Hydroxychloroquine does not affect endotheliopathy or coagulopathy biomarkers in COVID-19: longitudinal results from the DisCoVeRy randomized trial

Background: Many recent studies have investigated the role of drug interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, an important question has been raised about how to select the effective and secure medications for COVID-19 patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the various medications available for severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs).Methods: We did an updated network meta-analysis. We searched the databases from inception until July 31, 2021, with no language restrictions. We included RPCTs comparing 49 medications and placebo in the treatment of severe and non-severe patients (aged 18 years or older) with COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on the trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, the ratios of virological cure, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect estimates.Results: From 3,869 publications, we included 61 articles related to 73 RPCTs (57 in non-severe COVID-19 patients and 16 in severe COVID-19 patients), comprising 20,680 patients. The mean sample size was 160 (interquartile range 96–393) in this study. The median duration of follow-up drugs intervention was 28 days (interquartile range 21–30). For increase in virological cure, we only found that proxalutamide (OR 9.16, 95% CI 3.15–18.30), ivermectin (OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.22–32.86), and low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.12–24.99) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo, in which proxalutamide seemed to be better than low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.69, 95% CI 2.43–17.65). For decrease in all-cause mortality, we found that proxalutamide (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.09–0.19), imatinib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25–0.96), and baricitinib (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42–0.82) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we only found that immunoglobulin gamma (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08–0.89) was related to severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo. For change in treatment-emergent adverse events, we only found that sotrovimab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13–0.34) was associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we did not find any medications that presented a statistical difference when compared with placebo among severe COVID-19 patients.Conclusion: We conclude that marked variations exist in the efficacy and safety of medications between severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. It seems that monoclonal antibodies (e.g., low dosage bamlanivimab, baricitinib, imatinib, and sotrovimab) are a better choice for treating severe or non-severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical decisions to use preferentially medications should carefully consider the risk-benefit profile based on efficacy and safety of all active interventions in patients with COVID-19 at different levels of infection.

Decision letter: Metabolic biomarker profiling for identification of susceptibility to severe pneumonia and COVID-19 in the general population

Biomarkers of low-grade inflammation have been associated with susceptibility to a severe infectious disease course, even when measured prior to disease onset. We investigated whether metabolic biomarkers measured by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy could be associated with susceptibility to severe pneumonia (2507 hospitalised or fatal cases) and severe COVID-19 (652 hospitalised cases) in 105,146 generally healthy individuals from UK Biobank, with blood samples collected 2007–2010. The overall signature of metabolic biomarker associations was similar for the risk of severe pneumonia and severe COVID-19. A multi-biomarker score, comprised of 25 proteins, fatty acids, amino acids, and lipids, was associated equally strongly with enhanced susceptibility to severe COVID-19 (odds ratio 2.9 [95%CI 2.1–3.8] for highest vs lowest quintile) and severe pneumonia events occurring 7–11 years after blood sampling (2.6 [1.7–3.9]). However, the risk for severe pneumonia occurring during the first 2 years after blood sampling for people with elevated levels of the multi-biomarker score was over four times higher than for long-term risk (8.0 [4.1–15.6]). If these hypothesis generating findings on increased susceptibility to severe pneumonia during the first few years after blood sampling extend to severe COVID-19, metabolic biomarker profiling could potentially complement existing tools for identifying individuals at high risk. These results provide novel molecular understanding on how metabolic biomarkers reflect the susceptibility to severe COVID-19 and other infections in the general population.

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients are at high risk of severe COVID-19. We measured 436 circulating proteins in serial blood samples from hospitalised and non-hospitalised ESKD patients with COVID-19 (n = 256 samples from 55 patients). Comparison to 51 non-infected patients revealed 221 differentially expressed proteins, with consistent results in a separate subcohort of 46 COVID-19 patients. Two hundred and three proteins were associated with clinical severity, including IL6, markers of monocyte recruitment (e.g. CCL2, CCL7), neutrophil activation (e.g. proteinase-3), and epithelial injury (e.g. KRT19). Machine-learning identified predictors of severity including IL18BP, CTSD, GDF15, and KRT19. Survival analysis with joint models revealed 69 predictors of death. Longitudinal modelling with linear mixed models uncovered 32 proteins displaying different temporal profiles in severe versus non-severe disease, including integrins and adhesion molecules. These data implicate epithelial damage, innate immune activation, and leucocyte–endothelial interactions in the pathology of severe COVID-19 and provide a resource for identifying drug targets.

Article Figures and data Abstract eLife digest Introduction Results Discussion Materials and methods Data availability References Decision letter Author response Article and author information Metrics Abstract End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients are at high risk of severe COVID-19. We measured 436 circulating proteins in serial blood samples from hospitalised and non-hospitalised ESKD patients with COVID-19 (n = 256 samples from 55 patients). Comparison to 51 non-infected patients revealed 221 differentially expressed proteins, with consistent results in a separate subcohort of 46 COVID-19 patients. Two hundred and three proteins were associated with clinical severity, including IL6, markers of monocyte recruitment (e.g. CCL2, CCL7), neutrophil activation (e.g. proteinase-3), and epithelial injury (e.g. KRT19). Machine-learning identified predictors of severity including IL18BP, CTSD, GDF15, and KRT19. Survival analysis with joint models revealed 69 predictors of death. Longitudinal modelling with linear mixed models uncovered 32 proteins displaying different temporal profiles in severe versus non-severe disease, including integrins and adhesion molecules. These data implicate epithelial damage, innate immune activation, and leucocyte–endothelial interactions in the pathology of severe COVID-19 and provide a resource for identifying drug targets. eLife digest COVID-19 varies from a mild illness in some people to fatal disease in others. Patients with severe disease tend to be older and have underlying medical problems. People with kidney failure have a particularly high risk of developing severe or fatal COVID-19. Patients with severe COVID-19 have high levels of inflammation, causing damage to tissues around the body. Many drugs that target inflammation have already been developed for other diseases. Therefore, to repurpose existing drugs or design new treatments, it is important to determine which proteins drive inflammation in COVID-19. Here, Gisby, Clarke, Medjeral-Thomas et al. measured 436 proteins in the blood of patients with kidney failure and compared the levels between patients who had COVID-19 to those who did not. This revealed that patients with COVID-19 had increased levels of hundreds of proteins involved in inflammation and tissue injury. Using a combination of statistical and machine learning analyses, Gisby et al. probed the data for proteins that might predict a more severe disease progression. In total, over 200 proteins were linked to disease severity, and 69 with increased risk of death. Tracking how levels of blood proteins changed over time revealed further differences between mild and severe disease. Comparing this data with a similar study of COVID-19 in people without kidney failure showed many similarities. This suggests that the findings may apply to COVID-19 patients more generally. Identifying the proteins that are a cause of severe COVID-19 – rather than just correlated with it – is an important next step that could help to select new drugs for severe COVID-19. Introduction Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, displays wide clinical heterogeneity from asymptomatic to fatal disease. Patients with severe disease exhibit marked inflammatory responses and immunopathology. The mechanisms underlying this remain incompletely characterised, and the key molecular mediators are yet to be determined. The first treatment shown to reduce mortality from COVID-19 in randomised trials was dexamethasone (Horby et al., 2020), a corticosteroid that has broad non-specific effects on the immune system. Even with corticosteroid treatment, mortality in severe COVID-19 remains significant. There is a wide armamentarium of existing drugs that target inflammation more selectively, providing potential repurposing opportunities for the treatment of COVID-19. Recently, the REMAP-CAP trial has demonstrated efficacy of anti-IL6 receptor blockade in patients admitted to intensive care units with severe disease (Gordon et al., 2021). In order to select the most promising agents for future trials, we urgently need to better understand the molecular drivers of severe disease. Proteins are the effector molecules of biology and the targets of most drugs. Therefore, proteomic profiling to identify the key mediators of severe disease provides a valuable tool for identifying and prioritising potential drug targets (Suhre et al., 2021). Risk factors for severe or fatal COVID-19 include age, male sex, non-European ancestry, obesity, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and immunosuppression (Williamson et al., 2020). End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is one of the strongest risk factors for severe COVID-19 (estimated hazard ratio for death 3.69) (Williamson et al., 2020), and ESKD patients hospitalised with COVID-19 have a mortality of approximately 30% (Docherty et al., 2020; Corbett et al., 2020; Ng et al., 2020; Valeri et al., 2020). ESKD patients have a high prevalence of vascular and cardiometabolic disease (e.g. hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes), either as a result of the underlying cause of their renal disease or as a consequence of renal failure. In addition, ESKD results in both relative immunosuppression and chronic low-grade inflammation, which may impact viral defence and the host inflammatory response. Here we performed proteomic profiling of serial blood samples of ESKD patients with COVID-19, leveraging the unique opportunity for longitudinal sampling in both the outpatient and inpatient settings afforded by a large multi-ethnic haemodialysis cohort (Figure 1a). These data revealed 221 proteins that are dysregulated in COVID-19 versus matched non-infected ESKD patients. Using linear mixed models, joint models, and machine learning, we identified proteins that are markers of COVID-19 severity and risk of death. Finally, we characterised the temporal dynamics of the blood proteomic response during COVID-19 infection in ESKD patients, uncovering 32 proteins that display altered trajectories in patients with severe versus non-severe disease. Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all Download asset Open asset Study design. (a) Schematic representing a summary of the patient cohorts, sampling, and the major analyses. Blue and red stick figures represent outpatients and hospitalised patients, respectively. (b) Timing of serial blood sampling in relation to clinical course of COVID-19 (subcohort A). Black asterisks indicate when samples were obtained. Three patients were already in hospital prior to COVID-19 diagnosis (indicated by red bars). Results We recruited 55 ESKD patients with COVID-19 (subcohort A; Table 1). All patients were receiving haemodialysis prior to acquiring COVID-19. Blood samples were taken as soon as feasible following COVID-19 diagnosis. At time of initial sample, 30 patients were outpatients attending haemodialysis sessions and 25 were hospitalised inpatients (see Materials and methods, Figure 1). Following the initial blood sample, serial sampling was performed for 51/55 patients. We also recruited 51 non-infected haemodialysis patients as ESKD controls, mirroring the age, sex, and ethnicity distribution of the COVID-19 cases (Figure 1—figure supplement 1a–c). We used the Olink proteomics platform to measure 436 proteins (Supplementary file 1a) in 256 plasma samples from the COVID-19 patients and the 51 control samples. The proteins measured consisted of five multiplex 'panels' focussed on proteins relevant to immuno-inflammation, cardiovascular, and cardiometabolic disease. The 436 proteins assayed showed strong enrichment for immune-related proteins (Supplementary file 1b). Table 1 Characteristics of subcohort A. COVID-19-positive ESKD patients (n = 55)ESKD controls (n = 51) OverallPeak severity mild or moderate (n = 28)Peak severity severe or critical (n = 27)Age Median (IQR)72.2 62.5–77.373.4 65.5–76.468.5 61.8–78.870.1 62.2–75.1Sex M F39 (70.9%) 16 (29.1%)18 (64.3%) 10 (35.7%)21 (77.8%) 6 (22.2%)36 (70.6%) 15 (29.4%)Ethnicity White Black South Asian Asian (other) Other16 (29.1%) 8 (14.5%) 18 (32.7%) 4 (7.3%) 9 (16.4%)5 (17.9%) 5 (17.9%) 10 (35.7%) 1 (3.6%) 7 (25.0%)11 (40.7%) 3 (11.1%) 8 (29.6%) 3 (11.1%) 2 (7.4%)13 (25.5%) 8 (15.7%) 20 (39.2%) 3 (5.9%) 7 (13.7%)Diabetes34 (61.8%)*16 (57.1%)18 (66.7%)24 (47.1%)*Current smoker1 (1.8%)1 (3.6%)00ESKD cause DN Genetic GN HTN/vascular Other Unknown29 (52.7%) 1 (1.8%) 3 (5.5%) 5 (9.1%) 8 (14.5%) 9 (16.4%)14 (50.0%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 3 (10.7%) 5 (17.9%) 4 (14.3%)15 (55.6%) 0 2 (7.4%) 2 (7.4%) 3 (11.1%) 5 (18.5%)20 (39.2%) 1 (2.0%) 9 (17.6%) 7 (13.7%) 4 (7.8%) 10 (19.6%)Hospitalisation due to COVID-19†33 (60%)6 (21.4%)27 (100%)N/AFatal COVID-199 (16.3%)0 (0%)9 (33.3%)N/A DN = diabetic nephropathy. GN = glomerulonephritis. HTN = hypertension. IQR = inter-quartile range. 'South Asian' represents individuals with Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi ancestry. Subsets defined according to peak WHO severity over the course of the illness. N/A = not applicable. *One patient had type 1 diabetes, the remainder type 2. †3 patients were hospitalised prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. 8 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 as outpatients subsequently deteriorated were hospitalised. In addition, we performed the Olink proteomic assays in 52 serum samples from a separate set of 46 COVID-19-positive ESKD patients (subcohort B) and 11 serum samples from ESKD COVID-19-negative controls (a subset of the controls described above). For the large majority of patients in subcohort B, only a single timepoint was available. A higher proportion of these patients (41/46, 89%) were hospitalised and had severe disease (Table 2) than in subcohort A (Figure 1, Table 1). Table 2 Characteristics of subcohort B. COVID-19-positive ESKD patients (n = 46)COVID-19-negative ESKD controls (n = 11)*Age Median (IQR)64.3 60.3–73.071.6 (61.7–73.9)Sex M F32 (69.6%) 14 (30.4%)8 (72.3%) 3 (27.3%)Ethnicity White Black South Asian Asian (other) Other11 (23.9%) 8 (17.4%) 12 (26.1%) 7 (15.2%) 8 (17.4%)3 (27.3%) 3 (27.3%) 3 (27.3%) 0 2 (18.2%)Diabetes29 (63.0%)6 (54.5%)Current smoker2 (4.3%)0 (%)ESKD cause DN Genetic GN HTN/vascular Other Unknown19 (41.3%) 1 (2.2%) 7 (15.2%) 3 (6.5%) 3 (6.5%) 13 (28.3%)5 (45.5%) 0 1 (9.1%) 1 (9.1%) 2 (18.2%) 2 (18.2%)Hospitalisation due to COVID-1941 (89.1%)N/ASevere or critical COVID-1933 (71.7%)N/AFatal COVID-199 (19.6%)N/A DN = diabetic nephropathy. GN = glomerulonephritis. HTN = hypertension. IQR = inter-quartile range. 'South Asian' represents individuals with Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi ancestry. Subsets defined according to peak WHO severity over the course of the illness. N/A = not applicable. *These 11 controls are a subset of the control patients used in subcohort A. Proteomic differences between COVID-19-positive and -negative ESKD patients Principal component analysis (PCA) of proteomic data from subcohort A demonstrated differences between samples from COVID-19-positive cases and controls, although the two groups did not separate into discrete clusters (Figure 2a,b). To examine the effects of COVID-19 on the plasma proteome, we performed a differential expression analysis in subcohort A between COVID-19 cases (n = 256 samples passing quality control [QC] from 55 patients) and non-infected ESKD controls (n = 51) using linear mixed models, which account for serial samples from the same individual (see Materials and methods). This revealed 221 proteins associated with COVID-19 (5% false discovery rate, FDR); the vast majority were upregulated, with only 40 downregulated (Figure 3a, Supplementary file 1c). In order to provide a succinct and standardised nomenclature, we report proteins by the symbols of the genes encoding them (see Supplementary file 1a for a mapping of symbols to full protein names). The most strongly upregulated proteins (in terms of fold change) were DDX58, CCL7, IL6, CXCL11, KRT19, and CXCL10, and the most strongly downregulated were SERPINA5, CCL16, FABP2, PON3, ITGA11, and MMP12 (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). Notably, many of the upregulated proteins were chemotaxins. Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all Download asset Open asset Principal component analysis. PC = principal component. Each point represents a sample. Colouring indicates COVID-19 status. The directions and relative sizes of the six largest PC loadings are plotted as arrows (middle column). (a, b) Subcohort A. Due to serial sampling, there are multiple samples for most patients. The proportion of variance explained in subcohort A by each PC is shown in parentheses on the axis labels. (c, d) Subcohort B. Samples are projected into the PCA coordinates from subcohort A. Figure 3 with 4 supplements see all Download asset Open asset Identification of dysregulated proteins. (a) Proteins upregulated (red) or downregulated (blue) in COVID-19-positive patients versus COVID-19-negative ESKD patients n = 256 plasma samples from 55 COVID-19-positive patients, versus n = 51 ESKD controls (one sample per control patient). (b) Proteins associated with disease severity associations of protein levels against WHO severity score at the time of sampling. Linear gradient indicates the effect size. A positive effect size (red) indicates that an increase in protein level is associated with increasing disease severity and a negative gradient (blue) the opposite. n = 256 plasma samples from 55 COVID-19-positive patients. For (a, b), p-values from linear mixed models after Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment; significance threshold = 5% FDR; dark-grey = non-significant. (c) Heatmap showing protein levels for selected proteins with strong associations with severity. Each column represents a sample (n = 256 COVID-19 samples and 51 non-infected samples). Each row represents a protein. Proteins are annotated using the symbol of their encoding gene. For the purposes of legibility, not all significantly associated proteins are shown; the heatmap is limited to the 17% most up- or downregulated proteins (by effect size) of those with a significant association. Proteins are ordered by hierarchical clustering. Samples are ordered by WHO severity at the time of blood sample ('Severity'). 'Overall course' indicates the peak WHO severity over the course of the illness. We observed that a high proportion of the measured proteins were associated with COVID-19. Given the highly targeted nature of the Olink panels that we used (enriched for immune and inflammation-related proteins), this was not surprising. Nevertheless, to ensure that the Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment of p-values was controlling the FDR at the 5% level, we performed two additional analyses (see Materials and methods). First, we estimated the FDR using an alternative method (the plug-in procedure ; Hastie et al., 2001); this confirmed appropriate FDR control. Second, we used permutation to estimate the distribution of the number of proteins expected to be declared significant under the null hypothesis of no association between any proteins and COVID-19. This showed that the probability of observing the number of differentially abundant proteins we identified was highly unlikely under the null (empirical p<1×10−5; Figure 3—figure supplement 2). Although our COVID-19-negative controls were well matched in terms of age, sex, and ethnicity (Figure 1—figure supplement 1a–c), perfect matching of comorbidities was not feasible in the context of the healthcare emergency at the time of patient recruitment. There was a higher prevalence of diabetes in the COVID-19 cases compared to the controls (61.8% versus 47.1%, respectively; Table 1). To evaluate whether differing rates of diabetes had impacted the proteins identified as differentially abundant between cases and controls, we performed a sensitivity analysis adding diabetes as an additional covariate in the linear mixed model. This did not materially affect our findings; estimated effect sizes and –log10 p-values from models with and without the inclusion of diabetes were highly correlated (Pearson r > 0.99, and r = 0.95, respectively; Figure 3—figure supplement 3a,b). Full results from both models are shown in Supplementary file 1c. Similarly, there were also differences in the underlying cause of ESKD in cases compared to controls (Table 1). We therefore performed a further sensitivity analysis adjusting for underlying cause of renal failure. This did not make any meaningful difference to our results (Figure 3—figure supplement 3c,d, Supplementary file 1c). We also considered the possibility that timing of haemodialysis might affect the plasma proteome. To minimise the impact of this, all samples were taken prior to haemodialysis. For the large majority (86.6%) of samples, the most recent haemodialysis was between 48 and 72 hr prior to blood draw. This consistency in timing of blood sampling reduces the potential for impact of this issue. Nevertheless, to evaluate whether timing of haemodialysis might have impacted our results, we performed a sensitivity analysis including time from last haemodialysis as a covariate. Our results were not materially affected by this, with −log10 p-values and estimated effect sizes very highly correlated with those obtained without inclusion of this covariate (Pearson r > 0.99 for effect size estimates and for −log10 p-values; Figure 3—figure supplement 4a,b, Supplementary file 1c). We used the smaller subcohort B (n = 52 serum samples from 46 patients with COVID-19; see Materials and methods) for validation. We first projected the data from subcohort B into the PCA space of subcohort A to examine how well the separation of cases and controls in the PCA space replicated (see Materials and methods). This revealed clearer separation of infected and non-infected patients than in subcohort A (Figure 2c,d), perhaps reflecting the higher proportion of hospitalised patients (41 of 46 patients) in subcohort B (Table 2). We next performed differential abundance analysis in subcohort B and found 201 proteins that were dysregulated in cases versus controls (5% FDR) (Supplementary file 1c). Of the 221 differentially abundant proteins from subcohort A, 150 (69.7%) were also identified in subcohort B at 5% FDR (Figure 4a). Effect sizes in each dataset showed a strong correlation (r = 0.80, Figure 4b). This demonstrates that our findings are highly reproducible despite differences in sample sizes and blood materials (plasma versus serum in subcohorts A and B, respectively). Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all Download asset Open asset Validation. (a) Overlap between the significant associations in the differential abundance analysis between ESKD patients with and without COVID-19 in subcohorts A and B. 5% FDR was used as the significance threshold in both analyses. (b) Comparison of estimated effect sizes for all 436 proteins in the differential abundance analyses (COVID-19 positive versus negative) in subcohort A and B. Each point represents a protein. Pearson's r is shown. Differential abundance analyses were performed using linear mixed models. Subcohort A analysis (plasma samples): 256 samples from 55 COVID-19 patients versus 51 non-infected patient samples (single time-point). Subcohort B (serum samples): 52 samples from 55 COVID-19 patients and 11 non-infected patient samples (single timepoint). Proteins associated with COVID-19 severity Examination of the principal components plot labelling samples by clinical severity at the time of sampling (defined by WHO severity scores, graded as mild, moderate, severe, or critical) demonstrated a gradient of COVID-19 severity, best captured by principal components 1 and 3 (Figure 2—figure supplement 1a). To determine the proteomic effects of COVID-19 severity, we tested for associations between proteins and WHO severity score at the time of blood sampling, using linear mixed models with severity encoded as an ordinal predictor (see Materials and methods). This analysis revealed 203 proteins associated with severity (Figure 3b, Supplementary file 1d). The majority of these were upregulated in more severe disease, with only 42 downregulated. A sensitivity analysis adjusting for time since last haemodialysis made no significant impact on our results (Figure 3—figure supplement 4c,d, Supplementary file 1d). Consistent with previous reports, we found that severe COVID-19 was characterised by elevated IL6. In addition, we observed a signature of upregulated monocyte chemokines (e.g. CCL2, CCL7, CXCL10), neutrophil activation and degranulation (e.g. PRTN3, MPO), and epithelial injury (e.g. KRT19, AREG, PSIP1, GRN). (Figures 3b,c and 5). SERPINA5 and leptin showed the greatest downregulation as COVID-19 severity increased (Figure 3b,c). Figure 5 Download asset Open asset proteins strongly associated with COVID-19 severity. showing distribution of plasma protein levels according to COVID-19 at the time of blood draw. indicate and inter-quartile range. n = 256 samples from 55 COVID-19 patients and 51 samples from non-infected patients. WHO severity indicates the clinical severity score of the patient at the time the sample was n = moderate n = severe n = critical n = 15 samples. monocyte markers of epithelial injury. two neutrophil and IL6. We next how the COVID-19 severity protein signature to the proteins that are differentially abundant between cases and The majority of proteins were also identified as differentially abundant in the COVID-19-positive versus -negative analysis (Figure fold for proteins in COVID-19 versus non-infected patients were correlated with effect sizes in the severity that the proteins most upregulated in cases versus controls also to the greatest in severe disease (Figure there were some (e.g. that were strongly associated with severity, not differentially expressed in infected versus non-infected patients (Figure Figure 6 Download asset Open asset Comparison of proteins differentially expressed in COVID-19 with those associated with clinical severity. (a) Overlap between the proteins significantly differentially expressed in COVID-19 (n = 256 COVID-19 samples and 51 non-infected versus those associated with severity n = 256 (subcohort A). 5% FDR was used as the significant in both analyses. (b) Comparison of effect sizes for each protein in the COVID-19-positive versus -negative analysis and severity analysis Each point represents a protein. Pearson's r is shown. (c) of proteins associated with severity, not significantly differentially abundant in the of all cases versus showing distribution of plasma protein levels according to COVID-19 at the time of blood draw. indicate and inter-quartile range. n = 256 samples from 55 COVID-19 patients and 51 samples from non-infected patients. WHO severity indicates the clinical severity score of the patient at the time the sample was n = moderate n = severe n = critical n = 15 samples. learning to predict COVID-19 severity PCA revealed that some samples from patients who had mild or moderate disease at the time of sampling with samples from patients with severe disease (Figure 2—figure supplement 1a). Examination of the same PCA plot labelling samples according to the clinical course by peak WHO severity score over the of the (Figure 2—figure supplement revealed that these samples from individuals who subsequently developed severe or critical disease. This that molecular may clinical To evaluate this we used learning to whether the proteomic signature of the first blood sample for each patient in our dataset could identify whether the patient either had severe COVID-19 at the time of sampling or severe disease in the differential expression analyses each protein of all proteins in the Using we a on the first sample for each COVID-19 patient to predict the clinical defined by peak WHO severity. For the purposes of this we clinical course into either WHO or The method in peak severity. using only predictors and clinical the method in peak severity. clinical proteins did not compared to using proteomic predictors that the information in the clinical predictors is captured at the proteomic we not that proteomic profiling is to clinical for risk during this the selected by the proteins of We therefore the to identify key proteins by (see Materials and methods, Supplementary file The most important proteins for the of or future severe disease were IL18BP, GDF15, KRT19, and (Figure is that this as a key of severe disease. Figure 7 with 1 supplement see all Download asset Open asset of severe COVID-19 and death. (a) The 12 most important proteins for clinical course (defined by peak COVID-19 WHO using a is important for it is to in many of and be to the have a The all was used as the (b) Proteins that are significant predictors of death n = 256 samples from 55 COVID-19-positive patients, of Risk estimates are from a joint model. indicate For proteins with a positive risk a higher to a high risk of and for proteins with negative Proteins associated with risk of death of 55 patients in subcohort A We therefore to identify proteins associated with risk of death. To the nature of protein for of we joint models, which linear mixed models and models et al., (see Materials and methods). This analysis identified proteins for which increased was associated with increased risk of death (Figure Supplementary file including and and 25 proteins for which increased was associated with risk of including and with clinical A number of clinical have associations with COVID-19 (e.g. elevated inflammatory and et al., 2020). We therefore compared our proteomic data from COVID-19 patients at each timepoint to clinical using linear mixed models (see Materials and methods). We found associations between plasma proteins and all clinical (Figure Supplementary file Many of these proteins were also markers of severity (e.g. IL6, KRT19, and were strongly associated with and and Of CCL7, a monocyte that was also identified as an important of severity by the was associated with monocyte and inflammatory neutrophil was associated with which IL6, and and with the and Figure 8 Download asset Open asset of clinical markers with plasma proteins. Proteins that are (red) or (blue) associated with clinical (5% p-values from differential abundance analysis using linear mixed models after Benjamini–Hochberg = non-significant. Two associations were found for shown – see Supplementary file Longitudinal analysis proteins with temporal profiles according to severity The immune response to infection is and therefore provide only the serial sampling in our dataset (Figure we the temporal of each protein and whether or not any protein trajectories in patients with a versus clinical This was a

Decision letter: SARS-CoV-2 shedding dynamics across the respiratory tract, sex, and disease severity for adult and pediatric COVID-19

Autoimmune diseases are independently associated with COVID-19 severity: Evidence based on adjusted effect estimates

Efficacy and safety of zapnometinib in hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 (RESPIRE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial

Risk factors associated with the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are unknown. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may modify the risk of developing a severe COVID-19 infection, beside identified risk factors such as age and comorbidities. To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with MS and COVID-19 and identify factors associated with COVID-19 severity. The Covisep registry is a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study conducted in MS expert centers and general hospitals and with neurologists collaborating with MS expert centers and members of the Société Francophone de la Sclérose en Plaques. The study included patients with MS presenting with a confirmed or highly suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and May 21, 2020. COVID-19 diagnosed with a polymerase chain reaction test on a nasopharyngeal swab, thoracic computed tomography, or typical symptoms. The main outcome was COVID-19 severity assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1 [not hospitalized with no limitations on activities] to 7 [death]) with a cutoff at 3 (hospitalized and not requiring supplemental oxygen). We collected demographics, neurological history, Expanded Disability Severity Scale score (EDSS; ranging from 0 to 10, with cutoffs at 3 and 6), comorbidities, COVID-19 characteristics, and outcomes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the association of collected variables with COVID-19 outcomes. A total of 347 patients (mean [SD] age, 44.6 [12.8] years, 249 women; mean [SD] disease duration, 13.5 [10.0] years) were analyzed. Seventy-three patients (21.0%) had a COVID-19 severity score of 3 or more, and 12 patients (3.5%) died of COVID-19. The median EDSS was 2.0 (range, 0-9.5), and 284 patients (81.8%) were receiving DMT. There was a higher proportion of patients with a COVID-19 severity score of 3 or more among patients with no DMT relative to patients receiving DMTs (46.0% vs 15.5%; P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression models determined that age (odds ratio per 10 years: 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4-2.5]), EDSS (OR for EDSS ≥6, 6.3 [95% CI. 2.8-14.4]), and obesity (OR, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.0-8.7]) were independent risk factors for a COVID-19 severity score of 3 or more (indicating hospitalization or higher severity). The EDSS was associated with the highest variability of COVID-19 severe outcome (R2, 0.2), followed by age (R2, 0.06) and obesity (R2, 0.01). In this registry-based cohort study of patients with MS, age, EDSS, and obesity were independent risk factors for severe COVID-19; there was no association found between DMTs exposure and COVID-19 severity. The identification of these risk factors should provide the rationale for an individual strategy regarding clinical management of patients with MS during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Persisting Endothelial Cell Activation and Hypercoagulability after Recovering from COVID-19: The Roadmap-Post COVID-19 Study

COVID-19 vasculitis and novel vasculitis mimics.

Silencing of immune activation with methotrexate in patients with COVID-19

THE CLOT THICKENS: DOES THE JOHNSON & JOHNSON COVID-19 VACCINE INCREASE THE RISK OF THROMBUS IN A HYPERCOAGULABLE STATE?

BackgroundRemdesivir (RDV), a RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, is the only treatment with demonstrated efficacy in shortening the duration of COVID-19. Here we report regional differences in clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV, as part of an open-label, randomized phase-3 trial establishing RDV treatment duration.MethodsHospitalized patients with oxygen saturation ≤94%, a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR in the past 4 days and radiographic evidence of pneumonia were randomized 1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV. We compared d14 clinical outcomes of patients from different geographical areas, as measured by mortality rates, change in clinical status from baseline (BL) on a 7-point ordinal scale and change in O2 requirements from BL. Based on previous analyses in compassionate use data showing region as an important predictor of outcome, Italy was examined separately from other regions.Results397 patients were treated with RDV, of which 229 (58%) were in the US, 77 (19%) Italy, 61 (15% in Spain), 12 (3%) Republic of Korea, 9 (2%) Singapore, 4 (1%) Germany, 4 (1%) Hong Kong and 1 (< 1%) Taiwan. BL clinical status was worse in Italy compared to other regions (72% vs 17% requiring high-flow oxygen delivery or higher), and Italian patients were more likely to be male than patients from other regions (69% vs 63%). Overall results showed 5d RDV was as effective as 10d. Mortality at d14 was higher in Italy (18%) compared to all other countries except Italy (7%). Similarly, clinical improvement at d14, measured as ≥2-point increase in the ordinal scale, was lower in Italian patients (39%) compared to all other countries combined (64%). (Fig.1).Figure 1. Change from Baseline in Clinical Status (measured on a 7-point Ordinal Scale) at d14.ConclusionOverall, our results demonstrate significant geographical differences in the clinical course of severe COVID-19 patients treated with RDV. We observed worse outcomes, such as increased mortality and lower rate of clinical improvement, in patients from Italy compared to other regions.DisclosuresGeorge Diaz, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, Alexa (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Viiv Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Philip A. Robinson, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Anna Maria Cattelan, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Owen Tak-Yin Tsang, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Yao-Shen Chen, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Yao-Shen Chen, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Elena Vendrame, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Christiana Blair, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Bum Sik Chin, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Bum Sik Chin, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Christoph Spinner, MD, AbbVie (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)MSD (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel) Gerard J. Criner, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regeneron (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Gerard J. Criner, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Jose Muñoz, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA David Chien Boon Lye, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

BackgroundHIV-1-related inflammation is associated with increased levels of biomarkers of vascular adhesion and endothelial activation, and may increase production of the inflammatory protein angiopoietin-2 (ANG-2), an adverse prognostic biomarker in severe systemic infection. We hypothesized that antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation would decrease endothelial activation, reducing plasma levels of ANG-2.MethodsAntiretroviral-naïve Kenyan women with advanced HIV infection were followed prospectively. Endothelial activation biomarkers including soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), and E-selectin, and plasma ANG-2 and angiopoietin-1 (ANG-1) were tested in stored plasma samples from 0, 6, and 12 months after ART initiation. We used Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests to compare endothelial activation biomarkers across time-points, generalized estimating equations to analyze associations with change in log10-transformed biomarkers after ART initiation, and Cox proportional-hazards regression to analyze associations with mortality.ResultsThe 102 HIV-1-seropositive women studied had advanced infection (median CD4 count, 124 cells/μL). Soluble ICAM-1 and plasma ANG-2 levels decreased at both time-points after ART initiation, with concomitant increases in the beneficial protein ANG-1. Higher ANG-2 levels after ART initiation were associated with higher plasma HIV-1 RNA, oral contraceptive pill use, pregnancy, severe malnutrition, and tuberculosis. Baseline ANG-2 levels were higher among five women who died after ART initiation than among women who did not (median 2.85 ng/mL [inter-quartile range (IQR) 2.47–5.74 ng/mL] versus median 1.32 ng/mL [IQR 0.35–2.18 ng/mL], p = 0.01). Both soluble ICAM-1 and plasma ANG-2 levels predicted mortality after ART initiation.ConclusionsBiomarkers of endothelial activation decreased after ART initiation in women with advanced HIV-1 infection. Changes in plasma ANG-2 were associated with HIV-1 RNA levels over 12 months of follow-up. Soluble ICAM-1 and plasma ANG-2 levels represent potential biomarkers for adverse outcomes in advanced HIV-1 infection.