Search

Background/Aim: Immunomodulatory therapy with Tocilizumab (TCZ), a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6 receptor-alpha, has been endorsed by the World Health Organization and other major regulatory bodies, as part of the standard-of-care therapy for severe or critical COVID-19 cases despite discordant trial outcomes. The aim of the present study was to report the experience of our center regarding TCZ routine use in severely ill COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized during the third pandemic wave in Greece. Patients and Methods: From March 2021 to December 2021, we retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients with radiological findings of pneumonia and signs of rapid respiratory deterioration that were treated with TCZ. The primary outcome included the risk of intubation or/and death in TCZ-treated patients compared to matched controls. Results: TCZ administration was neither predictive of intubation and/or death [OR=17.5 (95% CI=0.47-652.2; p=0.12)] or associated with fewer events (p=0.92) in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Our single-center real-life experience is in line with recently published research, revealing no benefit from TCZ routine use in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Background Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. Methods In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. Findings From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). Interpretation When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. Funding US National Institutes of Health.

Background Remdesivir was the first antiviral approved for COVID-19. We investigated its patterns of use, effectiveness and safety in clinical practice in Greece. Methods Retrospective observational study of hospitalized adults who received remdesivir for COVID-19 between 09/2020–02/2021. Main endpoints were time to recovery (hospital discharge within 30 days from admission) and safety. The “early” (remdesivir initiation within 2 days) and the “deferred” (remdesivir initiation > 2days after admission) groups were compared. Results 1004 patients (60.6% male, mean age 61 years, 74.3% with severe disease, 70.9% with ≥1 comorbidities) were included, 75.9% of them on a 5-days regimen and 86.8% in the early group. Among those with baseline mild/moderate disease, median (95% CI) time to recovery was 8 (7–9) and 12 (11–14) days for the early and deferred group respectively (p

Background EXO-CD24 is a novel inhaled drug of exosomes displaying CD24, a protein with anti-inflammatory properties. We evaluated the safety and potential efficacy of EXO-CD24, in a phase II, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial of EXO-CD24 in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19, following the preliminary safety and efficacy results of a phase 1 study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04747574). Methods Two tertiary care hospitals in Athens, Greece participated. Patients received either 109 or 1010 exosome particles per dose, once per day for 5 days and were followed for 28 days. Safety and efficacy measures (including respiratory rate < 23 b/min and pulse oximetry SpO2≥ 94% on room air, oxygen need and levels of inflammatory biomarkers i.e. CRP, LDH, ferritin, fibrinogen and d-dimers) were compared between groups at days 3, 5 and 7. A separate analysis was conducted comparing the clinical course of treated patients with that of a control cohort (n=70 patients) matched by propensity scoring out of a similar period hospitalized cohort (n=202) that did not participate in the study. Results Between June 9th and August 3rd 2021, 91 patients underwent randomization: 45 in group A and 46 in group B (109vs. 1010 exosome particles per dose). Mean age was 49.4 (± 13.2) years and 74.4% were male. Mean time from symptom onset to randomization was 8 days. Improvement in respiratory rate and pulse oximetry was noted in 72 out of 86 (83.7%) and 55 out of 86 (64%) analyzed patients. Day 7 inflammatory indices levels dropped at least 50% from baseline admission values in 72 out of 86 (82.8%) analyzed patients (p< 0.001). No treatment-related adverse events were reported. Comparison with the propensity score matched group showed statistically significant differences in the same parameters (p≤ 0.01 for all comparisons). Conclusion Our results suggest safety and potential efficacy of EXO-CD24 on clinical and laboratory parameters of moderate or severe COVID-19, that deserve further investigation in a phase 3 study. (Funded by Athens Medical Society. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04902183, EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT Number 2021-002184-22). Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Elevated concentrations of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) predict progression to severe respiratory failure (SRF) or death among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and guide early anakinra treatment. As suPAR testing may not be routinely available in every health-care setting, alternative biomarkers are needed. We investigated the performance of C-reactive protein (CRP), interferon gamma-induced protein-10 (IP-10) and TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) for predicting SRF or death in COVID-19.Two cohorts were studied; one discovery cohort with 534 patients from the SAVE-MORE clinical trial; and one validation cohort with 364 patients from the SAVE trial including also 145 comparators. CRP, IP-10 and TRAIL were measured by the MeMed Key® platform in order to select the biomarker with the best prognostic performance for the early prediction of progression into SRF or death.IP-10 had the best prognostic performance: baseline concentrations 2000 pg/ml or higher predicted equally well to suPAR (sensitivity 85.0 %; negative predictive value 96.6 %). Odds ratio for poor outcome among anakinra-treated participants of the SAVE-MORE trial was 0.35 compared to placebo when IP-10 was 2,000 pg/ml or more. IP-10 could divide different strata of severity for SRF/death by day 14 in the validation cohort. Anakinra treatment decreased this risk irrespective the IP-10 concentrations.IP-10 concentrations of 2,000 pg/ml or higher are a valid alternative to suPAR for the early prediction of progression into SRF or death the first 14 days from hospital admission for COVID-19 and they may guide anakinra treatment.gov, NCT04680949 and NCT04357366.

There is an unmet medical need for effective treatments for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Ribavirin is a broad-spectrum antiviral with demonstrated in vitro activity against multiple viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This trial evaluated the potential of ribavirin inhalation solution (ribavirin aerosol) to reduce COVID-19 disease severity in adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a diagnosis of respiratory distress. This phase I, multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized trial was conducted from February 2021 through August 2021. Patients received ribavirin aerosol (100 mg/ml for 30 min or 50 mg/ml for 60 min) twice daily for up to 6 days. The primary end point was change from baseline in clinical status severity, rated on a 7-point scale (1 [death]; 7 [not hospitalized; no limitations on activities]), at day 7 (or end-of-treatment/early termination) and day 30 (follow-up). Fifty-one patients were treated with ribavirin aerosol (mean age, 51.5 years; 78.4% men); mean number of doses was 9.7 (range, 1-12). Improvement of ≥1 level in clinical status severity was observed in 31.4% (16/51) and 78.4% (40/51) of patients at end-of-treatment and day 30, respectively. Of 21 patients who required a ventilator, 16 (76.2%) were able to discontinue ventilator use. Five patients (9.8%) died between end-of-treatment and day 30. Three patients (5.9%) discontinued study treatment due to adverse events. No deaths were considered related to study treatment. These data provide preliminary evidence that ribavirin aerosol may be an efficacious treatment for respiratory distress in adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR

Background Abnormal cellular lipid metabolism appears to underlie SARS-CoV-2 cytotoxicity and may involve inhibition of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha (PPARα). Fenofibrate, a PPAR-α activator, modulates cellular lipid metabolism. Fenofibric acid has also been shown to affect the dimerization of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Fenofibrate and fenofibric acid have been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell culture systems in vitro. Methods We randomly assigned 701 participants with COVID-19 within 14 days of symptom onset to 145 mg of fenofibrate (nanocrystal formulation with dose adjustment for renal function or dose-equivalent preparations of micronized fenofibrate or fenofibric acid) vs. placebo for 10 days, in a double-blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was a ranked severity score in which participants were ranked across hierarchical tiers incorporating time to death, duration of mechanical ventilation, oxygenation parameters, subsequent hospitalizations and symptom severity and duration. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04517396. Findings: Mean age of participants was 49 ± 16 years, 330 (47%) were female, mean BMI was 28 ± 6 kg/m2, and 102 (15%) had diabetes mellitus. A total of 41 deaths occurred. Compared with placebo, fenofibrate administration had no effect on the primary endpoint. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) rank in the placebo arm was 347 (172, 453) vs. 345 (175, 453) in the fenofibrate arm (P = 0.819). There was no difference in various secondary and exploratory endpoints, including all-cause death, across randomization arms. These results were highly consistent across pre-specified sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusion Among patients with COVID-19, fenofibrate has no significant effect on various clinically relevant outcomes.

Rationale: Although early antimicrobial discontinuation guided by procalcitonin (PCT) has shown decreased antibiotic consumption in lower respiratory tract infections, the outcomes in long-term sepsis sequelae remain unclear. Objectives: To investigate if PCT guidance may reduce the incidence of long-term infection-associated adverse events in sepsis. Methods: In this multicenter trial, 266 patients with sepsis (by Sepsis-3 definitions) with lower respiratory tract infections, acute pyelonephritis, or primary bloodstream infection were randomized (1:1) to receive either PCT-guided discontinuation of antimicrobials or standard of care. The discontinuation criterion was ≥80% reduction in PCT levels or any PCT ≤0.5 μg/L at Day 5 or later. The primary outcome was the rate of infection-associated adverse events at Day 180, a composite of the incidence of any new infection by Clostridioides difficile or multidrug-resistant organisms, or any death attributed to baseline C. difficile or multidrug-resistant organism infection. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, length of antibiotic therapy, and cost of hospitalization. Measurements and Main Results: The rate of infection-associated adverse events was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8–13.1%; 9/125) versus 15.3% (95% CI, 10.1–22.4%; 20/131) (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20–0.98; P = 0.045); 28-day mortality 15.2% (95% CI, 10–22.5%; 19/125) versus 28.2% (95% CI, 21.2–36.5%; 37/131) (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29–0.89; P = 0.02); and median length of antibiotic therapy 5 (range, 5–7) versus 10 (range, 7–15) days (P

Contains fulltext : 237989.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Anakinra might improve the prognosis of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 (ie, patients requiring oxygen supplementation but not yet receiving organ support). We aimed to assess the effect of anakinra treatment on mortality in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: For this systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis, a systematic literature search was done on Dec 28, 2020, in Medline (PubMed), Cochrane, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomised trials, comparative studies, and observational studies of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, comparing administration of anakinra with standard of care, or placebo, or both. The search was repeated on Jan 22, 2021. Individual patient-level data were requested from investigators and corresponding authors of eligible studies; if individual patient-level data were not available, published data were extracted from the original reports. The primary endpoint was mortality after 28 days and the secondary endpoint was safety (eg, the risk of secondary infections). This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221491). FINDINGS: 209 articles were identified, of which 178 full-text articles fulfilled screening criteria and were assessed. Aggregate data on 1185 patients from nine studies were analysed, and individual patient-level data on 895 patients were provided from six of these studies. Eight studies were observational and one was a randomised controlled trial. Most studies used historical controls. In the individual patient-level meta-analysis, after adjusting for age, comorbidities, baseline ratio of the arterial partial oxygen pressure divided by the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO(2)/FiO(2)), C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations, and lymphopenia, mortality was significantly lower in patients treated with anakinra (38 [11%] of 342) than in those receiving standard of care with or without placebo (137 [25%] of 553; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·20-0·51]). The mortality benefit was similar across subgroups regardless of comorbidities (ie, diabetes), ferritin concentrations, or the baseline PaO(2)/FiO(2). In a subgroup analysis, anakinra was more effective in lowering mortality in patients with CRP concentrations higher than 100 mg/L (OR 0·28 [95% CI 0·17-0·47]). Anakinra showed a significant survival benefit when given without dexamethasone (OR 0·23 [95% CI 0·12-0·43]), but not with dexamethasone co-administration (0·72 [95% CI 0·37-1·41]). Anakinra was not associated with a significantly increased risk of secondary infections when compared with standard of care (OR 1·35 [95% CI 0·59-3·10]). INTERPRETATION: Anakinra could be a safe, anti-inflammatory treatment option to reduce the mortality risk in patients admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia, especially in the presence of signs of hyperinflammation such as CRP concentrations higher than 100 mg/L. FUNDING: Sobi.

BACKGROUND: Tixagevimab-cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab-cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care.METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg-cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab-cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing.FINDINGS: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97-1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97-1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68-1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group.INTERPRETATION: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab-cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower.FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed.

Early recognition of risk and start of treatment may improve unfavorable outcome of COVID-19. In the SAVE-MORE double-blind randomized trial, 594 patients with pneumonia without respiratory dysfunction at risk as defined by plasma suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor) ≥ 6 ng/ml were 1:2 randomized to subcutaneous placebo or 100 mg anakinra once daily for 10 days; 85.9% were co-administered dexamethasone. After 28 days, anakinra-treated patients were distributed to lower strata of the 11-point World Health Organization ordinal Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) (adjusted odds ratio-OR 0.36; 95%CI 0.26–0.50; P

SUMMARYBCG vaccination induces heterologous protection against respiratory tract infections, and in children improves survival independently of tuberculosis prevention. The phase III ACTIVATE-2 study assessed whether BCG could also protect against COVID19 in the elderly. In this double-blind, randomized trial, elderly Greek patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either BCG revaccination or placebo at hospital discharge, followed by 6 months observation for incidence of COVID19 infection. BCG revaccination resulted in 68% risk reduction for total COVID19 clinical and microbiological diagnoses (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.79). Five patients in the placebo group and one in the BCG-vaccinated group had severe COVID19 that necessitated hospitalization. 3 months after BCG vaccination 1.3% of placebo and 4.7% of BCG-vaccinated volunteers had anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These data argue that BCG revaccination is safe and protects the elderly against COVID19. BCG revaccination may represent a viable preventive measure against COVID19.

BackgroundIn a previous open-label trial, early anakinra treatment guided by elevated soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) prevented progression of COVID-19 pneumonia into respiratory failure.MethodsIn the SAVE-MORE multicenter trial, 594 hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 pneumonia and plasma suPAR 6 ng/ml or more and receiving standard-of-care were 1:2 randomized to subcutaneous treatment with placebo or 100 mg anakinra once daily for 10 days. The primary endpoint was the overall clinical status of the 11-point World Health Organization ordinal Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at day 28. The changes of the WHO-CPS and of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score were the main secondary endpoints.ResultsAnakinra-treated patients were distributed to lower strata of WHO-CPS by day 28 (adjusted odds ratio-OR 0.36; 95%CI 0.26-0.50; PConclusionsEarly start of anakinra treatment guided by suPAR provides 2.78 times better improvement of overall clinical status in moderate and severe COVID-19 pneumonia.(Sponsored by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of SepsisClinicalTrials.govidentifier,NCT04680949)

Early increase of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels is indicative of increased risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to respiratory failure. The SAVE-MORE double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of anakinra, an IL-1α/β inhibitor, in 594 patients with COVID-19 at risk of progressing to respiratory failure as identified by plasma suPAR ≥6 ng ml−1, 85.9% (n = 510) of whom were receiving dexamethasone. At day 28, the adjusted proportional odds of having a worse clinical status (assessed by the 11-point World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS)) with anakinra, as compared to placebo, was 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.26–0.50). The median WHO-CPS decrease on day 28 from baseline in the placebo and anakinra groups was 3 and 4 points, respectively (odds ratio (OR) = 0.40, P, The SAVE-MORE phase 3 study demonstrates the efficacy of anakinra, an IL-1α/β inhibitor, in patients with COVID-19 and high serum levels of soluble plasminogen activator receptor.

IntroductionThe management of pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2 should rely on early recognition of the risk for progression to severe respiratory failure (SRF) and its prevention. We investigated if early suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor)-guided anakinra treatment could prevent COVID-19-assocated SRF.MethodsIn this open-label prospective trial, 130 patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia SARS-CoV-2 and suPAR levels ≥6 μg/l were assigned to subcutaneous anakinra 100mg once daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was the incidence of SRF at day 14. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, changes in sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, of cytokine-stimulation pattern and of circulating inflammatory mediators. Equal number of propensity score-matched comparators for comorbidities, severity on admission and standard-of care (SOC) were studied.ResultsThe incidence of SRF was 22.3% (95% CI, 16.0-30.2%) among anakinra-treated patients and 59.2% (95% CI, 50.6-67.3%; P: 4.6 x 10−8) among SOC comparators (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95%CI, 0.20-0.46). 30-day mortality was 11.5% (95% CI, 7.1-18.2%) and 22.3% (95% CI, 16.0-30.2%) respectively (hazard ratio 0.49; 95% CI 0.25-0.97%; P: 0.041). Anakinra treatment was associated with decrease in SOFA score and in circulating interleukin (IL)-6, sCD163 and sIL2-R; the serum IL-10/IL-6 ratio on day 7 was inversely associated with the change in SOFA score. Duration of stay at the intensive care unit and at hospital was shortened compared to the SOC group; the cost of hospitalization was decreased.ConclusionsEarly suPAR-guided anakinra treatment is associated with decrease of the risk for SRF and restoration of the pro- /anti-inflammatory balance.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357366

Most patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) experience mild, non-specific symptoms, but many develop severe symptoms associated with an excessive inflammatory response. Elevated plasma concentrations of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) provide early warning of progression to severe respiratory failure (SRF) or death, but access to suPAR testing may be limited. The Severe COvid Prediction Estimate (SCOPE) score, derived from circulating concentrations of C-reactive protein, D- dimers, interleukin-6, and ferritin among patients not receiving non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation during the SAVE-MORE study, offers predictive accuracy for progression to SRF or death within 14 days comparable to that of a suPAR concentration of ≥6 ng/mL (area under receiver operator characteristic curve 0.81 for both). The SCOPE score is validated in two similar independent cohorts. A SCOPE score of 6 or more is an alternative to suPAR for predicting progression to SRF or death within 14 days of hospital admission for pneumonia, and it can be used to guide treatment decisions.

Background Nebulization of antiinfective agents is a common but unstandardized practice in critically ill patients. Methods A systematic review of 1,435 studies was performed in adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Two different administration strategies (adjunctive and substitute) were considered clinically relevant. Inclusion was restricted to studies using jet, ultrasonic, and vibrating-mesh nebulizers. Studies involving children, colonized-but-not-infected adults, and cystic fibrosis patients were excluded. Results Five of the 11 studies included had a small sample size (fewer than 50 patients), and only 6 were randomized. Diversity of case-mix, dosage, and devices are sources of bias. Only a few patients had severe hypoxemia. Aminoglycosides and colistin were the most common antibiotics, being safe regarding nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity, but increased respiratory complications in 9% (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.18; I2 = 52%), particularly when administered to hypoxemic patients. For tracheobronchitis, a significant decrease in emergence of resistance was evidenced (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.64; I2 = 0%). Similar findings were observed in pneumonia by susceptible pathogens, without improvement in mortality or ventilation duration. In pneumonia caused by resistant pathogens, higher clinical resolution (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.96; I2 = 0%) was evidenced. These findings were not consistently evidenced in the assessment of efficacy against pneumonia caused by susceptible pathogens. Conclusions Performance of randomized trials evaluating the impact of nebulized antibiotics with more homogeneous populations, standardized drug delivery, predetermined clinical efficacy, and safety outcomes is urgently required. Infections by resistant pathogens might potentially have higher benefit from nebulized antiinfective agents. Nebulization, without concomitant systemic administration of the drug, may reduce nephrotoxicity but may also be associated with higher risk of respiratory complications.

Background De-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy, a key component of antibiotic stewardship, is considered difficult in ICUs with high rates of antimicrobial resistance. Objectives To assess the feasibility and the impact of antimicrobial de-escalation in ICUs with high rates of antimicrobial resistance. Methods Multicentre, prospective, observational study in septic patients with documented infections. Patients in whom de-escalation was applied were compared with patients without de-escalation by the use of a propensity score matching by SOFA score on the day of de-escalation initiation. Results A total of 262 patients (mean age 62.2 ± 15.1 years) were included. Antibiotic-resistant pathogens comprised 62.9%, classified as MDR (12.5%), extensively drug-resistant (49%) and pandrug-resistant (1.2%). In 97 (37%) patients de-escalation was judged not feasible in view of the antibiotic susceptibility results. Of the remaining 165 patients, judged as patients with de-escalation possibility, de-escalation was applied in 60 (22.9%). These were matched to an equal number of patients without de-escalation. In this subset of 120 patients, de-escalation compared with no de-escalation was associated with lower all-cause 28 day mortality (13.3% versus 36.7%, OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11–0.66, P = 0.006); ICU and hospital mortality were also lower. De-escalation was associated with a subsequent collateral decrease in the SOFA score. Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed de-escalation as a significant factor for 28 day survival (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14–0.70, P = 0.005). Conclusions In ICUs with high levels of antimicrobial resistance, feasibility of antimicrobial de-escalation was limited because of the multi-resistant pathogens isolated. However, when de-escalation was feasible and applied, it was associated with lower mortality.

Treatment options for multidrug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii strains (MDR-AB) are limited. Minocycline has been used alone or in combination in the treatment of infections associated with AB. A systematic review of the clinical use of minocycline in nosocomial infections associated with MDR-AB was performed according to the PRISMA-P guidelines. PubMed-Medline, Scopus and Web of Science TM databases were searched from their inception until March 2019. Additional Google Scholar free searches were performed. Out of 2990 articles, 10 clinical studies (9 retrospective case series and 1 prospective single center trial) met the eligibility criteria. In total, 223 out of 268 (83.2%) evaluated patients received a minocycline-based regimen; and 200 out of 218 (91.7%) patients with available data received minocycline as part of a combination antimicrobial regimen (most frequently colistin or carbapenems). Pneumonia was the most common infection type in the 268 cases (80.6% with 50.4% ventilator-associated pneumonia). The clinical and microbiological success rates following minocycline treatment were 72.6% and 60.2%, respectively. Mortality was 20.9% among 167 patients with relevant data. In this systematic review, minocycline demonstrated promising activity against MDR-AB isolates. This review sets the ground for further studies exploring the role of minocycline in the treatment of MDR-AB associated infections.

Background Treatment options for multi-drug-resistant (including extensively and pandrug-resistant) Acinetobacter baumannii strains (herein MDR-AB) are limited. Minocycline, a synthetic tetracycline derivative, has been used alone or in combination in the treatment of infections associated with AB. We systematically reviewed the available clinical evidence regarding its role in the treatment of nosocomial infections caused by MDR-AB isolates in adult patients. Methods A systematic review of the published literature examining the clinical use of minocycline in nosocomial infections associated with MDR-AB isolates (defined according to ECDC guidance) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Sciences™ databases were searched from their inception until the March 20, 2018. Three researchers individually evaluated the available clinical studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. No language restrictions were applied. Results Out of 2,576 articles, 9 clinical studies (8 retrospective case series and 1 prospective single-center trial) met the eligibility criteria. In total, 221 out of 265 (83.4%) evaluated adult patients received a minocycline-based antimicrobial regimen and 44 out of 265 (16.6%) received other antimicrobial agents (most frequently aminoglycocides); 198 out of 216 (91.7%) patients with available data, received minocycline as part of an antimicrobial combination regimen (most frequently colistin and carbapenems). Pneumonia was the most prevalent infection (81.5% with 50.4% ventilator associated pneumonias). Clinical and microbiological success rates in the minocycline group were 72.4% and 59.7%, respectively. Mortality rate was 21.2% among 165 patients with relevant data. In the non-minocycline group, clinical and microbiological cure rates were 45.5% and 18.2%, respectively. Conclusion In this systematic review, minocycline demonstrated promising activity against MDR-AB isolates. This study could set the grounds for further research with large randomized, controlled trials that would explore and establish the role of minocycline in the treatment of MDR-AB-associated infections. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

With an established role in cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis, nebulized antibiotics are increasingly being used to treat respiratory infections in critically ill invasively mechanically ventilated adult patients. Although there is limited evidence describing their efficacy and safety, in an era when there is a need for new strategies to enhance antibiotic effectiveness because of a shortage of new agents and increases in antibiotic resistance, the potential of nebulization of antibiotics to optimize therapy is considered of high interest, particularly in patients infected with multidrug-resistant pathogens. This Position Paper of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases provides recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology regarding the use of nebulized antibiotics in invasively mechanically ventilated adults, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature (last search July 2016). Overall, the panel recommends avoiding the use of nebulized antibiotics in clinical practice, due to a weak level of evidence of their efficacy and the high potential for underestimated risks of adverse events (particularly, respiratory complications). Higher-quality evidence is urgently needed to inform clinical practice. Priorities of future research are detailed in the second part of the Position Paper as guidance for researchers in this field. In particular, the panel identified an urgent need for randomized clinical trials of nebulized antibiotic therapy as part of a substitution approach to treatment of pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant pathogens.

BACKGROUND: Intratracheal antibiotic administration is increasingly used for treating respiratory infections. Limited information is available on delivery devices, techniques, and safety. METHODS: An online survey on intratracheal administration of anti-infective agents in mechanically ventilated adults was answered by health-care workers from 192 ICUs to assess the most commonly used devices, current delivery practices, and safety issues. We investigated whether ICU usage experience (≥3 y) impacted its performance. RESULTS: Intratracheal antibiotic administration was a current practice in 87 ICUs (45.3%), with 40 (46%) having experience with the technique (≥3 y). Sixty-six (78.6%) of 84 health-care workers reported avoiding intratracheal antibiotic administration due to an absence of evidence-based guidelines (78.6%). Jet nebulizers were the most commonly used devices for delivery, in 24 less experienced ICUs (27.6%) and in 18 (20.7%) experienced ICUs. Direct tracheal instillation (6; 6.9%) was still considered for drug prescription in 12 ICUs (6.9%). More experience resulted in neither greater adherence to measures improving the drug9s delivery efficiency (93 measures in the experienced group; 27.9%) nor a greater adoption of measures to increase safety. Indeed, the expiratory filter was changed after each nebulization in only 2 experienced ICUs (6.9%), whereas 15 (51.7%) changed it daily instead. CONCLUSIONS: Intratracheal antibiotic administration is a common therapeutic modality in ICUs, but inadequate practices were widely encountered, independent of the level of experience with the technique. This suggests a need to develop standardization to reduce variability and improve safety and efficacy.

The novel inflammatory marker procalcitonin (PCT) was assessed as an index of infection in patients with febrile neutropenia. Blood samples were obtained from 115 patients with febrile neutropenia for determination of PCT levels before onset of fever and daily until the resolution of fever. The median PCT level on the first day of fever was 8.23 ng/mL in patients with bacteremia, compared with 0.86 ng/mL in patients with localized bacterial infections (P=.017). The median PCT level on the first day of fever was 2.62 ng/mL in patients with severe sepsis, compared with 0.57 ng/mL in patients with clinically localized infections (P

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to define if early changes of procalcitonin (PCT) may inform about prognosis and appropriateness of administered therapy in sepsis. METHODS: A prospective multicenter observational study was conducted in 289 patients. Blood samples were drawn on day 1, that is, within less than 24 hours from advent of signs of sepsis, and on days 3, 7, and 10. Procalcitonin was estimated in serum by the ultrasensitive Kryptor assay (BRAHMS GmbH, Hennigsdorf, Germany). Patients were divided into the following 2 groups according to the type of change of PCT: group 1, where PCT on day 3 was decreased by more than 30% or was below 0.25 ng/mL, and group 2, where PCT on day 3 was either increased above 0.25 ng/mL or decreased less than 30%. RESULTS: Death occurred in 12.3% of patients of group 1 and in 29.9% of those of group 2 (P < .0001). Odds ratio for death of patients of group 1 was 0.328. Odds ratio for the administration of inappropriate antimicrobials of patients of group 2 was 2.519 (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Changes of serum PCT within the first 48 hours reflect the benefit or not of the administered antimicrobial therapy. Serial PCT measurements should be used in clinical practice to guide administration of appropriate antimicrobials. J Crit Care