Role of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Hospitalized Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Pneumonia: A Prospective Observational Study

Use of baricitinib in treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the role of baricitinib alone or in combination with other therapies as a treatment for patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was conducted in the WHO COVID-19 coronavirus disease database to find clinical studies on use of baricitinib for treatment of COVID-19 between December 1, 2019 and September 30, 2021. Two independent set of reviewers identified the eligible studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, relevant data was extracted and a qualitative synthesis of evidence performed. The risk of bias was evaluated with validated tools.

RESULTS

A total of 267 articles were found to be eligible after primary screening of titles and abstracts. Following assessment of full texts, 19 studies were finally included for this systematic review, out of which 16 are observational, and 3 are interventional studies. Collating the results from these observational and interventional studies, baricitinib used as add-on to standard therapy, either alone or in combination with other drugs, was found to have favorable outcomes in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Furthermore, ongoing trials indicate that the drug is being extensively studied across the world for its safety and efficacy in COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Baricitinib significantly improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, and further evidence will establish the drug as a standard treatment among such patients.

The Role of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets in Reducing Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Reporting Adjusted Data

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with prolonged prothrombin time (PT), active partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and increased D-dimer levels. Therefore, we aim to investigate if anticoagulants (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy play a role in mitigating COVID-19 and its associated thrombosis along with its effect on the mortality rate, the need for mechanical ventilation, and the risk of hospital admission. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to July 19, 2022. The studies were divided into two groups: Group A (any dose of AC/AP versus no AC/AP) and Group B (therapeutic dose of AC (tAC)/AP versus prophylactic dose of AC (pAC)/AP). Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for all statistical analyses. Adjusted data ratios were extracted from all included studies and pooled using the random effects model. A total of 33 studies were taken for the analysis of two groups (Group A: 285,065 COVID-19-positive patients, Group B: 2,421 COVID-19-positive patients). Overall analysis in Group A showed that the AC/AP group had a low risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to the control group (risk ratio (RR): 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.86). There was no significant difference in the need for mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60-1.08) and hospital admission (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.59) between the AC/AP and no AC/AP group. Alongside, in Group B, tAC/AP did not demonstrate a significant decrease in mortality as compared to pAC/AP (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.37-1.06). Treatment with AC and AP drugs can significantly decrease the mortality rate in COVID-19-infected patients, while AC also significantly reduces the need for mechanical ventilation.

Long-term lung ultrasound follow-up in patients after COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalization: A prospective comparative study with chest computed tomography

During COVID-19 pandemic, lung ultrasound (LUS) proved to be of great value in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with pneumonia. However, limited data exist regarding its use to assess aeration changes during follow-up (FU). Our study aims to prospectively evaluate 232 subjects who underwent a 3-month-FU program after hospitalization for COVID-19 at the University Hospital of Pisa. The goals were to assess the usefulness of standardized LUS compared with the gold standard chest computed tomography (CT) to evaluate aeration changes and to verify LUS and CT agreement at FU. Patients underwent in the same day a standardized 16-areas LUS and high-resolution chest CT reported by expert radiologists, assigning interpretative codes. Based on observations distribution, LUS score cut-offs of 3 and 7 were selected, corresponding to the 50th and 75th percentile, respectively. Patients with LUS scores above both these thresholds were older and with longer hospital stay. Patients with a LUS score ≥3 had more comorbidities. LUS and chest CT showed a high agreement in identifying residual pathological findings, using both cut-off scores of 3 (OR 14,7; CL 3,6-64,5, Sensitivity 91%, Specificity 49%) and 7 (OR 5,8; CL 2,3-14,3, Sensitivity 65%, Specificity 79%). Our data suggest that LUS is very sensitive in identifying pathological findings at FU after a hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia, compared to CT. Given its low cost and safety, LUS could replace CT in selected cases, such as in contexts with limited resources or it could be used as a gate-keeper examination before more advanced techniques.

Efficacy and Safety of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, Molnupiravir, and Remdesivir in a Real-World Cohort of Outpatients with COVID-19 at High Risk of Progression: The PISA Outpatient Clinic Experience

INTRODUCTION

Different antivirals are available for the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19. Our aim was to describe a real-world experience of outpatient management of COVID-19 subjects at high risk of progression.

METHODS

This prospective observational study conducted in the University Hospital of Pisa (January 2022-July 2022) included consecutive COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for disease progression. Patients received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, molnupiravir, or 3-day remdesivir, according to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) indications. All patients were followed up until 30 days from the first positive nasopharyngeal swab. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or hospitalization. Secondary endpoints were occurrence of adverse events and a negative test within 10 days from the first positive test. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with death or hospitalization.

RESULTS

Overall, 562 outpatients were included: 114 (20.3%) received molnupiravir, 252 (44.8%) nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 196 (34.9%) 3-day remdesivir. The composite endpoint occurred in 2.5% of patients and was more frequent in patients treated with remdesivir (5.1%) compared with molnupiravir (1.8%) or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (0.8%, ANOVA among groups p = 0.012). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, presence of ≥ 3 comorbidities, hematological disease, gastrointestinal symptoms, and each-day increment from symptoms onset were factors associated with death or hospitalization, while antiviral treatment was not a predictor. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (49.2%). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with remdesivir was associated with a higher probability of having a negative test within 10 days from the first positive one.

CONCLUSION

Death or hospitalization did not differ among high-risk COVID-19 outpatients treated with currently available antivirals. Safety and time to a negative test differed among the three drugs.

Janus kinases inhibitors for coronavirus disease-2019: A pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

JAK (Janus kinases) inhibitors have been proposed as a promising treatment option for the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, the benefits of JAK inhibitors and the optimum thereof for COVID-19 have not been adequately defined.

Methods

Databases were searched from their inception dates to 17 June 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Extracted data were analyzed by pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the coefficient of mortality.

Results

Twenty-eight studies of 8,206 patients were included and assessed qualitatively (modified Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores). A pairwise meta-analysis revealed that JAK inhibitors effectively reduced the mortality (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.46-0.63; P < 0.00001; I ² = 32%) without increasing the risk of adverse events (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88-1.18; P = 0.79; I ² = 12%). In a network meta-analysis, clinical efficacy benefits were seen among different types of JAK inhibitors (baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib) without the observation of a declined incidence of adverse events. The assessment of rank probabilities indicated that ruxolitinib presented the greatest likelihood of benefits regarding mortality and adverse events.

Conclusion

JAK inhibitors appear to be a promising treatment for COVID-19 concerning reducing mortality, and they do not increase the risk of adverse events vs. standard of care. A network meta-analysis suggests that mortality benefits are associated with specific JAK inhibitors, and among these, ruxolitinib presents the greatest likelihood of having benefits for mortality and adverse events.

Systematic review registration

[www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42022343338].

Does baricitinib reduce mortality and disease progression in SARS-CoV-2 virus infected patients? A systematic review and meta analysis

Background

There are conflicting reports on the results of several of the latest clinical trials related to the use of baricitinib in the management of COVID-19 patients. The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Databases like ScienceDirect, PubMed/Medline, Publons, Google Scholar and other sources like ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, medRxiv, Research Square and reference lists were thoroughly searched.

Results

Fifteen (15) articles which met the inclusion criteria were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. Based on Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) risk of bias (RoB) analyses, 14/15 articles are grouped as high-quality. Meta-analyses revealed that randomised control trials (RCTs) and non-randomised control trials (nRCTs) statistically significantly reduced the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients, with a risk ratio (RR) in the fixed-effect model was RR = 0.64 [95% CI: 0.51 to 0.79; p < 0.0001] and RR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.45 to 0.73; p < 0.00001], respectively, with insignificant heterogeneity and no publication bias found. For block/reduce disease progression (BDP), baricitinib did not statistically significantly reduce disease progression for RCTs. The RR in the random effect model was RR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.58 to 1.10: p = 0.17], with significant heterogeneity, where I² was 60%. On the other hand, baricitinib statistically significantly reduced disease progression in nRCTs, as the RR of the fixed effect model was RR = 0.54 [95% CI: 0.37 to 0.78; p = 0.001] with insignificant heterogeneity.

Conclusion

The current meta-analyses revealed that baricitinib statistically significantly reduced mortality rate and disease progression in COVID-19 patients.

Prospero registration number

CRD42021281556

A direct comparison between five lung-US and chest-CT-scans in a patient infected by SARS-CoV-2

The gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia diagnosis is chest Computed Tomography (CT), but Lung Ultrasound (LUS) is also useful in differential diagnosis and in-hospital monitoring of patients with infection by new Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID- 19). We present a case of a young man who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 pneumoniae and underwent five steps of chest imaging, including LUS aeration scorings and chest CT scans. Each decrease or increase in LUS scoring could accurately predict CT scan changes.

Predictors and outcomes of respiratory bacterial coinfections in patients with COVID ‐19 admitted to hospital: An observational prospective study

No abstract available.

Microbiological and Clinical Findings of SARS-CoV-2 Infection after 2 Years of Pandemic: From Lung to Gut Microbiota

Early recognition and prompt management are crucial for improving survival in COVID-19 patients, and after 2 years of the pandemic, many efforts have been made to obtain an early diagnosis. A key factor is the use of fast microbiological techniques, considering also that COVID-19 patients may show no peculiar signs and symptoms that may differentiate COVID-19 from other infective or non-infective diseases. These techniques were developed to promptly identify SARS-CoV-2 infection and to prevent viral spread and transmission. However, recent data about clinical, radiological and laboratory features of COVID-19 at time of hospitalization could help physicians in early suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection and distinguishing it from other etiologies. The knowledge of clinical features and microbiological techniques will be crucial in the next years when the endemic circulation of SARS-CoV-2 will be probably associated with clusters of infection. In this review we provide a state of the art about new advances in microbiological and clinical findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized patients with a focus on pulmonary and extrapulmonary characteristics, including the role of gut microbiota.

Therapeutic and anti-inflammatory effects of baricitinib on mortality, ICU transfer, clinical improvement, and CRS-related laboratory parameters of hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the high incidence and mortality of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, beneficial effects of effective antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs used in other diseases, especially rheumatic diseases, were observed in the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

Clinical and laboratory parameters of eight included cohort studies and five Randomized Control Trials between the baricitinib group and the control group were analyzed on the first day of admission and days 7, 14, and 28 during hospitalization.

RESULTS

According to the meta-analysis result of eight included cohort studies with 2088 patients, the Pooled Risk Ratios were 0.46 (P<0.001) for mortality, 6.14 (P< 0.001) for hospital discharge, and the mean differences of 76.78 (P< 0.001) for PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was -47.32 (P= 0.02) for CRP, in the baricitinib group vs. control group on the seventh or fourteenth day of the treatment compared to the first day. Based on the meta-analysis of five RCT studies with 11825 patients, the pooled RR was 0.84 (P= 0.001) for mortality and 1.07 (P= 0.014) for patients' recovery. The mean differences were -0.80 (P<0.001) for hospitalization days, -0.51(P= 0.33) for time to recovery in the baricitinib group vs. control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Baricitinib prescription is strongly recommended in moderate to severe COVID-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021254541.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Caring for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients represent a high-risk group with increased risk of death from COVID-19. Despite the number of published studies, several unmet needs in care for older adults exist.

OBJECTIVES

To discuss unmet needs of COVID-19 in this special population.

SOURCES

A literature review for studies on COVID-19 in elderly patients published between December 2019 and November 2021 was performed. Clinical questions were formulated to guide the literature search. The search was conducted in the MEDLINE database, combining specific search terms. Two reviewers independently conducted the search and selected the studies according to the prespecified clinical questions.

CONTENT

Elderly patients with COVID-19 have peculiar characteristics. They may have atypical clinical presentation, with no fever and with delirium or neurological manifestations as the most common signs, with potential delayed diagnosis and increased risk of death. The reported fatality rates among elderly patients with COVID-19 are extremely high. Several factors, including comorbidities, atypical presentation, and exclusion from intensive care unit care, contribute to this excess of mortality. Age alone is frequently used as a key factor to exclude the elderly from intensive care, but there is evidence that frailty rather than age better predicts the risk of poor outcome in this category. Durability of vaccine efficacy in the elderly remains debated, and the need for a third booster dose is becoming increasingly evident. Finally, efforts to care for elderly patients who have survived after acute COVID-19 should be implemented, considering the high rates of long COVID sequelae and the risk of longitudinal functional and cognitive decline.

IMPLICATIONS

We highlight peculiar aspects of COVID-19 in elderly patients and factors contributing to high risk of poor outcome in this category. We also illuminated gaps in current evidence, suggesting future research directions and underlining the need for further studies on the optimal management of elderly patients with COVID-19.

Effects of low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux on mortality, hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients

Background:

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased thrombosis prevalence. However, there are insufficient data supporting the appropriate anticoagulation dose in COVID-19.

Objective:

We aim to systematically assess the currently available data regarding the effects of different dosing regimens of low molecular weight heparin and/or fondaparinux (LMWH/F) on mortality risk as well as the risk of arterial/venous thrombotic events and hemorrhagic complications in confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Design:

We conducted a living systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of different LMWH/F doses on mortality, thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in COVID-19 patients.

Data Sources and Methods:

MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to detect observational cohort studies and randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing difference doses of LMWH/F among confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Results:

Thirty-one eligible studies (6 RCTs and 25 cohort studies) with 11,430 hospitalized patients were included. No association was found between LMWH/F and mortality during the following comparisons: (1) no LMWH/F versus any LMWH/F; (2) prophylactic versus higher than prophylactic LMWH/F; (3) prophylactic versus therapeutic LMWH/F; (4) intermediate versus therapeutic LMWH/F; and (5) lower than therapeutic versus therapeutic LMWH/F. Mortality was higher in patients receiving prophylactic versus intermediate LMWH/F (OR = 2.01; 95% CI: 1.19–3.39). However, this effect was mostly driven by observational data. No associations were detected between the intensity of LMWH/F and the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events, except the lower risk for hemorrhage in patients on prophylactic compared to higher LMWH/F doses.

Conclusion:

The risk for all-cause mortality was higher in patients receiving prophylactic LMWH/F compared to those on an intermediate dose of LMWH/F, based on observational data. These results should be interpreted in light of the moderate quality and heterogeneity of the included studies.

Registration:

The study protocol has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42021229771).

Heterogeneity and Risk of Bias in Studies Examining Risk Factors for Severe Illness and Death in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the evidence on the impacts of demographics and comorbidities on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, as well as the sources of the heterogeneity and publication bias of the relevant studies. Two authors independently searched the literature from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and CINAHL on 18 May 2021; removed duplicates; screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts by using criteria; and extracted data from the eligible articles. The variations among the studies were examined by using Cochrane, Q.; I2, and meta-regression. Out of 11,975 articles that were obtained from the databases and screened, 559 studies were abstracted, and then, where appropriate, were analyzed by meta-analysis (n = 542). COVID-19-related severe illness, admission to the ICU, and death were significantly correlated with comorbidities, male sex, and an age older than 60 or 65 years, although high heterogeneity was present in the pooled estimates. The study design, the study country, the sample size, and the year of publication contributed to this. There was publication bias among the studies that compared the odds of COVID-19-related deaths, severe illness, and admission to the ICU on the basis of the comorbidity status. While an older age and chronic diseases were shown to increase the risk of developing severe illness, admission to the ICU, and death among the COVID-19 patients in our analysis, a marked heterogeneity was present when linking the specific risks with the outcomes.

Superinfections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a multicentre observational study from Italy (CREVID Study)

Objectives

To describe clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients who developed secondary infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE).

Methods

Retrospective observational study including COVID-19 patients admitted to 12 Italian hospitals from March to December 2020 who developed a superinfection by CRE. Superinfection was defined as the occurrence of documented bacterial infection &gt;48 h from admission. Patients with polymicrobial infections were excluded. Demographic, clinical characteristics and outcome were collected. Isolates were classified as KPC, metallo-β-lactamase (MBL) and OXA-48-producing CRE. A Cox regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with 30 day mortality.

Results

Overall, 123 patients (median age 66 years, IQR 59–75) were included. The majority of infections occurred in the ICU (81, 65.9%), while 42 (34.1%) in medical wards. The most common types of infection were bloodstream infections (BSI) (n = 64, 52%), followed by urinary-tract infections (UTI) (n = 28, 22.8%), hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) (n = 28, 22.8%), intra-abdominal infections (n = 2, 1.6%) and skin infections (n = 1, 0.8%). Sixty-three (51.2%) infections were caused by KPC-, 54 (43.9%) by MBL-, and 6 (4.8%) by OXA-48-producing CRE. Thirty-day mortality was 33.3% (41/123). On Cox regression analysis, HAP/VAP compared with UTI (HR 7.23, 95% CI 2.09–24.97, P = 0.004), BSI compared with UTI (HR 3.96, 95% CI, 1.33–11.77, P = 0.004), lymphopenia on admission (HR 3, 95% CI 1.44–6.26, P = 0.003) and age (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.08, P = 0.002) were predictors of 30 day mortality.

Conclusions

Superinfections by CRE were associated with high risk of 30 day mortality in patients with COVID-19. HAP/VAP was the strongest predictor of death in these patients.

Covid-19 and its implications for the provision of gynecological services globally

Covid-19 took the world by surprise and has completely changed the way humans live and work. There is hardly an aspect of life that has not been affected. Whether social, economic, physical, psychological, cultural or religious, this pandemic has revolutionized every aspect of our lives and some of these changes are here to stay for the unforeseeable time. Although much has been written about the negative effects of Covid-19 on our social lives, some technological advances on COVID-19 have profoundly affected various aspects of our lives. These are mostly to do with how we communicate, deliver health services, innovate and investigate new preventative measures and treatments, travel and indeed influenced the carbon footprint of the planet. Although most of gynaecology is elective and was therefore not considered a priority in the early phases of COVI-19, there are considerable consequences of delaying treatment for some of these elective conditions. Of particular importance are infertility, pre-malignant conditions, chronic pelvic pain, sexual disorders and those affecting the psychological and social aspects of women and families. The pandemic forced a rethink of how healthcare is delivered with wide adoption of remote/virtual consultation and triaging of clinical presentations. The rapid development of immunization and drugs against the virus was met with doubts by a large proportion of the population with reluctance to accept these. Consequently, there remains unvaccinated portions of both low and high-risk populations, some of whom may be denied access to gynaecological care. On the other hand, some pregnant women who are frightened of the impact of vaccination on pregnancy put their own lives at risk. While significant progress has been made to combat the pandemic, lessons about healthcare delivery (face-to-face versus virtual), education of the end users and introduction of new technologies into the development of drugs and vaccines must be evaluated and improved moving forward not only during the ongoing epidemic but with future outbreaks.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Bradykinin-target therapies in SARS-CoV-2 infection: current evidence and perspectives

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a potentially fatal disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that preferentially infects the respiratory tract. Bradykinin (BK) is a hypotensive substance that recently emerged as one of the mechanisms to explain COVID-19-related complications. Concerning this, in this review, we try to address the complex link between BK and pathophysiology of COVID-19, investigating the role of this peptide as a potential target for pharmacological modulation in the management of SARS-CoV-2. The pathology of COVID-19 may be more a result of the BK storm than the cytokine storm, and which BK imbalance is a relevant factor in the respiratory disorders caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Regarding this, an interesting point of intervention for this disease is to modulate BK signaling. Some drugs, such as icatibant, ecallantide, and noscapine, and even a human monoclonal antibody, lanadelumab, have been studied for their potential utility in COVID-19 by modulating BK signaling. The interaction of the BK pathway and the involvement of cytokines such as IL-6 and IL1 may be key to the use of blockers, even if only as adjuvants. In fact, reduction of BK, mainly DABK, is considered a relevant strategy to improve clinical conditions of COVID-19 patients. In this context, despite the current unproven clinical efficacy, drugs repurposing that block B1 or B2 receptor activation have gained prominence for the treatment of COVID-19 in the world.

Early use of remdesivir and risk of disease progression in hospitalized patients with mild-to moderate COVID-19

Purpose

Preliminary data suggest that remdesivir may influence the course of COVID-19 according to the duration of pre-admission symptoms. We aim to evaluate whether early use of remdesivir is associated with a reduced COVID-19 progression in a homogeneous cohort of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Methods

This prospective, observational study included patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with remdesivir at the University Hospital of Pisa (Italy) from September 2020 to January 2021. According to national recommendations, remdesivir was prescribed in patients with pneumonia who required oxygen supplementation by nasal cannula or mask but without the need for high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation and had symptoms from no more than 10 days. Patients who received early (≤5 days from onset of symptoms) versus late (>5 days from onset of symptoms) remdesivir were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with the composite endpoint.

Findings

Among 312 consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received remdesivir, 90 (28.8%) received early remdesivir, whereas 222 (71.2%) received late remdesivir. Twenty-nine patients (32.2%) in the early-remdesivir group versus 104 patients (46.8%) in the late-remdesivir group met the primary end point (P = 0.018). On multivariate analysis, a history of dyspnea at home (odds ratio = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.55–4.12; P < 0.001) was the strongest factor independently associated with the progression to severe COVID-19, whereas early-remdesivir use was a protective factor (odds ratio = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27–0.87; P = 0.015). The delayed admission to the hospital was associated with a delayed administration of remdesivir.

Implications

The early use of remdesivir (<5 days from symptoms onset) may reduce COVID-19 progression. The identification of patients who need early hospitalization and early remdesivir may provide clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.

Management of COVID patients with convalescent plasma: Do we have the final word?

Immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) has been used in the past in several different infectious diseases and proposed as a potential therapeutic option in patients with COVID-19. However, a clear benefit was never demonstrated and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in different populations of COVID-19 patients showed contrasting results. In general, current evidences suggest that CP in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 does not reduce the progression to severe respiratory failure or death within 30 days. However, currently published RCTs have several limitations. The administration of plasma with low titer of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), the use of suboptimal surrogate serological tests to determine NAbs titer, the delayed administration of CP from the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and the lack of information about antibody titer of recipients before CP infusion, are all limiting factors that may have affected the study results. Thus, a potential benefit of early (within the first 72 h from onset of symptoms), high titer CP in patients with mild COVID-19 (pO2/FiO2>300) cannot be definitively excluded. However, immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies developed from CP demonstrated efficacy in reducing progression to severe COVID-19 and hospitalization and are today recommended in the early phase of COVID-19.

Lung vessel volume evaluated with CALIPER software is an independent predictor of mortality in COVID-19 patients: a multicentric retrospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

Computer-Aided Lung Informatics for Pathology Evaluation and Ratings (CALIPER) software has already been widely used in the evaluation of interstitial lung diseases (ILD) but has not yet been tested in patients affected by COVID-19. Our aim was to use it to describe the relationship between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcome and the CALIPER-detected pulmonary vascular-related structures (VRS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a multicentric retrospective study enrolling 570 COVID-19 patients who performed a chest CT in emergency settings in two different institutions. Fifty-three age- and sex-matched healthy controls were also identified. Chest CTs were analyzed with CALIPER identifying the percentage of VRS over the total lung parenchyma. Patients were followed for up to 72 days recording mortality and required intensity of care.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in VRS between COVID-19-positive patients and controls (median (iqr) 4.05 (3.74) and 1.57 (0.40) respectively, p = 0.0001). VRS showed an increasing trend with the severity of care, p < 0.0001. The univariate Cox regression model showed that VRS increase is a risk factor for mortality (HR 1.17, p < 0.0001). The multivariate analysis demonstrated that VRS is an independent explanatory factor of mortality along with age (HR 1.13, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that VRS increases with the required intensity of care, and it is an independent explanatory factor for mortality.

KEY POINTS

• The percentage of vascular-related structure volume (VRS) in the lung is significatively increased in COVID-19 patients. • VRS showed an increasing trend with the required intensity of care, test for trend p< 0.0001. • Univariate and multivariate Cox models showed that VRS is a significant and independent explanatory factor of mortality.

Risk factors and outcomes of fungal superinfections in patients with severe COVID-19: an observational study from Pisa academic hospital

Background

Superinfections acquired during the hospital course represent common complications in COVID-19 patients. Several studies reported an increasing incidence of COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and candidaemia. The aim of this study is to describe fungal superinfections in a large cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and identify factors independently associated with the risk of fungal superinfections.

Methods

Observational study including patients with COVID-19 admitted to the tertiary-care, University Hospital of Pisa, Italy from April 2020 to May 2021. Patients with pneumonia and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with a RT-PCR test on a nasopharyngeal swab, were eligible for the study. Patients who died within 24 hours from admission and those with missing data were excluded. Data about fungal superinfections were collected. To identify factors independently associated with the development of fungal superinfections, a multivariate regression analysis was performed.

Results

Among 983 patients with COVID-19, 52 (5.3%) fungal superinfections were detected. Fungal superinfections included: 24/52 (46%) CAPA, 27/52 (51.9%) episodes of candidaemia and 1 case of pulmonary pneumocystosis in a haematological patient. All patients with CAPA were cared for in intensive care unit (ICU). The majority of patients received liposomal amphotericin B as antifungal treatment (83.3%). In-hospital mortality was 41.7%. Among 27 episodes of candidaemia, 16 (59.3%) occurred in ICU while 11 (40.7%) in medical wards. In-hospital mortality was 14.8%. Overall, patients with fungal superinfections had a median age of 73 (IQRs 59-77) years and a median length of ICU stay of 40 (17-50) days. In-hospital mortality among all patients with superinfections was 28.8%. On multivariable analysis, ICU stay (OR 17.63, 95% CI 8.3-37.41, p<0.001), high-dose steroids (OR 13.48, 95% CI 6.68-27.26, p<0.001), and diabetes mellitus (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.09-4.17, p=0.026) were factors independently associated with the risk of developing a fungal superinfection.

Conclusions

Fungal superinfections may complicate the hospital course of COVID-19 patients, especially of those admitted to ICU. Surveillance with detection of galactomannan on bronchoalveolar lavage in patients with clinical deterioration should be performed. A rational use of steroids is essential to avoid the risk of developing a fungal superinfection.

SARS-CoV-2 management in Emergency Department: risk stratification and care setting identification proposal based on first pandemic wave in Pisa University Hospital

SARS-CoV-2 management in Emergency Department: risk stratification and care setting identification proposal based on first pandemic wave in Pisa University Hospital Background: COVID-19 patients require early treatment and admission to an appropriate care setting, considering possible rapid and unpredictable to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. Objective: A flow-chart was developed by a multidisciplinary team of Emergency Department (ED) clinicians, intensivists and radiologists aiming to provide tools for disease severity stratification, appropriate ventilation strategy and hospitalization setting identification. Methods: We conducted a retrospective application of our model on 313 hospitalized patients at Pisa University Hospital including 222 patients admitted to ED for respiratory failure between March and April 2020. Risk stratification score was based on respiratory and chest imaging parameters, while management strategy on comorbidities and age.  Results: Age, comorbidities, clinical respiratory and arterial blood gas parameters, semi-quantitative chest computed tomography score were significant predictors of mortality (p<0,05). Mortality rate was higher in patients treated in intensive care units (26,5%) and undergoing endo-tracheal intubation (32,7%), compared to medical area (21,3%). We verified a good concordance (81,7%) between the proposed model and actual evaluation in ED. Outcomes analysis of subgroups of patients homogeneous for baseline features allowed to verify safety of our model: in non-elderly and/or non-comorbid patients (15% mortality) our scheme overestimates the risk in 30% of cases, but it suggests non-intensive management in patients with reduced functional reserve, elderly and with comorbidities (50% mortality). Conclusion: Correct management of respiratory failure COVID-19 patients is crucial in this unexpected pandemic. Our flow-chart, despite retrospectively application in small sample, could represents a valid and safe proposal for evaluation in ED.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units.

METHODS

Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Efficacy of Bamlanivimab/Etesevimab and Casirivimab/Imdevimab in Preventing Progression to Severe COVID-19 and Role of Variants of Concern

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of hospitalization or death in patients infected by SARS-CoV2 variants of concern (VOCs) receiving combinations of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab.

METHODS

Observational prospective study conducted in two Italian hospitals (University Hospital of Pisa and San Donato Hospital, Arezzo) including consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who received bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab from March 20th to May 10th 2021. All patients were at high risk of COVID-19 progression according to FDA/AIFA recommendations. Patients were divided into two study groups according to the infecting viral strain (VOCs): Alpha and Gamma group. The primary endpoint was a composite of hospitalization or death within 30 days from mAbs infusion. A Cox regression multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcome in the overall population.

RESULTS

The study included 165 patients: 105 were infected by the VOC Alpha and 43 by the VOC Gamma. In the Alpha group, no differences in the primary endpoint were observed between patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Conversely, in the Gamma group, a higher proportion of patients treated with bamlanivimab/etesevimab met the primary endpoint compared to those receiving casirivimab/imdevimab (55% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.013). On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, the Gamma variant and days from symptoms onset to mAbs infusion were factors independently associated with higher risk of hospitalization or death, while casirivimab/imdevimab was protective (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.83, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant, bamlanivimab/etesevimab should be used with caution because of the high risk of disease progression.

Clinical efficacy and adverse events of baricitinib treatment for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis

The benefits of baricitinib in coronavirus disease-2019 are inadequately defined. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of baricitinib to determine its clinical efficacy and adverse events in patients with COVID-19. Databases were searched from their inception to September 5, 2021. The primary outcome was the coefficient of mortality. We also compared secondary indicators and adverse events between baricitinib treatment and placebo or other treatments. Twelve studies of 3564 patients were included and assessed qualitatively (modified Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores). Baricitinib effectively improved the mortality rate (relative risk of mortality = 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.69; p < 0.001; I²  = 2%), and this result was unchanged by subgroup analysis. Baricitinib improved intensive care unit admission, the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation, and improved the oxygenation index. Data from these studies also showed that baricitinib slightly reduced the risk of adverse events. Regarding the choice of the drug dosage of baricitinib, the high-dose group appeared to have additional benefits for clinical efficacy. Our study shows that baricitinib may be a promising, safe, and effective anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 drug candidate, with the advantages of low cost, easy production, and convenient storage.

Hindrance of the Proteolytic Activity of Neutrophil-Derived Serine Proteases by Serine Protease Inhibitors as a Management of Cardiovascular Diseases and Chronic Inflammation

During inflammation neutrophils become activated and segregate neutrophil serine proteases (NSPs) to the surrounding environment in order to support a natural immune defense. However, an excess of proteolytic activity of NSPs can cause many complications, such as cardiovascular diseases and chronic inflammatory disorders, which will be elucidated on a biochemical and immunological level. The application of selective serine protease inhibitors is the logical consequence in the management of the indicated comorbidities and will be summarized in this briefing.

What have we learned from the first to the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic? An international survey from the ESCMID Study Group for Infection in the Elderly (ESGIE) group

The purpose of this survey is to explore changes in the management of COVID-19 during the first versus the second wave, with particular emphasis on therapies, antibiotic prescriptions, and elderly care. An internet-based questionnaire survey was distributed to European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) members. Therapeutic approach to patients with mild-to-moderate (PiO₂/FiO₂ 200–350) and severe (PiO₂/FiO₂ < 200) COVID-19, antibiotic use, and reasons for excluding patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) were investigated. A total of 463 from 21 countries participated in the study. Most representatives were infectious disease specialists (68.3%). During the second wave of pandemic, physicians abandoned the use of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and azithromycin in favor of dexamethasone, low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and remdesivir in mild-to-moderate COVID-19. In critically ill patients, we detected an increased use of high-dose steroids (51%) and a decrease in tocilizumab use. The use of antibiotics at hospital admission decreased but remained high in the second wave. Age was reported to be a main consideration for exclusion of patients from ICU care by 25% of responders; a third reported that elderly were not candidates for ICU admission in their center. The decision to exclude patients from ICU care was based on the individual decision of an intensivist in 59.6% of cases. The approach of physicians to COVID-19 changed over time following evidence accumulation and guidelines. Antibiotic use at hospital admission and decision to exclude patients from ICU care remain critical aspects that should be better investigated and harmonized among clinicians.

Early outcome detection for COVID-19 patients

With the outbreak of COVID-19 exerting a strong pressure on hospitals and health facilities, clinical decision support systems based on predictive models can help to effectively improve the management of the pandemic. We present a method for predicting mortality for COVID-19 patients. Starting from a large number of clinical variables, we select six of them with largest predictive power, using a feature selection method based on genetic algorithms and starting from a set of COVID-19 patients from the first wave. The algorithm is designed to reduce the impact of missing values in the set of variables measured, and consider only variables that show good accuracy on validation data. The final predictive model provides accuracy larger than 85% on test data, including a new patient cohort from the second COVID-19 wave, and on patients with imputed missing values. The selected clinical variables are confirmed to be relevant by recent literature on COVID-19.

A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis Comparing Prophylactic and Therapeutic Low Molecular Weight Heparins for Mortality Reduction in 32,688 COVID-19 Patients

Background: Antithrombotic treatment, including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH), has been proposed as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to lower diffuse intravascular clotting activation. However, it is unclear whether prophylactic or therapeutic doses have similar efficacy in reducing mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42020179955) and meta-analysis including observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of heparins (either LMWH, UFH, or fondaparinux) in COVID-19 patients. Heparin treatment was compared to no anticoagulation. A subgroup analysis on prophylactic or therapeutic doses compared to no anticoagulation was performed. Prophylactic dose was also compared to full dose anticoagulation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were major bleeding and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: 33 studies (31 observational, 2 RCT) were included for a total overall population of 32,688 patients. Of these, 21,723 (66.5%) were on heparins. 31 studies reported data on all-cause mortality, showing that both prophylactic and full dose reduced mortality (pooled Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.69 and HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47-0.66, respectively). However, the full dose was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.14-3.53) compared to prophylactic dose. Finally, LOS was evaluated in 3 studies; no difference was observed between patients with and without heparins (0.98, -3.87, 5.83 days). Conclusion: Heparin at both full and prophylactic dose is effective in reducing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, compared to no treatment. However, full dose was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Systematic Review Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier CRD42020179955.

Doxycycline for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at high risk of adverse outcomes in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m² or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580.

FINDINGS

The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.

Efficacy of Remdesivir-Containing Therapy in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Prospective Clinical Experience

Objectives: Remdesivir is currently approved for the treatment of COVID-19. The recommendation for using remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 was based on the in vitro and in vivo activity of this drug against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted on a population of patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The primary endpoint of this study was the impact of remdesivir-containing therapy on 30-day mortality; the secondary endpoint was the impact of remdesivir-containing therapy on the need for high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), or mechanical ventilation. The data were analyzed after propensity score matching. Results: A total of 407 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were consecutively enrolled. Out of these, 294 (72.2%) were treated with remdesivir and 113 (27.8%) were not. Overall, 61 patients (14.9%) were treated during hospitalization with HFNC, NIV, or mechanical ventilation, while 30-day mortality was observed in 21 patients (5.2%). Univariate analysis of patients treated with remdesivir or not showed no differences in 30-day mortality (4% vs. 6%, p = 0.411) in the two study groups. Cox regression analysis, after propensity score matching, showed that therapies, including remdesivir-containing therapy, were not statistically associated with 30-day survival or mortality. The Kaplan–Meier curves of 30-day survival in patients treated with remdesivir or not before (p = 0.24) and after (p = 0.88) propensity score matching showed no differences between the two study groups. Finally, patients treated with remdesivir or not showed the same need for HFNC/NIV or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions: This real-life experience of remdesivir use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not associated with significant increases in rates of survival or reduced use of HFNC/NIV or mechanical ventilation compared with patients treated with other therapies not including remdesivir.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Patients with Suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Department (RESILIENCY Study II)

Objectives: COVID-19 may show no peculiar signs and symptoms that may differentiate it from other infective or non-infective etiologies; thus, early recognition and prompt management are crucial to improve survival. The aim of this study was to describe clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to those with other infective or non-infective etiologies. Methods: We performed a prospective study from March 2020 to February 2021. All patients hospitalized for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were prospectively recruited. All patients were evaluated according to a predefined protocol for diagnosis of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary endpoint was evaluation of clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics associated or not with COVID-19 etiology at time of hospitalization in an emergency department. Results: A total of 1036 patients were included in the study: 717 (69%) patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 319 (31%) without COVID-19, hospitalized for other causes. The main causes of hospitalization among non-COVID-19 patients were acute heart failure (44%) and bacterial pneumonia (45.8%). Overall, 30-day mortality was 9% among the COVID-19 group and 35% in the non-COVID-19 group. Multivariate analysis showed variables (fever > 3 days, dry cough, acute dyspnea, lymphocytes < 1000 × 10³/µL, and ferritin > 250 ng/mL) independently associated with COVID-19 etiology. A decision tree was elaborated to early detect COVID-19 patients in the emergency department. Finally, Kaplan–Meier curves on 30-day survival in COVID-19 patients during the first wave (March–May 2020, n = 289 patients) and the second wave (October–February 2021, n = 428 patients) showed differences between the two study periods (p = 0.021). Conclusions: Patients with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 may show peculiar characteristics at time of hospitalization that could help physicians to distinguish from other infective or non-infective etiologies. Finally, a different 30-day mortality rate was observed during different periods of the pandemic.

The Role of Alveolar Edema in COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread over the world for more than one year. COVID-19 often develops life-threatening hypoxemia. Endothelial injury caused by the viral infection leads to intravascular coagulation and ventilation-perfusion mismatch. However, besides above pathogenic mechanisms, the role of alveolar edema in the disease progression has not been discussed comprehensively. Since the exudation of pulmonary edema fluid was extremely serious in COVID-19 patients, we bring out a hypothesis that severity of alveolar edema may determine the size of poorly-ventilated area and the blood oxygen content. Treatments to pulmonary edema (conservative fluid management, exogenous surfactant replacements and ethanol–oxygen vapor therapy hypothetically) may be greatly helpful for reducing the occurrences of severe cases. Given that late mechanical ventilation may cause mucus (edema fluid) to be blown deep into the small airways, oxygen therapy should be given at the early stages. The optimal time and blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂) threshold for oxygen therapy are also discussed.

Remdesivir, Renal Function and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes in Elderly COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients: A Single-Centre Study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir, an antiviral agent able to reduce inflammatory cascade accompanying severe, life-threatening pneumonia, became the first drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hospitalized patients with coronavirus 2 related severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS CoV2). As from its previously known clinical indications, the use of remdesivir in the presence of severe renal impairment is contraindicated; however, the impact of remdesivir on renal function in aging patients has not been elucidated.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This retrospective observational study involved 109 individuals consecutively admitted in internal medicine section, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana hospital, in November-December 2020 due to a confirmed diagnosis of SARS CoV2 and receiving remdesivir according to international inclusion criteria. Biochemical variables at admission were evaluated, together with slopes of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) built during remdesivir treatment. Participants were followed until discharge or exitus.

RESULTS

Patients were stratified according to age (80 formed the study cohort and 29 served as controls); CKD stage III was present in 46% of them. No patients showed any sign of deteriorated renal function during remdesivir. Fourteen patients in the elderly cohort deceased; their eGFR at baseline was significantly lower. Recovered patients were characterized by a relevant eGFR gaining during remdesivir treatment.

CONCLUSION

We show here for the first time as remdesivir does not influence eGFR in a cohort of elderly people hospitalized for SARS CoV2, and that eGFR gain during such treatment is coupled with a better prognosis.

Diagnostic stewardship based on patient profiles: differential approaches in acute versus chronic infectious syndromes

Introduction: New diagnostics may be useful in clinical practice, especially in contexts of high prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). However, misuse of diagnostic tools may lead to increased costs and worse patient outcome. Conventional and new techniques should be appropriately positioned in diagnostic algorithms to guide an appropriate use of antimicrobial therapy.Areas covered: A panel of experts identified 4 main areas in which the implementation of diagnostic stewardship is needed. Among chronic infections, bone and prosthetic joint infections and subacute-chronic intravascular infections and endocarditis represent common challenges for clinicians. Among acute infections, bloodstream infections and community-acquired pneumonia may be associated with high mortality and require appropriate diagnostic approach.Expert opinion: Diagnostic stewardship aims to improve the appropriate use of microbiological diagnostics to guide therapeutic decisions through appropriate and timely diagnostic testing. Here, diagnostic algorithms based on different patient profiles are proposed for chronic and acute clinical syndromes. In each clinical scenario, combining conventional and new diagnostic techniques is crucial to make a rapid and accurate diagnosis and to guide the selection of antimicrobial therapy. Barriers related to the implementation of new rapid diagnostic tools, such as high initial costs, may be overcome through their rational and structured use.

Severity and Mortality Associated with Steroid Use among Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There are controversial suggestions about steroid use to treat patients infected with COVID-19. Conclusive evidence regarding the use of steroids to treat COVID-19 is still lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the mortality and severity associated with corticosteroid therapy compared to noncorticosteroid treatment in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The information was collected from electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google scholar through January 30, 2021. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed using random effect models. Endnote citation manager software version X9 for Windows was utilized to collect and organize search outcomes (into relevant and irrelevant studies) and to remove duplicate articles.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 14,659 COVID-19 patients. No significant differences in mortality between the steroid and nonsteroid treatment groups (RR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.80-1.13; p = 0.57). There was no significant reduction in mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroid (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.62-1.27; p = 0.52). Significant differences were observed in severe disease conditions between the steroid and nonsteroid treatment groups (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the steroid and nonsteroid treatment users' of COVID-19 patients. There was no significant reduction of all-cause mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids.

Safety and Efficacy of Ivermectin and Doxycycline Monotherapy and in Combination in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the evidence in the literature on the safety and efficacy of their use as monotherapy and combination therapy in COVID-19 management.

METHODS

After prospectively registering the study protocol with the Open Science Framework, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, various pre-print servers and reference lists for relevant records published until 16 February, 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Baseline features and data pertaining to efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted separately for IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy, and IVM + DOXY combination therapy. Methodological quality was assessed based on the study design.

RESULTS

Out of 200 articles screened, 19 studies (six retrospective cohort studies, seven randomised controlled trials, five non-randomised trials, one case series) with 8754 unique patients with multiple stages of COVID-19 were included; four were pre-prints and one was an unpublished clinicaltrials.gov document. The comparator was standard care and 'hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin' in seven and three studies respectively, and two studies were placebo controlled; six studies did not have a comparator. IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy and IVM + DOXY were explored in eight, five and five studies, respectively; one study compared IVM monotherapy and IVM + DOXY with placebo. While all studies described efficacy, the safety profile was described in only six studies. Efficacy outcomes were mixed with some studies concluding in favour of the intervention and some studies displaying no significant benefit; barring one study that described 9/183 patients with erosive esophagitis and non-ulcer dyspepsia with IVM + DOXY (without causality assessment details), there were no new safety signals of concern with any of the three interventions considered. The quality of studies varied widely, with five studies having a 'good' methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is not sufficiently strong to either promote or refute the efficacy of IVM, DOXY, or their combination in COVID-19 management.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/n7r2j .

Different Anticoagulant Regimens, Mortality, and Bleeding in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and an Updated Meta-Analysis

We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the association of anticoagulants and their dosage with in-hospital all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Articles were retrieved until January 8, 2021, by searching in seven electronic databases. The main outcome was all-cause mortality occurred during hospitalization. Data were combined using the general variance-based method on the effect estimate for each study. Separate meta-analyses according to type of COVID-19 patients (hospitalized or intensive care unit [ICU] patients), anticoagulants (mainly heparin), and regimens (therapeutic or prophylactic) were conducted. A total of 29 articles were selected, but 23 retrospective studies were eligible for quantitative meta-analyses. No clinical trial was retrieved. The majority of studies were of good quality; however, 34% did not distinguish heparin from other anticoagulants. Meta-analysis on 25,719 hospitalized COVID-19 patients showed that anticoagulant use was associated with 50% reduced in-hospital mortality risk (pooled risk ratio [RR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.62; I ²: 87%). Both anticoagulant regimens (therapeutic and prophylactic) reduced in-hospital all-cause mortality, compared with no anticoagulation. Particularly in ICU patients, the anticoagulant therapeutic regimen was associated with a reduced in-hospital mortality risk (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.15-0.60; I ²: 58%) compared with the prophylactic one. However, the former was also associated with a higher risk of bleeding (RR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.60-4.00; I ²: 65%). Anticoagulant use, mainly heparin, reduced all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients during hospitalization. Due to the higher risk of bleeding at therapeutic doses, the use of prophylactic dosages of anticoagulant is probably to be preferred in noncritically ill COVID-19 patients.

Drug-Drug Interactions and Prescription Appropriateness at Hospital Discharge: Experience with COVID-19 Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are often elderly, with comorbidities, and receiving polypharmacy, all of which are known factors for potentially severe drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the risk of DDIs and PIMs in COVID-19 patients at hospital discharge.

METHOD

Patients with a proven diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who were hospitalized between 21 February and 30 April 2020, treated with at least two drugs, and with available information regarding pharmacological treatments upon admission and at discharge were considered. The appropriateness of drug prescriptions was assessed using INTERcheck®.

RESULTS

A significant increase in the prescription of proton pump inhibitors and heparins was found when comparing admission with hospital discharge (from 24 to 33% [p < 0.05] and from 1 to 17% [p < 0.01], respectively). The increased prescription of heparins at discharge resulted in a highly significant increase in the potentially severe DDIs mediated by this class of drugs. 51% of COVID-19 patients aged > 65 years had at least one PIM upon admission, with an insignificant increment at discharge (58%).

CONCLUSION

An increased number of prescribed drugs was observed in COVID-19 patients discharged from our hospital. The addition of heparins is appropriate according to the current literature, while the use of proton pump inhibitors is more controversial. Particular attention should be paid to the risk of bleeding complications linked to heparin-based DDIs.

Coronavirus 2019 Infectious Disease Epidemic: Where We Are, What Can Be Done and Hope For

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads mainly by means of aerosols (microdroplets) in enclosed environments, especially those in which temperature and humidity are regulated by means of air-conditioning. About 30% of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease. Among them, approximately 25% require hospitalization. In medicine, cases are identified as those who become ill. During this pandemic, cases have been identified as those with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test, including approximately 70% who were asymptomatic-this has caused unnecessary anxiety. Individuals more than 65 years old, those affected by obesity, diabetes, asthma, or are immune-depressed owing to cancer and other conditions, are at a higher risk of hospitalization and of dying of COVID-19. Healthy individuals younger than 40 years very rarely die of COVID-19. Estimates of the COVID-19 mortality rate vary because the definition of COVID-19-related deaths varies. Belgium has the highest death rate at 154.9 per 100,000 persons, because it includes anyone who died with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, even those never tested for SARS-CoV-2. The United States includes all patients who died with a positive test, whether they died because of, or with, SARS-CoV-2. Countries that include only patients in which COVID-19 was the main cause of death, rather than a cofactor, have lower death rates. Numerous therapies are being developed, and rapid improvements are anticipated. Because of disinformation, only approximately 50% of the U.S. population plans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. By sharing accurate information, physicians, health professionals, and scientists play a key role in addressing myths and anxiety, help public health officials enact measures to decrease infections, and provide the best care for those who become sick. In this article, we discuss these issues.

Predictors of hospital-acquired bacterial and fungal superinfections in COVID-19: a prospective observational study

Background

Bacterial and fungal superinfections may complicate the course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Objectives

To identify predictors of superinfections in COVID-19.

Methods

Prospective, observational study including patients with COVID-19 consecutively admitted to the University Hospital of Pisa, Italy, between 4 March and 30 April 2020. Clinical data and outcomes were registered. Superinfection was defined as a bacterial or fungal infection that occurred ≥48 h after hospital admission. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with superinfections.

Results

Overall, 315 patients with COVID-19 were hospitalized and 109 episodes of superinfections were documented in 69 (21.9%) patients. The median time from admission to superinfection was 19 days (range 11–29.75). Superinfections were caused by Enterobacterales (44.9%), non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli (15.6%), Gram-positive bacteria (15.6%) and fungi (5.5%). Polymicrobial infections accounted for 18.3%. Predictors of superinfections were: intestinal colonization by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (OR 16.03, 95% CI 6.5–39.5, P < 0.001); invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 5.6, 95% CI 2.4–13.1, P < 0.001); immunomodulatory agents (tocilizumab/baricitinib) (OR 5.09, 95% CI 2.2–11.8, P < 0.001); C-reactive protein on admission >7 mg/dl (OR 3.59, 95% CI 1.7–7.7, P = 0.001); and previous treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.1–7.2, P = 0.028). Length of hospital stay was longer in patients who developed superinfections ompared with those who did not (30 versus 11 days, P < 0.001), while mortality rates were similar (18.8% versus 23.2%, P = 0.445).

Conclusions

The risk of bacterial and fungal superinfections in COVID-19 is consistent. Patients who need empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics and immunomodulant drugs should be carefully selected. Infection control rules must be reinforced.

The relationship between cardiac injury, inflammation and coagulation in predicting COVID-19 outcome

High sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) is a strong predictor of adverse outcome during SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, its determinants remain partially unknown. We aimed to assess the relationship between severity of inflammatory response/coagulation abnormalities and hsTnT in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). We then explored the relevance of these pathways in defining mortality and complications risk and the potential effects of the treatments to attenuate such risk. In this single-center, prospective, observational study we enrolled 266 consecutive patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Primary endpoint was in-hospital COVID-19 mortality. hsTnT, even after adjustment for confounders, was associated with mortality. D-dimer and CRP presented stronger associations with hsTnT than PaO2. Changes of hsTnT, D-dimer and CRP were related; but only D-dimer was associated with mortality. Moreover, low molecular weight heparin showed attenuation of the mortality in the whole population, particularly in subjects with higher hsTnT. D-dimer possessed a strong relationship with hsTnT and mortality. Anticoagulation treatment showed greater benefits with regard to mortality. These findings suggest a major role of SARS-CoV-2 coagulopathy in hsTnT elevation and its related mortality in COVID-19. A better understanding of the mechanisms related to COVID-19 might pave the way to therapy tailoring in these high-risk individuals.

JAK-inhibitors for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis

We analyzed reports on safety and efficacy of JAK-inhibitors in patients with coronavirus infectious disease-2019 (COVID-19) published between January 1st and March 6th 2021 using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scales for quality assessment. We used disease severity as a proxy for time when JAK-inhibitor therapy was started. We identified 6 cohort studies and 5 clinical trials involving 2367 subjects treated with ruxolitinib (N = 3) or baricitinib 45 (N = 8). Use of JAK-inhibitors decreased use of invasive mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.63; [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.47, 0.84]; P = 0.002) and had borderline impact on rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 0.24 [0.06, 1.02]; P = 0.05) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; RR = 0.50 [0.19, 1.33]; P = 0.16). JAK-inhibitors did not decrease length of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.18 [-4.54, 4.18]; P = 0.94). Relative risks of death for both drugs were 0.42 [0.30, 0.59] (P < 0.001), for ruxolitinib, RR = 0.33 (0.13, 0.88; P = 0.03) and for baricitinib RR = 0.44 (0.31, 0.63; P < 0.001). Timing of JAK-inhibitor treatment during the course of COVID-19 treatment may be important in determining impact on outcome. However, these data are not consistently reported.