Search

Background: Extrapulmonary complications (EPCs) are common in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but data on their clinical consequences and association with viral replication and systemic viral dissemination are lacking., Methods: Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) platform trial at 114 international sites between August 2020 and November 2021 were included in a prospective cohort study. We categorized EPCs into 39 event types within 9 categories and estimated their frequency through day 28 and their association with clinical outcomes through day 90. We analyzed the association between baseline viral burden (plasma nucleocapsid antigen [N-Ag] level and upper airway viral load) and EPCs, adjusting for other baseline factors., Results: A total of 2625 trial participants were included in the study. Their median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 46-68 years), 57.7% were male, and 537 (20.5%) had ≥1 EPC. EPCs were associated with higher day-90 all-cause mortality rate (hazard ratio, 9.6 [95% confidence interval, 7.3-12.7]) after adjustment for other risk factors. The risk of EPCs increased with increasing baseline plasma N-Ag level (hazard ratio, 1.21 per log10 ng/L increase [95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.34]), and upper airway viral load (1.12 per log10 copies/mL increase [1.04-1.19), after adjustment for comorbid conditions, disease severity, inflammatory markers, and other baseline factors. Trial treatment allocation had no effect on EPC risk., Conclusions: Systemic viral dissemination as evidenced by high plasma N-Ag level and high respiratory viral burden are associated with development of EPCs in COVID-19, which in turn are associated with higher 90-day mortality rates., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. N. J. D. received institutional funding from Gilead Sciences. S. L. P. reports institutional grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, the Medical Research Council, Gilead Sciences, Janssen-Cilag, and ViiV Healthcare and also serves as a member of the data and safety monitoring board for the TIPAL trial. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Biomarker guided therapy could improve management of COVID-19 inpatients. Although some results indicate that antibody tests are prognostic, little is known about patient management using point-of-care (POC) antibody tests., Methods: COVID-19 inpatients were recruited to evaluate 2 POC tests: LumiraDX and RightSign. Ease of use data was collected. Blood was also collected for centralized testing using established antibody assays (GenScript cPass). A nested case-control study assessed if POC tests conducted on stored specimens were predictive of time to sustained recovery, mortality, and a composite safety outcome., Results: While both POC tests exhibited moderate agreement with the GenScript assay (both agreeing with 89% of antibody determinations), they were significantly different from the GenScript assay. Treating the GenScript assay as the gold standard, the LumiraDX assay had 99.5% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity while the RightSign assay had 89.5% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. The LumiraDX assay frequently gave indeterminant results. Both tests were significantly associated with clinical outcomes., Conclusions: Although both POC tests deviated moderately from the GenScript assay, they predicted outcomes of interest. The RightSign test was easier to use and was more likely to detect those lacking antibody compared to the LumiraDX test treating GenScript as the gold standard., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nmAbs) failed to show clear benefit for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Dynamics of virologic and immunologic biomarkers remain poorly understood., Methods: Participants enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 trials were randomized to nmAb versus placebo. Longitudinal differences between treatment and placebo groups in levels of plasma nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag), anti-nucleocapsid antibody, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and D-dimer at enrollment, day 1, 3, and 5 were estimated using linear mixed models. A 7-point pulmonary ordinal scale assessed at day 5 was compared using proportional odds models., Results: Analysis included 2149 participants enrolled between August 2020 and September 2021. Treatment resulted in 20% lower levels of plasma N-Ag compared with placebo (95% confidence interval, 12%-27%; P < .001), and a steeper rate of decline through the first 5 days (P < .001). The treatment difference did not vary between subgroups, and no difference was observed in trajectories of other biomarkers or the day 5 pulmonary ordinal scale., Conclusions: Our study suggests that nmAb has an antiviral effect assessed by plasma N-Ag among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with no blunting of the endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response. No effect on systemic inflammation or day 5 clinical status was observed., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04501978., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. A. L. G. reports receiving institutional funding from Novavax, insititutaional partnership with Astra Zeneca, and reports being personally named as inventor on a patent used by Astra Zeneca. D. D. M. reports receiving grant from the Danish National research Foundation. E. M. reports payments to his institution received from SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Chemic Labs/KODA Therapeutics, Cidara, and Leidos Biomedical Research Inc; E. M. also reports being on an advisory board for Basilea. K. W. reports receiving a honorarium for international ARDS conference and travel support from UCSF. M. A. reports a grant from NINDS. M. A. M. reports institutional grants from NHLBI/NIAID, the department of defence, California Institute of Regeneration, Roche-Genentech, and Quantum Health. M. A. M. has also received personal consulting fees from Novartis, Pliant Therapeutics, Johnson and Johnson, Gilead, and Citius Pharmaceuticals. M. K. J. reports institutional grants from Gilead, Laurent, and Regeneron; personal consulting fees from Gilead; and personal honoraria from Cooper Clinic. S. T. is funded by grants from the Australian Medical Foundation and New South Wales Health. The remaining authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Objectives: C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) are widely used biomarkers in high-income countries. However, evidence for their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is scant. Because many factors, including rates of endemic disease, comorbidities and genetics, may influence biomarkers' behaviour, we aimed to review available evidence generated in LMICs., Methods: We searched the PubMed database for relevant studies within the last 20 years that originated in regions of interest (Africa, Latin America, Middle East, South Asia or South East Asia), and full-text articles involving diagnosis, prognostication and evaluation of therapeutic response with CRP and/or PCT in adults ( n  = 88) were reviewed and categorized in 12 predefined focus areas., Results: Overall, results were highly heterogeneous, at times conflicting, and often lacking clinically useful cut-off values. However, most studies demonstrated higher levels of CRP/PCT in patients with bacterial versus other infections. HIV and TB patients had consistently higher levels of CRP/PCT versus controls. In addition, higher CRP/PCT levels at baseline and follow-up in HIV, TB, sepsis and respiratory tract infections were associated with poorer prognosis., Conclusions: Evidence generated from LMIC cohorts suggests that CRP and PCT may have potential to become effective clinical guiding tools particularly in respiratory tract infections, sepsis and HIV/TB. However, more studies are needed to define potential scenarios for use and cost-effectiveness. Consensus across stakeholders regarding target conditions, laboratory standards and cut-off values would support the quality and applicability of future evidence., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)