Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND Patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies might be more susceptible to COVID-19. Conversely, an exaggerated inflammatory response to the SARS-CoV-2 infection might be blunted by certain forms of immunosuppression, which could be protective. Indeed, there are data from animal models demonstrating that complement may be a part of the pathophysiology of coronavirus infections. There is also evidence from an autopsy series demonstrating complement deposition in the lungs of patients with COVID-19. This raises the question of whether patients on anti-complement therapy could be protected from COVID-19. CASE REPORT Case 1 is a 39-year-old woman with an approximately 20-year history of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), who had recently been switched from treatment with eculizumab to ravulizumab prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Case 2 is a 54-year-old woman with a cadaveric renal transplant for lupus nephritis, complicated by thrombotic microangiopathy, who was maintained on eculizumab, which she started several months before she developed the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Case 3 is a 60-year-old woman with a 14-year history of PNH, who had been treated with eculizumab since 2012, and was diagnosed with COVID-19 at the time of her scheduled infusion. All 3 patients had a relatively mild course of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS We see no evidence of increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 in these patients on anti-complement therapy, which might actually have accounted for the mild course of infection. The effect of anti-complement therapy on COVID-19 disease needs to be determined in clinical trials.

Background:Recipients of high-dose vs standard-dose influenza vaccines have fewer influenza illnesses. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of high-dose vaccine in preventing postinfluenza deaths during 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, when influenza viruses and vaccines were similar. Methods:We identified Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who received high-dose or standard-dose vaccines in community-located pharmacies offering both vaccines. The primary outcome was death in the 30 days following an inpatient or emergency department encounter listing an influenza International of Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code. Effectiveness was estimated by using multivariate Poisson regression models; effectiveness was allowed to vary by season. Results:We studied 1039645 recipients of high-dose and 1683264 recipients of standard-dose vaccines during 2012-2013, and 1508176 high-dose and 1877327 standard-dose recipients during 2013-2014. Vaccinees were well-balanced for medical conditions and indicators of frail health. Rates of postinfluenza death were 0.028 and 0.038/10000 person-weeks in high-dose and standard-dose recipients, respectively. Comparative effectiveness was 24.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], .6%-42%); there was evidence of variation by season (P = .12). In 2012-2013, high-dose was 36.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-56%) more effective in reducing mortality; in 2013-2014, it was 2.5% (95% CI, -47% to 35%). Conclusions:High-dose vaccine was significantly more effective in preventing postinfluenza deaths in 2012-2013, when A(H3N2) circulation was common, but not in 2013-2014.