Search

BACKGROUND: Since November 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created challenges for preventing and managing COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Most research to develop new therapeutic interventions or to repurpose existing ones has been undertaken in adults, and although most cases of infection in pediatric populations are mild, there have been many cases of critical and fatal infection. Understanding the risk factors for severe illness and the evidence for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of therapies for COVID-19 in children is necessary to optimize therapy. METHODS: A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacology, and pediatric intensive care medicine from 21 geographically diverse North American institutions was re-convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys and a systematic review with meta-analysis of data for risk factors, a guidance statement comprising a series of recommendations for risk stratification, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 was developed and refined based on expert consensus. RESULTS: There are identifiable clinical characteristics that enable risk stratification for patients at risk for severe COVID-19. These risk factors can be used to guide the treatment of hospitalized and non-hospitalized children and adolescents with COVID-19 and to guide preventative therapy where options remain available.

BACKGROUND: Following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or vaccination there is significant variability between individuals in protective antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2, and within individuals against different virus variants. However, host demographic or clinical characteristics that predict variability in cross-reactive antibody levels are not well-described. These data could inform clinicians, researchers, and policymakers on the populations most likely to require vaccine booster shots. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved prospective observational cohort study of staff at St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital, we identified participants with plasma samples collected after SARS-CoV-2 infection, after mRNA vaccination, and after vaccination following infection, and quantitated immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to the spike receptor binding domain (RBD) from 5 important SARS-CoV-2 variants (Wuhan Hu-1, B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and B.1.617.2). We used regression models to identify factors that contributed to cross-reactive IgG against 1 or multiple viral variants. RESULTS: Following infection, a minority of the cohort generated cross-reactive antibodies, IgG antibodies that bound all tested variants. Those who did had increased disease severity, poor metabolic health, and were of a particular ancestry. Vaccination increased the levels of cross-reactive IgG levels in all populations, including immunocompromised, elderly, and persons with poor metabolic health. Younger people with a healthy weight mounted the highest responses. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide important new information on individual antibody responses to infection/vaccination that could inform clinicians on populations that may require follow-on immunization.

Individuals considering living kidney donation face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges. Telemedicine can facilitate healthcare access/care coordination. Yet difficulties exist in telemedicine implementation and sustainability. We sought to examine centers practices and providers attitudes toward telemedicine to improve services for donors. We surveyed multidisciplinary providers from 194 active adult US living donor kidney transplant centers; 293 providers from 128 unique centers responded to the survey (center representation rate = 66.0%), reflecting 83.9% of practice by donor volume and 91.5% of US states/territories. Most centers (70.3%) plan to continue using telemedicine beyond the pandemic for donor evaluation/follow-up. Video was mostly used by nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists/psychologists. Telephone and video were mostly used by social workers, while video or telephone was equally used by coordinators. Half of respondent nephrologists and surgeons were willing to accept a remote completion of physical exam; 68.3% of respondent psychiatrists/psychologists and social workers were willing to accept a remote completion of mental status exam. Providers strongly agreed that telemedicine was convenient for donors and would improve the likelihood of completing donor evaluation. However, providers (65.5%) perceived out-of-state licensing as a key policy/regulatory barrier. These findings help inform practice and underscore the instigation of policies to remove barriers using telemedicine to increase living kidney donation.

To understand reinfection rates and correlates of protection for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we established eight different longitudinal cohorts in 2020 under the umbrella of the PARIS (Protection Associated with Rapid Immunity to SARS-CoV-2)/SPARTA (SARS SeroPrevalence And Respiratory Tract Assessment) studies. Here, we describe the PARIS/SPARTA cohorts, the harmonized assays and analysis that are performed across the cohorts, as well as case definitions for SARS-CoV-2 infection and reinfection that have been established by the team of PARIS/SPARTA investigators. IMPORTANCE Determining reinfection rates and correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection induced by both natural infection and vaccination is of high significance for the prevention and control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, understanding reinfections or infection after vaccination and the role immune escape plays in these scenarios will inform the need for updates of the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and help update guidelines suitable for the postpandemic world.

BackgroundStarting in November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for multiple novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, including bamlanivimab monotherapy (now revoked), bamlanivimab and etesivimab, casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), and sotrovimab, for treatment or postexposure prophylaxis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents (≥12 years of age) and adults with certain high-risk conditions. Previous guidance is now updated based on new evidence and clinical experience.MethodsA panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacotherapy, and pediatric critical care medicine from 18 geographically diverse US institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on a review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsThe course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild, though more severe disease is occasionally observed. Evidence supporting risk stratification is incomplete. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific monoclonal antibody therapies in adults, but data on safety and efficacy in children or adolescents are limited. Potential harms associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis are reportedly low in adults.ConclusionsBased on evidence available as of August 31, 2021, the panel suggests a risk-based approach to administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy. Therapy is suggested for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adolescents (≥12 years of age) at the highest risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Therapeutic decision-making about those at moderate risk of severe disease should be individualized. Use as postexposure prophylaxis could be considered for those at the highest risk who have a high-risk exposure but are not yet diagnosed with COVID-19. Clinicians and health systems should ensure safe and timely implementation of these therapeutics that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

Although mRNA vaccine efficacy against severe coronavirus disease 2019 remains high, variant emergence has prompted booster immunizations. However, the effects of repeated exposures to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigens on memory T cells are poorly understood. Here, we utilize major histocompatibility complex multimers with single-cell RNA sequencing to profile SARS-CoV-2-responsive T cells ex vivo from humans with one, two or three antigen exposures, including vaccination, primary infection and breakthrough infection. Exposure order determined the distribution between spike-specific and non-spike-specific responses, with vaccination after infection leading to expansion of spike-specific T cells and differentiation to CCR7-CD45RA+ effectors. In contrast, individuals after breakthrough infection mount vigorous non-spike-specific responses. Analysis of over 4,000 epitope-specific T cell antigen receptor (TCR) sequences demonstrates that all exposures elicit diverse repertoires characterized by shared TCR motifs, confirmed by monoclonal TCR characterization, with no evidence for repertoire narrowing from repeated exposure. Our findings suggest that breakthrough infections diversify the T cell memory repertoire and current vaccination protocols continue to expand and differentiate spike-specific memory.

SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines induce robust anti-spike (S) antibody and CD4+ T cell responses. It is not yet clear whether vaccine-induced follicular helper CD4+ T (TFH) cell responses contribute to this outstanding immunogenicity. Using fine-needle aspiration of draining axillary lymph nodes from individuals who received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, we evaluated the T cell receptor sequences and phenotype of lymph node TFH. Mining of the responding TFH T cell receptor repertoire revealed a strikingly immunodominant HLA-DPB1∗04-restricted response to S167-180 in individuals with this allele, which is among the most common HLA alleles in humans. Paired blood and lymph node specimens show that while circulating S-specific TFH cells peak one week after the second immunization, S-specific TFH persist at nearly constant frequencies for at least six months. Collectively, our results underscore the key role that robust TFH cell responses play in establishing long-term immunity by this efficacious human vaccine.

SARS-CoV-2 infection causes diverse outcomes ranging from asymptomatic infection to respiratory distress and death. A major unresolved question is whether prior immunity to endemic, human common cold coronaviruses (hCCCoVs) impacts susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or immunity following infection and vaccination. Therefore, we analyzed samples from the same individuals before and after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. We found hCCCoV antibody levels increase after SARS-CoV-2 exposure, demonstrating cross-reactivity. However, a case-control study indicates that baseline hCCCoV antibody levels are not associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rather, higher magnitudes of pre-existing betacoronavirus antibodies correlate with more SARS-CoV-2 antibodies following infection, an indicator of greater disease severity. Additionally, immunization with hCCCoV spike proteins before SARS-CoV-2 immunization impedes the generation of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies in mice. Together, these data suggest that pre-existing hCCCoV antibodies hinder SARS-CoV-2 antibody-based immunity following infection and provide insight on how pre-existing coronavirus immunity impacts SARS-CoV-2 infection, which is critical considering emerging variants.

The efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines administered after COVID-19-specific monoclonal antibody is unknown, and "antibody interference" might hinder immune responses leading to vaccine failure. In an institutional review board-approved prospective study, we found that an individual who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccination

BackgroundIn November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, bamlanivimab and REGN-COV2 (casirivimab plus imdevimab), for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents and adults in specified high-risk groups. This has challenged clinicians to determine the best approach to use of these products.MethodsA panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacy, pediatric intensive care medicine, and pediatric hematology from 29 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsThe course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild and there is no high-quality evidence supporting any high-risk groups. There is no evidence for safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, limited evidence of modest benefit in adults, and evidence for potential harm associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis.ConclusionsBased on evidence available as of December 20, 2020, the panel suggests against routine administration of monoclonal antibody therapy (bamlanivimab, or casirivimab and imdevimab), for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, including those designated by the FDA as at high risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Clinicians and health systems choosing to use these agents on an individualized basis should consider risk factors supported by pediatric-specific evidence and ensure the implementation of a system for safe and timely administration that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

BackgroundAlthough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data describing agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children.MethodsA panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsGiven the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children.ConclusionsAntiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir.

BackgroundAlthough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mild in nearly all children, a small proportion of pediatric patients develop severe or critical illness. Guidance is therefore needed regarding use of agents with potential activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pediatrics.MethodsA panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 18 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsGiven the typically mild course of pediatric COVID-19, supportive care alone is suggested for the overwhelming majority of cases. The panel suggests a decision-making framework for antiviral therapy that weighs risks and benefits based on disease severity as indicated by respiratory support needs, with consideration on a case-by-case basis of potential pediatric risk factors for disease progression. If an antiviral is used, the panel suggests remdesivir as the preferred agent. Hydroxychloroquine could be considered for patients who are not candidates for remdesivir or when remdesivir is not available. Antivirals should preferably be used as part of a clinical trial if available.ConclusionsAntiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For those rare cases of severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding antivirals, informed by available data. As evidence continues to evolve rapidly, the need for updates to the guidance is anticipated.

Variability in transplant access exists, but barriers to referral and evaluation are underexplored due to lack of national surveillance data. We examined referral for kidney transplantation evaluation and start of the evaluation among 34 857 incident, adult (18-79 years) end-stage kidney disease patients from 690 dialysis facilities in the United States Renal Data System from January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2016, followed through February 2018 and linked data to referral and evaluation data from nine transplant centers in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Multivariable-adjusted competing risk analysis examined each outcome. The median within-facility cumulative percentage of patients referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis at the 690 dialysis facilities in Network 6 was 33.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 25.3%-43.1%). Only 48.3% of referred patients started the transplant evaluation within 6 months of referral. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with referral vs evaluation start among those referred at any time differed. For example, black, non-Hispanic patients had a higher rate of referral (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.27), but lower evaluation start among those referred (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.98), vs white non-Hispanic patients. Barriers to transplant varied by step, and national surveillance data should be collected on early transplant steps to improve transplant access.

Receptor tyrosine kinase signaling cooperates with WNT/β-catenin signaling in regulating many biological processes, but the mechanisms of their interaction remain poorly defined. We describe a potent activation of WNT/β-catenin by FGFR2, FGFR3, EGFR and TRKA kinases, which is independent of the PI3K/AKT pathway. Instead, this phenotype depends on ERK MAP kinase-mediated phosphorylation of WNT co-receptor LRP6 at Ser1490 and Thr1572 during its Golgi network-based maturation process. This phosphorylation dramatically increases the cellular response to WNT. Moreover, FGFR2, FGFR3, EGFR and TRKA directly phosphorylate β-catenin at Tyr142, which is known to increase cytoplasmic β-catenin concentration via release of β-catenin from membranous cadherin complexes. We conclude that signaling via ERK/LRP6 pathway and direct β-catenin phosphorylation at Tyr142 represent two mechanisms used by various receptor tyrosine kinase systems to activate canonical WNT signaling.