G25(OH) Vitamin D (Fujirebio Lumipulse G1200) were used. Methods comparability was established performing Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis to prove whether the differences found were lower than the preliminarily pre-established maximum acceptable bias. Results: all Passing-Bablok regressions exhibited the presence of a proportional and constant systematic error. Bland-Altman analysis revealed biases well above the maximum acceptable bias, so the 25(OH)D concentrations measured were not comparable. To evaluate whether the three methods had the same ability to classify patients into different categories of vitamin D levels, we categorized results obtained by each method in reference classes. Lumipulse categorized most patients into the class with the lowest 25(OH)D concentrations (<20 ng/mL) whereas Elecsys ranked the lowest number. Conclusions: Liaison XL and Elecsys have shown good accuracy compared to Lumipulse in measuring 25(OH)D levels. Nevertheless, the assays were not interchangeable due to the lack of comparability of results as well as to the disagreement in classification of hormone deficiency or sufficiency.