Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial

Longitudinal soluble marker profiles reveal strong association between cytokine storms resulting from macrophage activation and disease severity in COVID-19 disease

SARS-CoV2 infection results in a range of disease severities, but the underlying differential pathogenesis is still not completely understood. At presentation it remains difficult to estimate and predict severity, in particular, identify individuals at greatest risk of progression towards the most severe disease-states. Here we used advanced models with circulating serum analytes as variables in combination with daily assessment of disease severity using the SCODA-score, not only at single time points but also during the course of disease, to correlate analyte levels and disease severity. We identified a remarkably strong pro-inflammatory cytokine/chemokine profile with high levels for sCD163, CCL20, HGF, CHintinase3like1 and Pentraxin3 in serum which correlated with COVID-19 disease severity and overall outcome. Although precise analyte levels differed, resulting biomarker profiles were highly similar at early and late disease stages, and even during convalescence similar biomarkers were elevated and further included CXCL3, CXCL6 and Osteopontin. Taken together, strong pro-inflammatory marker profiles were identified in patients with COVID-19 disease which correlated with overall outcome and disease severity.

Measuring Quality-weighted Hospital-Free Days in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Modified Delphi Study

Rationale: Hospital-free days (HFDs), a measure of the number of days alive spent outside the hospital, is increasingly used as an endpoint in studies of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) or other critical and serious illnesses. Current approaches to measuring HFDs do not account for decrements in functional status or quality of life that ARF survivors and family members value. Objectives: To develop an acceptable approach to measure quality-weighted HFDs using patient-reported outcomes. Methods: We conducted a four-round modified Delphi process among ARF experts: those with lived or professional experience. Experts rated survivorship domains, instrument and data collection characteristics, and methods to translate responses into quality-weighted HFDs. The consensus threshold was that ⩾70% of respondents rated an item "totally acceptable" or "acceptable" and ⩽15% of respondents rated the item "totally unacceptable," "unacceptable," or "slightly unacceptable." Results: Fifty-seven experts participated in round 1. Response rates were 82-93% for subsequent rounds. Priority survivorship domains were physical function and health-related quality of life. Participants reached a consensus that data collection during ARF recovery should take less than 15 minutes per assessment, allow surrogate completion when patients are unable, and continue for at least 24 months of follow-up. Using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire to quality weight HFDs met consensus criteria for acceptability. A majority of panelists preferred quality-weighted HFDs to unweighted HFDs or survival for use in future ARF studies. Conclusions: Quality-weighting HFDs using patient and/or surrogate responses to the EQ-5D captured stakeholder priorities and was acceptable to this Delphi panel.

2023 ISTH update of the 2022 ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Clinical outcomes for patients with cardiovascular diseases before, during, and after the COVID19 pandemic. A pooled analysis of 600.000 patients

BACKGROUND

The unexpected virulence of the COVID19 pandemic brought to significant changes of generally accepted therapeutic approaches. The consequences of these changes were difficult to define during the pandemic period.

METHODS

We analyzed the National Registries including 97% of hospital admissions in Italy, regarding data describing number of operations for aortic valve implantation or repair, carotid and coronary revascularization, AAA repair, and lower limb arterial reconstruction performed in the period 2015 to 2019 and in the pandemic years 2020, 2021, and 2022. Primary outcomes were number and type of surgical procedures, 30-days operative mortality.

RESULTS

During the three years of the pandemic there was a statistically significant increase of the number of all-causes deaths in comparison with the mean of the previous five years (2015-2019). In Italy there was a total increase of all causes-deaths of 251.911 (+105900 in 2020; +66929 in 2021; and +79082 in 2022), and 73% of the excess of deaths was related with COVID19 infection and 27% occurred in COVID 19 negative patients. During the first year of the pandemic, worse clinical outcomes for hospitalized patients with CVD were registered. The medical system responded adequately and in the following two pandemic years clinical outcomes for hospitalized patients were similar with those of the pre-pandemic period.

CONCLUSIONS

The unexpected virulence of COVID19 pandemic determined worse clinical outcomes for patients with CVD during the first year. The adopted preventive measures allowed in the following two pandemic years improved clinical outcomes, similar with those of the pre-pandemic period.

[COVID-19 in the intensive care unit]

The acute respiratory failure as well as ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) have challenged clinicians since the initial description over 50 years ago. Various causes can lead to ARDS and therapeutic approaches for ARDS/ARF are limited to the support or replacement of organ functions and the prevention of therapy-induced consequences. In recent years, triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen, numerous cases of acute lung failure (C-ARDS) have emerged. The pathophysiological processes of classical ARDS and C-ARDS are essentially similar. In their final stages of inflammation, both lead to a disruption of the blood-air barrier. Treatment strategies for C-ARDS, like classical ARDS, focus on supporting or replacing organ functions and preventing consequential damage. This article summarizes the treatment strategies in the intensive care unit.

Symptoms and Impaired Quality of Life After COVID-19 Hospitalization: Effect of Therapeutic Heparin in Non-ICU Patients in the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 Acute Trial: Effect on 3-Month Symptoms and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic-dose heparin decreased days requiring organ support in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but its impact on persistent symptoms or quality of life (QOL) is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

In the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 ACUTE (ACTIV-4a) trial, was randomization of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 illness to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin associated with fewer symptoms and better QOL at 90 days?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an open-label randomized controlled trial at 34 hospitals in the United States and Spain. A total of 727 noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from September 2020 to June 2021 were randomized to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin. Only patients with 90-day data on symptoms and QOL were analyzed. We ascertained symptoms and QOL by the EQ-5D-5L at 90-day follow-up in a preplanned analysis for the ACTIV-4a trial. Individual domains assessed by the EQ-5D-5L included mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among 571 patients, 288 (50.4%) reported at least one symptom. Among 410 patients, 148 (36.1%) reported moderate to severe impairment in one or more domains of the EQ-5D-5L. The presence of 90-day symptoms was associated with moderate-severe impairment in the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.22-4.59), usual activities (aOR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.75-7.65), pain (aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.43-4.12), and anxiety (aOR, 4.32; 95% CI, 2.06-9.02), compared with patients reporting no symptoms There were no differences in symptoms or in the overall EQ-5D-5L index score between treatment groups. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less moderate-severe impairment in all physical functioning domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities) but was independently significant only in the self-care domain (aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.96).

INTERPRETATION

In a randomized controlled trial of hospitalized noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less severe impairment in the self-care domain of EQ-5D-5L. However, this type of impairment was uncommon, affecting 23 individuals.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04505774; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

ACE2-dependent and -independent SARS-CoV-2 entries dictate viral replication and inflammatory response during infection

Excessive inflammation is the primary cause of mortality in patients with severe COVID-19, yet the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. Our study reveals that ACE2-dependent and -independent entries of SARS-CoV-2 in epithelial cells versus myeloid cells dictate viral replication and inflammatory responses. Mechanistically, SARS-CoV-2 NSP14 potently enhances NF-κB signalling by promoting IKK phosphorylation, while SARS-CoV-2 ORF6 exerts an opposing effect. In epithelial cells, ACE2-dependent SARS-CoV-2 entry enables viral replication, with translated ORF6 suppressing NF-κB signalling. In contrast, in myeloid cells, ACE2-independent entry blocks the translation of ORF6 and other viral structural proteins due to inefficient subgenomic RNA transcription, but NSP14 could be directly translated from genomic RNA, resulting in an abortive replication but hyperactivation of the NF-κB signalling pathway for proinflammatory cytokine production. Importantly, we identified TLR1 as a critical factor responsible for viral entry and subsequent inflammatory response through interaction with E and M proteins, which could be blocked by the small-molecule inhibitor Cu-CPT22. Collectively, our findings provide molecular insights into the mechanisms by which strong viral replication but scarce inflammatory response during the early (ACE2-dependent) infection stage, followed by low viral replication and potent inflammatory response in the late (ACE2-independent) infection stage, may contribute to COVID-19 progression.

Structural insights into IL-6 signaling inhibition by therapeutic antibodies

Antibody inhibitors of the interleukin-6 (IL-6) signaling pathway, such as tocilizumab and sarilumab, have been used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, chimeric antigen receptor T cell-induced cytokine storm, and severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Here, we solve the cryogenic electron microscopy structures of sarilumab and tocilizumab in complex with IL-6R to resolutions of 3.2 and 3.3 Å, respectively. These structures reveal that both tocilizumab and sarilumab bind to the D3 domain of IL-6R. The binding surfaces of the two antibodies largely overlap, but the detailed interactions are different. Functional studies of various mutants show results consistent with our structural analysis of the antibodies and IL-6R interactions. Structural comparisons with the IL-6/IL-6R/gp130 complex indicate that sarilumab and tocilizumab probably inhibit IL-6/IL-6R signaling by competing for the IL-6 binding site. In summary, this work reveals the antibody-blocking mechanism of the IL-6 signaling pathway and paves the way for future antibody discovery.

Intensive Care Unit Mortality Trends during the First Two Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Greece: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study

Data on COVID-19 mortality among patients in intensive care units (ICUs) from Eastern and/or Southern European countries, including Greece, are limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ICU mortality trends among critically ill COVID-19 patients during the first two years of the pandemic in Greece and to further investigate if certain patients' clinical characteristics contributed to this outcome. We conducted a multi-center retrospective observational study among five large university hospitals in Greece, between February 2020 and January 2022. All adult critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease who required ICU admission for at least 24 h were eligible. In total, 1462 patients (66.35% males) were included in this study. The mean age of this cohort was 64.9 (±13.27) years old. The 28-day mortality rate was 35.99% (n = 528), while the overall in-hospital mortality was 50.96% (n = 745). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that older age (≥65 years old), a body mass index within the normal range, and a delay in ICU admission from symptom onset, as well as worse baseline clinical severity scores upon ICU admission, were associated with a greater risk of death. Mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients was high during the first two years of the pandemic in Greece but comparable to other countries. Risk factors for death presented in this study are not different from those that have already been described for COVID-19 in other studies.

Priority index for critical Covid-19 identifies clinically actionable targets and drugs

While genome-wide studies have identified genomic loci in hosts associated with life-threatening Covid-19 (critical Covid-19), the challenge of resolving these loci hinders further identification of clinically actionable targets and drugs. Building upon our previous success, we here present a priority index solution designed to address this challenge, generating the target and drug resource that consists of two indexes: the target index and the drug index. The primary purpose of the target index is to identify clinically actionable targets by prioritising genes associated with Covid-19. We illustrate the validity of the target index by demonstrating its ability to identify pre-existing Covid-19 phase-III drug targets, with the majority of these targets being found at the leading prioritisation (leading targets). These leading targets have their evolutionary origins in Amniota ('four-leg vertebrates') and are predominantly involved in cytokine-cytokine receptor interactions and JAK-STAT signaling. The drug index highlights opportunities for repurposing clinically approved JAK-STAT inhibitors, either individually or in combination. This proposed strategic focus on the JAK-STAT pathway is supported by the active pursuit of therapeutic agents targeting this pathway in ongoing phase-II/III clinical trials for Covid-19.

Efficacy and Safety of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Severe Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 and in Patients at High Risk for Progression to Critical Illness: A Real-World Study

Background: Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir is an orally administered anti-SARS-Cov-2 drug used in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. Our retrospective cohort study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in severe hospitalized patients with Omicron infection, as well as in patients at high risk for progression to critical illness in real-world settings. Methods: A total of 350 patients received Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir while 350 matched controls did not. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 were administered Nirmatrelvir 300 mg and Ritonavir 100 mg orally twice a day for 5 days, with the medication initiated on the first day after admission. The primary endpoint of the study was a composite outcome of hospitalization or death from any cause within 28 days. Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of adverse events and the evaluation of serum levels of IL-6 and viral load. Results: We documented the mortality risk from any cause within 28 days, viral load, serum IL-6 levels, and adverse events. Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir reduced the 28-day risk of all-cause mortality by 86% (P = .011, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.03, 0.64). At baseline, the serum level of IL-6 was significantly higher in the antiviral treatment group compared to the control group (P < .001), but no significant difference (P = .990) was found between the two groups at discharge. In CKD patients undergoing hemodialysis, no significant worsening of renal function was observed in the Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir treatment group compared to the control group. Conclusion: Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir may reduce the 28-day risk of all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and in patients at high risk for critical disease progression.

Transforming research to improve therapies for trauma in the twenty-first century

Improvements have been made in optimizing initial care of trauma patients, both in prehospital systems as well as in the emergency department, and these have also favorably affected longer term outcomes. However, as specific treatments for bleeding are largely lacking, many patients continue to die from hemorrhage. Also, major knowledge gaps remain on the impact of tissue injury on the host immune and coagulation response, which hampers the development of interventions to treat or prevent organ failure, thrombosis, infections or other complications of trauma. Thereby, trauma remains a challenge for intensivists. This review describes the most pressing research questions in trauma, as well as new approaches to trauma research, with the aim to bring improved therapies to the bedside within the twenty-first century.

Clinical course and management of COVID-19 in the era of widespread population immunity

The clinical implications of COVID-19 have changed since SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in humans. The current high levels of population immunity, due to prior infection and/or vaccination, have been associated with a vastly decreased overall risk of severe disease. Some people, particularly those with immunocompromising conditions, remain at risk for severe outcomes. Through the course of the pandemic, variants with somewhat different symptom profiles from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus have emerged. The management of COVID-19 has also changed since 2020, with the increasing availability of evidence-based treatments in two main classes: antivirals and immunomodulators. Selecting the appropriate treatment(s) for patients with COVID-19 requires a deep understanding of the evidence and an awareness of the limitations of applying data that have been largely based on immune-naive populations to patients today who most likely have vaccine-derived and/or infection-derived immunity. In this Review, we provide a summary of the clinical manifestations and approaches to caring for adult patients with COVID-19 in the era of vaccine availability and the dominance of the Omicron subvariants, with a focus on the management of COVID-19 in different patient groups, including immunocompromised, pregnant, vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

Damage to endothelial barriers and its contribution to long COVID

The world continues to contend with COVID-19, fueled by the emergence of viral variants. At the same time, a subset of convalescent individuals continues to experience persistent and prolonged sequelae, known as long COVID. Clinical, autopsy, animal and in vitro studies all reveal endothelial injury in acute COVID-19 and convalescent patients. Endothelial dysfunction is now recognized as a central factor in COVID-19 progression and long COVID development. Different organs contain different types of endothelia, each with specific features, forming different endothelial barriers and executing different physiological functions. Endothelial injury results in contraction of cell margins (increased permeability), shedding of glycocalyx, extension of phosphatidylserine-rich filopods, and barrier damage. During acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, damaged endothelial cells promote diffuse microthrombi and destroy the endothelial (including blood-air, blood-brain, glomerular filtration and intestinal-blood) barriers, leading to multiple organ dysfunction. During the convalescence period, a subset of patients is unable to fully recover due to persistent endothelial dysfunction, contributing to long COVID. There is still an important knowledge gap between endothelial barrier damage in different organs and COVID-19 sequelae. In this article, we mainly focus on these endothelial barriers and their contribution to long COVID.

Global trends in research on endothelial cells and sepsis between 2002 and 2022: A systematic bibliometric analysis

Sepsis is a systemic syndrome involving physiological, pathological, and biochemical abnormalities precipitated by infection and is a major global public health problem. Endothelial cells (ECs) dysfunction is a major contributor to sepsis-induced multiple organ failure. This bibliometric analysis aimed to identify and characterize the status, evolution of the field, and new research trends of ECs and sepsis over the past 20 years. For this analysis, the Web of Science Core Collection database was searched to identify relevant publications on ECs in sepsis published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2022. Microsoft Excel 2021, VOSviewer software, CiteSpace software, and the online analysis platform of literature metrology (http://bibliometric.com) were used to visualize the trends of publications' countries/regions, institutions, authors, journals, and keywords. In total, 4200 articles were identified and screened, primarily originating from 86 countries/regions and 3489 institutions. The USA was the leading contributor to this research field, providing 1501 articles (35.74 %). Harvard University's scientists were the most prolific, with 129 articles. Overall, 21,944 authors were identified, among whom Bae Jong Sup was the most prolific, contributing 129 publications. Additionally, Levi Marcel was the most frequently co-cited author, appearing 538 times. The journals that published the most articles were SHOCK, CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, and PLOS ONE, accounting for 10.79 % of the total. The current emerging hotspots are concentrated on "endothelial glycocalyx," "NLRP3 inflammasome," "extracellular vesicle," "biomarkers," and "COVID-19," among others. In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the scientific productivity and emerging research trends in the field of ECs in sepsis. The evidence supporting the significant role of ECs in both physiological and pathological responses to sepsis is continuously growing. More in-depth studies of the molecular mechanisms underlying sepsis-induced endothelial dysfunction and EC-targeted therapies are warranted in the future.

Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.

METHODS

In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2).

RESULTS

Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicle Infusion for the Treatment of Respiratory Failure From COVID-19: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Dosing Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell (BM-MSC)-derived extracellular vesicles (ExoFlo) convey the immunomodulatory and regenerative properties of intact BM-MSCs. This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of ExoFlo as treatment for moderate to severe ARDS in patients with severe COVID-19.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do two doses of ExoFlo safely reduce mortality in COVID-19-associated moderate to severe ARDS compared with placebo?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective phase 2 multicenter double-anonymized randomized placebo-controlled dosing trial was conducted at five sites across the United States with infusions of placebo, 10 mL of ExoFlo, or 15 mL of ExoFlo on days 1 and 4. Patients (N = 102) with COVID-19-associated moderate to severe ARDS were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Adverse events were documented throughout the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause 60-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included time to death (overall mortality); the incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events; proportion of discharged patients at 7, 30, and 60 days; time to hospital discharge; and ventilation-free days.

RESULTS

No treatment-related adverse events were reported. Mortality (60-day) in the intention-to-treat population was reduced with 15 mL ExoFlo mixed with 85 mL normal saline (ExoFlo-15) compared with placebo (not significant, χ2, P = .1343). For the post hoc subgroup analyses, 60-day mortality was decreased with ExoFlo-15 compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.385; 95% CI, 0.159-0.931; P = .0340; n = 50). With ExoFlo-15, a relative risk of 0.423 (95% CI, 0.173-1.032; P = .0588; n = 24) was determined for participants aged 18 to 65 years with moderate to severe ARDS. Ventilation-free days improved with ExoFlo-15 (P = .0455; n = 50) for all participants aged 18 to 65 years.

INTERPRETATION

The 15 mL dose of ExoFlo was found to be safe in patients with severe or critical COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. In participants aged 18 to 65 years, the risk reduction in 60-day mortality was further improved from subjects of all ages in the intention-to-treat population after two doses of 15 mL of ExoFlo compared with placebo.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04493242; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Discovery, validation, and prodrug design of an ACE2 activator for treating bacterial infection-induced lung inflammation

Exacerbated inflammatory responses can be detrimental and pose fatal threats to the host, as exemplified by the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in millions of fatalities. Developing novel drugs to combat the damaging effects of inflammation is essential for both preventive measures and therapeutic interventions. Accumulating evidence suggests that Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) possesses the ability to optimize inflammatory responses. However, the clinical applicability of this potential is limited due to the lack of dependable ACE2 activators. In this study, we conducted a screening of an FDA-approved drug library and successfully identified a novel ACE2 activator, termed H4. The activator demonstrated the capability to mitigate lung inflammation caused by bacterial lung infections, effectively modulating neutrophil infiltration. Importantly, to improve the clinical applicability of the poorly water-soluble H4, we developed a prodrug variant with significantly enhanced water solubility while maintaining a similar level of efficacy as H4 in attenuating inflammatory responses in the lungs of mice exposed to bacterial infections. This finding highlights the potential of formulated H4 as a promising candidate for the treatment and prevention of inflammatory diseases, including lung-related conditions.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.

Objective

To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility.

Results

Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy.

Conclusions and Relevance

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

The Efficacy of Nitric Oxide-Generating Lozenges on Outcome in Newly Diagnosed COVID-19 Patients of African American and Hispanic Origin

BACKGROUND

The study was initiated in 2020 to test the efficacy of a nitric oxide-generating lozenge (NOL) in outpatients with newly diagnosed COVID-19 to mitigate disease severity. The study enrolled high-risk patients, African American and Latino.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blinded, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. The primary endpoint was hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, intubation, dialysis, and death. The secondary endpoints were time to symptom resolution and the effect on oxygen saturation. Patients ages 50-85 years with recent COVID-19 diagnosis with at least one risk factor were recruited. Patients were randomized to either active treatment or placebo using block randomization. Blood pressure and oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured prior to and after the first dose and each morning thereafter.

RESULTS

A total of 840 patients was planned, half in each of the lozenge and placebo groups. An interim review of data was prespecified. Of 524 patients, the composite endpoint occurred in 6 patients, 3 (1.1%) in each group. The time to symptom resolution was 1 day shorter on active treatment (8.7 ± 6.6 vs 9.8 ± 6.8 days) (P = .3). There was no change in SpO2 on placebo (0.0 ± 2.0%) and no significant change on treatment (0.14 ± 0.9%), P = .3. All events occurred in the first year (2020).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not find a benefit of NOL therapy in COVID-19 patients and was terminated for futility. NOL treatment did not reduce mortality, hospitalization, intubation, or a reduction in symptoms duration. The study did find the NO lozenges were well tolerated in high-risk patients, without reported side effects.

From Emergence to Endemicity: A Comprehensive Review of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), later renamed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first identified in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019. Initially, the China office of the World Health Organization was informed of numerous cases of pneumonia of unidentified etiology in Wuhan, Hubei Province at the end of 2019. This would subsequently result in a global pandemic with millions of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and millions of deaths reported to the WHO. We have analyzed most of the data published since the beginning of the pandemic to compile this comprehensive review of SARS-CoV-2. We looked at the core ideas, such as the etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical symptoms, diagnostics, histopathologic findings, consequences, therapies, and vaccines. We have also included the long-term effects and myths associated with some therapeutics of COVID-19. This study presents a comprehensive assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 virology, vaccines, medicines, and significant variants identified during the course of the pandemic. Our review article is intended to provide medical practitioners with a better understanding of the fundamental sciences, clinical treatment, and prevention of COVID-19. As of May 2023, this paper contains the most recent data made accessible.

Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 main protease: Biological efficacy and toxicity aspects

The emergence of the highly contagious respiratory disease, COVID-19, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a significant global public health concern. To combat this virus, researchers have focused on developing antiviral strategies that target specific viral components, such as the main protease (Mpro), which plays a crucial role in SARS-CoV-2 replication. While many compounds have been identified as potent inhibitors of Mpro, only a few have been translated into clinical use due to the potential risk-benefit trade-offs. Development of systemic inflammatory response and bacterial co-infection in patients belong to severe, frequent complications of COVID-19. In this context, we analysed available data on the anti-inflammatory and antibacterial activities of the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors for possible implementation in the treatment of complicated and long COVID-19 cases. Synthetic feasibility and ADME properties were calculated and included for better characterisation of the compounds' predicted toxicity. Analysis of the collected data resulted in several clusters pointing to the most prospective compounds for further study and design. The complete tables with collected data are attached in Supplementary material for use by other researchers.

COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023

After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.

Long-term survival after intensive care for COVID-19: a nationwide cohort study of more than 8000 patients

BACKGROUND

Was it worth it-what is the outcome after the extended ICU (intensive care unit) length of stay for COVID-19 patients? Surprisingly, data on long-term mortality in large cohorts are lacking. We investigate long-term mortality including differences between men and women, as previous studies show that men generally suffer a more severe course of COVID-19 in terms of severity of illness and short-term mortality.

METHODS

Nationwide cohort including all adult COVID-19 patients admitted to Swedish ICUs until August 12, 2022. Primary outcome was 360-day mortality after ICU admission. Logistic regression was used to estimate associations between demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics and mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 8392 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 63 (52-72) years and the majority (70.1%) were men. Among the 7390 patients with complete 360-day mortality data, 1775 (24.4%) patients died within 30 days, 2125 (28.8%) within 90 days and 2206 (29.8%) within 360 days from ICU admission. 360-day mortality was 27.1% in women and 31.0% in men. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed increased risk of 360-day mortality in men compared to women (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.17-1.52). Other variables associated with poor 360-day mortality were age, cardiac disease, COPD/asthma, diabetes, immune deficiency, chronic kidney disease, neuromuscular disease, and malignancy.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the increased severity of disease in critically ill men with COVID-19, even in a long-term perspective. However, mortality beyond 90 days was strikingly low, indicating high probability of survival after the acute phase of illness.

Growth hormone-releasing hormone antagonist MIA-602 inhibits inflammation induced by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and bacterial lipopolysaccharide synergism in macrophages and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells

COVID-19 is characterized by an excessive inflammatory response and macrophage hyperactivation, leading, in severe cases, to alveolar epithelial injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recent studies have reported that SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein interacts with bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to boost inflammatory responses in vitro, in macrophages and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and in vivo. The hypothalamic hormone growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH), in addition to promoting pituitary GH release, exerts many peripheral functions, acting as a growth factor in both malignant and non-malignant cells. GHRH antagonists, in turn, display potent antitumor effects and antinflammatory activities in different cell types, including lung and endothelial cells. However, to date, the antinflammatory role of GHRH antagonists in COVID-19 remains unexplored. Here, we examined the ability of GHRH antagonist MIA-602 to reduce inflammation in human THP-1-derived macrophages and PBMCs stimulated with S protein and LPS combination. Western blot and immunofluorescence analysis revealed the presence of GHRH receptor and its splice variant SV1 in both THP-1 cells and PBMCs. Exposure of THP-1 cells to S protein and LPS combination increased the mRNA levels and protein secretion of TNF-α and IL-1β, as well as IL-8 and MCP-1 gene expression, an effect hampered by MIA-602. Similarly, MIA-602 hindered TNF-α and IL-1β secretion in PBMCs and reduced MCP-1 mRNA levels. Mechanistically, MIA-602 blunted the S protein and LPS-induced activation of inflammatory pathways in THP-1 cells, such as NF-κB, STAT3, MAPK ERK1/2 and JNK. MIA-602 also attenuated oxidative stress in PBMCs, by decreasing ROS production, iNOS and COX-2 protein levels, and MMP9 activity. Finally, MIA-602 prevented the effect of S protein and LPS synergism on NF-кB nuclear translocation and activity. Overall, these findings demonstrate a novel antinflammatory role for GHRH antagonists of MIA class and suggest their potential development for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, such as COVID-19 and related comorbidities.

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-Reflections on a Model for Rapid Evidence Review and Dynamic Practice Recommendations During a Public Health Emergency

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-an interspecialty, clinician-pharmacist, and specialist-front line primary care collaboration-has served as a forum for rapid evidence review and the production of dynamic practice recommendations during the 3-year coronavirus disease 2019 public health emergency. We describe the process by which the committee went about its work and how it navigated specific challenging scenarios. Our target audiences are clinicians, hospital leaders, public health officials, and researchers invested in preparedness for inevitable future threats. Our objectives are to discuss the logistics and challenges of forming an effective committee, undertaking a rapid evidence review process, aligning evidence-based guidelines with operational realities, and iteratively revising recommendations in response to changing pandemic data. We specifically discuss the arc of evidence for corticosteroids; the noble beginnings and dangerous misinformation end of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; monoclonal antibodies and emerging viral variants; and patient screening and safety processes for tocilizumab, baricitinib, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

COVID-19 annual update: a narrative review

Three and a half years after the pandemic outbreak, now that WHO has formally declared that the emergency is over, COVID-19 is still a significant global issue. Here, we focus on recent developments in genetic and genomic research on COVID-19, and we give an outlook on state-of-the-art therapeutical approaches, as the pandemic is gradually transitioning to an endemic situation. The sequencing and characterization of rare alleles in different populations has made it possible to identify numerous genes that affect either susceptibility to COVID-19 or the severity of the disease. These findings provide a beginning to new avenues and pan-ethnic therapeutic approaches, as well as to potential genetic screening protocols. The causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, is still in the spotlight, but novel threatening virus could appear anywhere at any time. Therefore, continued vigilance and further research is warranted. We also note emphatically that to prevent future pandemics and other world-wide health crises, it is imperative to capitalize on what we have learnt from COVID-19: specifically, regarding its origins, the world's response, and insufficient preparedness. This requires unprecedented international collaboration and timely data sharing for the coordination of effective response and the rapid implementation of containment measures.

Composite Interventions on Outcomes of Severely and Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Shanghai, China

Background: The sixty-day effects of initial composite interventions for the treatment of severely and critically ill patients with COVID-19 are not fully assessed. Methods: Using a Bayesian piecewise exponential model, we analyzed the 60-day mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and disability in 1082 severely and critically ill patients with COVID-19 between 8 December 2022 and 9 February 2023 in Shanghai, China. The final 60-day follow-up was completed on 10 April 2023. Results: Among 1082 patients (mean age, 78.0 years, 421 [38.9%] women), 139 patients (12.9%) died within 60 days. Azvudine had a 99.8% probability of improving 2-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.44 [95% credible interval, 0.24-0.79]), and Paxlovid had a 91.9% probability of improving 2-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.71 [95% credible interval, 0.44-1.14]) compared with the control. IL-6 receptor antagonist, baricitinib and a-thymosin each had a high probability of benefit (99.5%, 99.4%, and 97.5%, respectively) compared to their controls, while the probability of trail-defined statistical futility (HR > 0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.8%; HR, 1.64 [95% CrI, 1.06-2.50]) and glucocorticoid (91.4%; HR, 1.20 [95% CrI, 0.71-2.16]). Paxlovid, Azvudine, and therapeutic anticoagulation showed a significant reduction in disability (p < 0.05) Conclusions: Among severely and critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with Azvudine had a high probability of improved 60-day mortality compared with the control, indicating its potential in a resource-limited scenario. Treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist, baricitinib, and a-thymosin also had high probabilities of benefit in improving 2-month survival, among which a-thymosin could improve HRQoL. Treatment with Paxlovid, Azvudine, and therapeutic anticoagulation could significantly reduce disability at day 60.

Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19: understanding and addressing the burden of multisystem manifestations

Individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection can develop symptoms that persist well beyond the acute phase of COVID-19 or emerge after the acute phase, lasting for weeks or months after the initial acute illness. The post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, which include physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments, are known collectively as long COVID or post-COVID-19 condition. The substantial burden of this multisystem condition is felt at individual, health-care system, and socioeconomic levels, on an unprecedented scale. Survivors of COVID-19-related critical illness are at risk of the well known sequelae of acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and chronic critical illness, and these multidimensional morbidities might be difficult to differentiate from the specific effects of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. We provide an overview of the manifestations of post-COVID-19 condition after critical illness in adults. We explore the effects on various organ systems, describe potential pathophysiological mechanisms, and consider the challenges of providing clinical care and support for survivors of critical illness with multisystem manifestations. Research is needed to reduce the incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19-related critical illness and to optimise therapeutic and rehabilitative care and support for patients.

Post-COVID-19 Syndrome 2 Years After the First Wave: The Role of Humoral Response, Vaccination and Reinfection

Background

The aim of this study was to describe the long-term evolution of post-COVID-19 syndrome over 2 years after the onset of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in survivors of the first wave.

Methods

This prospective study was based on interviews and investigated post-COVID-19 syndrome 6, 12, and 24 months after the disease onset in all adult in- and outpatients with COVID-19 followed at Udine Hospital (Italy) during the first wave (March-May 2020). Humoral response, vaccination status, and reinfection were assessed.

Results

Overall, 230 patients (53.5% female; mean age 54.7 years) were interviewed 2.3 years (standard deviation = 0.11) after acute onset. Post-COVID-19 syndrome was observed in 36.1% of patients (n = 83) at 2 years. The most common persistent symptoms were fatigue (14.4%), rheumatological (14.4%), and psychiatric symptoms (9.6%). Overall, 55.4% (46 of 83) of long haulers searched for healthcare system support and 21 (45.7%) were visited by a specialist. Female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 2.50, P = .005), a proportional increase in the number of symptoms during acute COVID-19 (OR = 1.40, P = .001), and the presence of comorbidities (OR = 1.57, P = .004) were all independent risk factors for post-COVID-19 syndrome. Vaccination and reinfection had no impact on post-COVID-19 syndrome dynamics. The presence of receptor-binding domain (RBD) SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and non-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers were not associated with the occurrence of post-COVID-19 syndrome.

Conclusions

Two years after COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms remains high among in- and outpatients' population infected during the first wave. Post-COVID-19 dynamic does not seem to be influenced by SARS-CoV-2 immunization status and reinfection.

Long-term hypercoagulability, endotheliopathy and inflammation following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection

INTRODUCTION

both symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections - coined Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - have been linked to a higher risk of cardiovascular events after recovery.

AREAS COVERED

our review aims to summarize the latest evidence on the increased thrombotic and cardiovascular risk in recovered COVID-19 patients and to examine the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the interplay among endothelial dysfunction, inflammatory response and coagulation in long-COVID. We performed a systematic search of studies on hypercoagulability, endothelial dysfunction and inflammation after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

EXPERT OPINION

endothelial dysfunction is a major pathophysiological mechanism responsible for most clinical manifestations in COVID-19. The pathological activation of endothelial cells by a virus infection results in a pro-adhesive and chemokine-secreting phenotype, which in turn promotes the recruitment of circulating leukocytes. Cardiovascular events after COVID-19 appear to be related to persistent immune dysregulation. Patients with long-lasting symptoms display higher amounts of proinflammatory molecules such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interferon γ and interleukins 2 and 6. Immune dysregulation can trigger the activation of the coagulation pathway. The formation of extensive microclots in vivo, both during acute COVID-19 and in long-COVID-19, appears to be a relevant mechanism responsible for persistent symptoms and cardiovascular events.

An Evolving Understanding of the Basis and Management of Vascular Complications of COVID-19: Where Do We Go From Here?

The COVID-19 pandemic led to millions of deaths worldwide after its emergence in 2020. The SARS-CoV-2 virus primarily affects respiratory function, but immune dysregulation leading to systemic inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulopathy can predispose to systemic complications including hematologic and vascular complications. Treatment strategies for patients with COVID-19 have rapidly evolved and the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic agents have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials. The findings have spurred interest in the prevention and treatment of the hematologic and vascular complications of non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. This review is focused on hematological and vascular complications of COVID-19, including their pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Because of the perpetually changing nature of the disease, the review places previous data in temporal contexts and outlines potential next steps for future research in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory infections.

Cardiovascular Considerations in the Management of People With Suspected Long COVID

Approximately 15% of adult Canadians with SARS-CoV-2 infection develop lingering symptoms beyond 12 weeks after acute infection, known as post-COVID condition or long COVID. Some of the commonly reported long COVID cardiovascular symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, chest pain, and palpitations. Suspected long-term cardiovascular complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection might present as a constellation of symptoms that can be challenging for clinicians to diagnose and treat. When assessing patients with these symptoms, clinicians need to keep in mind myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, postexertional malaise and postexertional symptom exacerbation, dysautonomia with cardiac manifestations such as inappropriate sinus tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and occasionally mast cell activation syndrome. In this review we summarize the globally evolving evidence around management of cardiac sequelae of long COVID. In addition, we include a Canadian perspective, consisting of a panel of expert opinions from people with lived experience and experienced clinicians across Canada who have been involved in management of long COVID. The objective of this review is to offer some practical guidance to cardiologists and generalist clinicians regarding diagnostic and treatment approaches for adult patients with suspected long COVID who continue to experience unexplained cardiac symptoms.

Therapeutic strategies for COVID-19: progress and lessons learned

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has stimulated tremendous efforts to develop therapeutic strategies that target severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and/or human proteins to control viral infection, encompassing hundreds of potential drugs and thousands of patients in clinical trials. So far, a few small-molecule antiviral drugs (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, remdesivir and molnupiravir) and 11 monoclonal antibodies have been marketed for the treatment of COVID-19, mostly requiring administration within 10 days of symptom onset. In addition, hospitalized patients with severe or critical COVID-19 may benefit from treatment with previously approved immunomodulatory drugs, including glucocorticoids such as dexamethasone, cytokine antagonists such as tocilizumab and Janus kinase inhibitors such as baricitinib. Here, we summarize progress with COVID-19 drug discovery, based on accumulated findings since the pandemic began and a comprehensive list of clinical and preclinical inhibitors with anti-coronavirus activities. We also discuss the lessons learned from COVID-19 and other infectious diseases with regard to drug repurposing strategies, pan-coronavirus drug targets, in vitro assays and animal models, and platform trial design for the development of therapeutics to tackle COVID-19, long COVID and pathogenic coronaviruses in future outbreaks.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Objective

To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.

RESULTS

On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

COVID-19 infection with complicated fulminant myocarditis: a case report

Herein, we report the case of a young female patient who suffered from myositis and heart failure due to fulminant myocarditis induced by the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). After receiving intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and immunomodulatory treatment, her vital signs gradually stabilized and the IABP was removed. Cardiac and muscle magnetic resonance imaging confirmed extensive myocardial and skeletal muscle edema. Though it is not uncommon for COVID-19 infection to be complicated by myocarditis and myositis, such serious muscle injury warrants clinical vigilance.

2023 Chinese expert consensus on the impact of COVID-19 on the management of cardiovascular diseases

The primary site of infection in COVID-19 exhibit is the respiratory system, but multiple organ systems could be affected. The virus could directly invade cardiomyocytes. Alternatively, cytokine storm could lead to myocardial injury. More importantly, the management of existing cardiovascular diseases must be re-examined in COVID-19 due to, for example, interaction between antiviral agents and with a wide variety of pharmacological agents. The Branch of Cardiovascular Physicians of Chinese Medical Doctor Association organized a panel of experts in cardiovascular and related fields to discuss this important issue, and formulated the "2023 Chinese Expert Consensus on the Impact of COVID-19 on the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases." The Consensus was drafted on the basis of systematic review of existing evidence and diagnosis and treatment experience, and covers three major aspects: myocardial injury caused by COVID-10 and COVID-19 vaccine, the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cardiovascular disease, and the impact of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular system of healthy people, and rehabilitation guidance recommendations. The Consensus involves 11 core clinical issues, including incidence, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, treatment strategies, prognosis, and rehabilitation. It is our hope that this Consensus will provide a practical guidance to cardiologists in the management of cardiovascular diseases in the new era of COVID-19 pandemic.

Steroid Pulse Therapy as a Treatment for Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia at an Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Evidence supporting the use of steroid pulse therapy in severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of high-dose (1000 mg/day) methylprednisolone (mPSL), which is commonly used in Japan.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes with and without steroid pulse therapy (mPSL 1000 or 500 mg/day for three days) in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Study design was retrospective observational study. The inclusion criterion was severe to critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ICU admission. The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients (1) with a "Do not attempt to resuscitate" order; (2) with a "Do not intubate" order; or (3) admitted to the ICU owing to other infectious diseases were excluded. Treatment strategy was as follows: Patients were divided into two groups: steroid pulse therapy (Group P) and steroids without pulse therapy (Group NP). Group P received mPSL 1000 or 500 mg/day on ICU days 1-3, and Group NP received dexamethasone 6.6 mg or mPSL 1 or 2 mg/kg/day. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

We enrolled 82 patients. Out of 70 who met the inclusion criteria, 48 and 22 were included in Groups P and NP, respectively. No difference in 28-day survival was observed between the Groups P and NP (log-rank P=0.11). After adjusting for covariates (age, sex, interleukin-6 level, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score on ICU admission) using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, treatment with steroid pulse therapy significantly improved 28-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.86; P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Steroid pulse therapy may improve the 28-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in the ICU.

Beneficial Effects of L-Arginine in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: New Insights from a Randomized Clinical Trial

We have recently demonstrated in a double-blind randomized trial the beneficial effects of L-Arginine in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. We hypothesize that one of the mechanisms underlying the favorable effects of L-Arginine is its action on inflammatory cytokines. To verify our hypothesis, we measured longitudinal plasma levels of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines implied in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 in patients randomized to receive oral L-Arginine or placebo. The study was successfully completed by 169 patients. Patients in the L-Arginine arm had a reduced respiratory support evaluated at 10 and 20 days; moreover, the time to hospital discharge was significantly shorter in the L-Arginine group. The assessment of circulating cytokines revealed that L-Arginine significantly reduced the circulating levels of pro-inflammatory IL-2, IL-6, and IFN-γ and increased the levels of the anti-inflammatory IL-10. Taken together, these findings indicate that adding L-Arginine to standard therapy in COVID-19 patients markedly reduces the need of respiratory support and the duration of in-hospital stay; moreover, L-Arginine significantly regulates circulating levels of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines.