Search

We evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir–interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support. We conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely. The intention-to-treat population included 583 participants—lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir–IFN–β-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)—among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54–71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir–IFN–β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45–1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62–1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms. In adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir–IFN–β-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are an effective treatment used in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Despite a well-tolerated safety profile, infectious events appear to be frequent in clinical trials. Real-world data on epidemiology, characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of infections in patients treated with BsAb are still needed. A retrospective, multicentre study in BsAb-treated patients with multiple myeloma was performed in 14 French centres from December 2020 to February 2023. The primary objective was to describe the incidence of infections that required hospitalization, specific treatment, or adaptation in BsAb administration. Among 229 patients with multiple myeloma treated with BsAb, 153 (67%) received teclistamab, 47 (20%) received elranatamab, and 29 (13%) talquetamab. We reported a total of 234 infections, including 123 (53%) of grade of ≥3. Predominant infections affected the respiratory tract (n = 116, 50%) followed by bacteraemias (n = 36, 15%). The hospitalization rate was 56% (n = 131), and 20 (9%) infections resulted in death. Global cumulative incidence of the first infection was 70% in all patients, 73% in patients treated with B-cell maturation antigen-targeting, and 51% with GPRC5D-targeting BsAb. In univariate analyses, corticosteroids for cytokine release syndrome (CRS)/immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were associated with a higher risk of first infection (HR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.38–3.28), whereas GPRC5D-targeting BsAb and anti-bacterial prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk (HR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.3–0.94 and HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.9). Fine and Gray multivariate model found that only corticosteroids for CRS/ICANS were correlated with a higher risk of first infection (HR = 2.01; 95% CI, 1.27–3.19). The implementation of preventive measures that aim to mitigate the risk of infection under BsAb is pivotal, notably in patients who received corticosteroids for CRS/ICANS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 has been extensively characterized in immunocompetent hosts and to a lesser extent in immunocompromised populations. Among the latter, patients treated for B-cell malignancies have immunosuppression generated by B-cell lymphodepletion/aplasia resulting in an increased susceptibility to respiratory virus infections and poor response to vaccination. The consequence is that these patients are likely to develop severe or critical COVID-19. To examine the overall impact of COVID-19 in patients treated for a B-cell malignancy or receiving chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) immunotherapy administered in case of relapsed or refractory disease. We searched in the MEDLINE database to identify relevant studies, trials, reviews, or meta-analyses focusing on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 management in patients treated for a B-cell malignancy or recipients of CAR-T cell therapy up to 8 July 2022. The epidemiology and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with B-cell malignancy and CAR-T cell recipients are summarized. Vaccine efficacy in these subgroups is compiled. Considering the successive surges of variants of concern, we propose a critical appraisal of treatment strategies by discussing the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma therapy, direct-acting antiviral drugs, corticosteroids, and immunomodulators. For patients with B-cell malignancy, preventive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains essential and the management of COVID-19 includes control of viral replication because of protracted SARS-CoV-2 shedding. Passive immunotherapy (monoclonal neutralizing antibody therapy and convalescent plasma therapy) and direct-active antivirals, such as remdesivir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are the best currently available treatments. Real-world data and subgroup analyses in larger trials are warranted to assess COVID-19 therapeutics in B-cell depleted populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To analyse functional outcome parameters according to antimicrobial treatments after respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-confirmed infection in adult lung transplant recipients. A 9-year retrospective multicentre cohort study (2011–19) included adult lung transplant recipients with RSV-confirmed infection. The first endpoint determined new allograft dysfunction (acute graft rejection and chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD)) 3 months after infection. Then baseline and 3 months' postinfection forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1) values were compared according to antimicrobial treatment. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed. RSV infection was confirmed in 77 of 424 lung transplant recipients (estimated incidence of 0.025 per patient per year; 95% confidence interval 0.018–0.036). At 3 months, 22 recipients (28.8%) developed allograft dysfunction: ten (13%) possible CLAD, six (7.9%) acute rejection and six (7.9%) CLAD. Recipients with the lowest preinfection FEV 1 had a greater risk of developing pneumonia (median (interquartile range) 1.5 (1.1–1.9) vs. 2.2 (1.5–2.4) L/s, p 0.003) and a higher odds of receiving antibiotics (1.6 (1.3–2.3) vs. 2.3 (1.9–2.5) L/s, p 0.017; odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.27–0.99). Compared to tracheobronchitis/bronchiolitis, RSV-induced pneumonia led more frequently to hospitalization (91.7%, 22 vs. 58.0%, 29, p 0.003) and intensive care unit admission (33.3%, 8 vs. 0, p < 10-3). For ribavirin-treated recipients (24.7%, 19) and azithromycin prophylaxis (50.6%, 39), 3-month FEV 1 values were not different from untreated recipients. The overall mortality was 2.5% at 1 month and 5.3% at 6 months, unrelated to RSV. At 3 months after RSV-confirmed infection, 22 recipients (28.8%) had new allograft dysfunction. Ribavirin treatment and azithromycin prophylaxis did not prevent FEV 1 decline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]