Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Lower respiratory tract infections are frequently treated with antibiotics, despite a viral cause in many cases. It remains unknown whether low procalcitonin concentrations can identify patients with lower respiratory tract infection who are unlikely to benefit from antibiotics. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections in patients with low procalcitonin. METHODS:We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at five health centres in the USA. Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically suspected non-pneumonia lower respiratory tract infection and symptom duration from 24 h to 28 days were eligible for enrolment. Participants with a procalcitonin concentration of 0·25 ng/mL or less were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four with stratification by site, to receive over-encapsulated oral azithromycin 250 mg or matching placebo (two capsules on day 1 followed by one capsule daily for 4 days). Participants, non-study clinical providers, investigators, and study coordinators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was efficacy of azithromycin versus placebo in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in the intention-to-treat population. The non-inferiority margin was -12·5%. Solicited adverse events (abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, allergic reaction, or yeast infections) were recorded as a secondary outcome. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03341273. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between Dec 8, 2017, and March 9, 2020, 691 patients were assessed for eligibility and 499 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive azithromycin (n=249) or placebo (n=250). Clinical improvement at day 5 was observed in 148 (63%, 95% CI 54 to 71) of 238 participants with full data in the placebo group and 155 (69%, 61 to 77) of 227 participants with full data in the azithromycin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference -6%, 95% CI -15 to 2). The 95% CI for the difference did not meet the non-inferiority margin. Solicited adverse events and the severity of solicited adverse events were not significantly different between groups at day 5, except for increased abdominal pain associated with azithromycin (47 [23%, 95% CI 18 to 29] of 204 participants) compared with placebo (35 [16%, 12 to 21] of 221; between-group difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 0]; p=0·066). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Placebo was not non-inferior to azithromycin in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in adults with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. After accounting for both the rates of clinical improvement and solicited adverse events at day 5, it is unclear whether antibiotics are indicated for patients with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, bioMérieux.

Both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination elicit potent immune responses. A number of studies have described immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, beyond antibody production, immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines remain largely uncharacterized. Here, we performed multimodal single-cell sequencing on peripheral blood of patients with acute COVID-19 and healthy volunteers before and after receiving the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine to compare the immune responses elicited by the virus and by this vaccine. Phenotypic and transcriptional profiling of immune cells, coupled with reconstruction of the B and T cell antigen receptor rearrangement of individual lymphocytes, enabled us to characterize and compare the host responses to the virus and to defined viral antigens. While both infection and vaccination induced robust innate and adaptive immune responses, our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects. Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells. Importantly, the divergence in immune subsets engaged, the transcriptional differences in key immune populations, and the differences in maturation of adaptive immune cells revealed by our analysis have far-ranging implications for immunity to this novel pathogen.

Around the world, rollout of COVID-19 vaccines has been used as a strategy to end COVID-19-related restrictions and the pandemic. Several COVID-19 vaccine platforms have successfully protected against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent deaths. Here, we compared humoral and cellular immunity in response to either infection or vaccination. We examined SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific immune responses from Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2, Moderna mRNA-1273, Janssen Ad26.COV2.S, and SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months post-exposure or vaccination. We found that these three vaccines all generate relatively similar immune responses and elicit a stronger response than natural infection. However, antibody responses to recent viral variants are diminished across all groups. The similarity of immune responses from the three vaccines studied here is an important finding in maximizing global protection as vaccination campaigns continue.

OBJECTIVE:To compare "hybrid immunity" (prior COVID-19 infection plus vaccination) and post-vaccination immunity to SARS CoV-2 in MS patients on different disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) and to assess the impact of vaccine product and race/ethnicity on post-vaccination immune responses. METHODS:Consecutive MS patients from NYU MS Care Center (New York, NY), aged 18-60, who completed primary COVID-19 vaccination series ≥6 weeks previously were evaluated for SARS CoV-2-specific antibody responses with electro-chemiluminescence and multiepitope bead-based immunoassays and, in a subset, live virus immunofluorescence-based microneutralization assay. SARS CoV-2-specific cellular responses were assessed with cellular stimulation TruCulture IFNγ and IL-2 assay and, in a subset, with IFNγ and IL-2 ELISpot assays. Multivariate analyses examined associations between immunologic responses and prior COVID-19 infection while controlling for age, sex, DMT at vaccination, time-to-vaccine, and vaccine product. RESULTS:Between 6/01/2021 and 11/11/2021, 370 MS patients were recruited (mean age 40.6 years; 76% female; 53% non-White; 22% with prior infection; common DMT classes: ocrelizumab 40%; natalizumab 15%, sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators 13%; and no DMT 8%). Vaccine-to-collection time was 18.7 (±7.7) weeks and 95% of patients received mRNA vaccines. In multivariate analyses, patients with laboratory-confirmed prior COVID-19 infection had significantly increased antibody and cellular post-vaccination responses compared to those without prior infection. Vaccine product and DMT class were independent predictors of antibody and cellular responses, while race/ethnicity was not. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Prior COVID-19 infection is associated with enhanced antibody and cellular post-vaccine responses independent of DMT class and vaccine type. There were no differences in immune responses across race/ethnic groups.

BACKGROUND:Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS:We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS:Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibits reduced susceptibility to vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, requiring a boost to generate protective immunity. We assess the magnitude and short-term durability of neutralizing antibodies after homologous and heterologous boosting with mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. All prime-boost combinations substantially increase the neutralization titers to Omicron, although the boosted titers decline rapidly within 2 months from the peak response compared with boosted titers against the prototypic D614G variant. Boosted Omicron neutralization titers are substantially higher for homologous mRNA vaccine boosting, and for heterologous mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine boosting, compared with homologous Ad26.COV2.S boosting. Homologous mRNA vaccine boosting generates nearly equivalent neutralizing activity against Omicron sublineages BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3 but modestly reduced neutralizing activity against BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 compared with BA.1. These results have implications for boosting requirements to protect against Omicron and future variants of SARS-CoV-2. This trial was conducted under ClincalTrials.gov: NCT04889209.

BACKGROUND:Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS:In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Autoantibody seroconversion has been extensively studied in the context of COVID-19 infection but data regarding post-vaccination autoantibody production is lacking. Here we aimed to determine the incidence of common autoantibody formation following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and in healthy controls. METHODS:Autoantibody seroconversion was measured by serum ELISA in a longitudinal cohort of IA participants and healthy controls before and after COVID-19 mRNA-based immunization. RESULTS:Overall, there was a significantly lower incidence of ANA seroconversion in participants who did not contract COVID-19 prior to vaccination compared with those who been previously infected (7.4% vs 24.1%, p= 0.014). Incidence of de novo anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (CCP) seroconversion in all participants was low at 4.9%. Autoantibody levels were typically of low titer, transient, and not associated with increase in IA flares. CONCLUSIONS:In both health and inflammatory arthritis, the risk of autoantibody seroconversion is lower following mRNA-based immunization than following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Importantly, seroconversion does not correlate with self-reported IA disease flare risk, further supporting the encouragement of mRNA-based COVID-19 immunization in the IA population.

BACKGROUND:SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently authorized for emergency use have been highly successful in preventing infection and lessening disease severity. The vaccines maintain effectiveness against earlier SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern but the heavily mutated, highly transmissible Omicron variant presents an obstacle both to vaccine protection and monoclonal antibody therapies. METHODS:Pseudotyped lentiviruses were incubated with serum from vaccinated and boosted donors or therapeutic monoclonal antibody and then applied to target cells. After 2 days, luciferase activity was measured in a microplate luminometer. Resistance mutations of the Omicron spike were identified using point-mutated spike protein pseudotypes and mapped onto the three-dimensional spike protein structure. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Virus with the Omicron spike protein was 26-fold resistant to neutralization by recovered donor sera and 26-34-fold resistance to Pfizer BNT162b2 and Moderna vaccine-elicited antibodies following two immunizations. A booster immunization increased neutralizing titres against Omicron. Neutralizing titres against Omicron were increased in the sera with a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Analysis of the therapeutic monoclonal antibodies showed that the Regeneron and Eli Lilly monoclonal antibodies were ineffective against the Omicron pseudotype while Sotrovimab and Evusheld were partially effective. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:The results highlight the benefit of a booster immunization to protect against the Omicron variant and demonstrate the challenge to monoclonal antibody therapy. The decrease in neutralizing titres against Omicron suggest that much of the vaccine efficacy may rely on T cells. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:The work was funded by grants from the NIH to N.R.L. (DA046100, AI122390 and AI120898) and 55 to M.J.M. (UM1AI148574).