Search

Background: Remdesivir is the first antiviral drug against SARS-CoV-2 approved for use in COVID-19 patients.Objectives: To study the pharmacokinetic inter-individual variability of remdesivir and its main metabolite GS-441524 in a real-world setting of COVID-19 inpatients and to identify possible associations with different demographic/biochemical variables.Methods: Inpatients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infections, undergoing standard-dose remdesivir treatment, were prospectively enrolled. Blood samples were collected on day 4, immediately after (C0) and at 1 h (C1) and 24 h (C24) after infusion. Remdesivir and GS-441524 concentrations were measured using a validated UHPLC-MS/MS method and the AUC0-24 was calculated. At baseline, COVID-19 severity (ICU or no ICU), sex, age, BMI and renal and liver functions were assessed. Transaminases and estimated glomerular filtration rate (e-GFR) were also evaluated during treatment. Linear regression, logistic regression and multiple linear regression tests were used for statistical comparisons of pharmacokinetic parameters and variables.Results: Eighty-five patients were included. The mean (CV%) values of remdesivir were: C0 2091 (99.1%) ng/mL, C1 139.7 (272.4%) ng/mL and AUC0-24 2791 (175.7%) ng·h/mL. The mean (CV%) values of GS-441524 were: C0 90.2 (49.5%) ng/mL, C1 104.9 (46.6%) ng/mL, C24 58.4 (66.9) ng/mL and AUC0-24 1976 (52.6%) ng·h/mL. The multiple regression analysis showed that age (P < 0.05) and e-GFR (P < 0.01) were independent predictors of GS-441524 plasma exposure.Conclusions: Our results showed a high interpatient variability of remdesivir and GS-441524 likely due to both age and renal function in COVID-19 inpatients. Further research is required to understand whether the pharmacokinetics of remdesivir and its metabolites may influence drug-related efficacy or toxic effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To better define the immunopathogenesis of COVID-19, the present study aims to characterize the early immune responses to SARSCoV-2 infection in household contacts of COVID-19 cases. In particular, innate, T- and B-cell specific responses were evaluated over time. Methods: Household contacts of COVID-19 cases screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal swab for surveillance purposes were enrolled (T0, n=42). Of these, 28 subjects returned for a follow-up test (T1). The innate response was assessed by detecting a panel of soluble factors by multiplex-technology in plasma samples. Cell-mediated response was evaluated by measuring interferon (IFN)-g levels by ELISA in plasma harvested fromwhole-blood stimulated with SARS -CoV-2 peptide pools, including spike (S), nucleocapsid (N) and membrane (M) proteins. The serological response was assessed by quantifying anti-Receptor-Binding-Domain (RBD), anti-Nucleocapsid (N), whole virus indirect immunofluorescence, and neutralizing antibodies. Results: At T0, higher levels of plasmatic IFN-a, IL-1ra, MCP-1 and IP-10, and lower levels of IL-1b, IL-9, MIP-1b and RANTES were observed in subjects with positive swab compared to individuals with a negative one (p<0.05). Plasmatic IFN-a was the only cytokine detectable in subjects with positive SARS-CoV-2 swabs with high accuracy for swab score positivity (0.93, p<0.0001). Among subjects with positive swabs, significant negative correlations were found among the RT-PCR cycle threshold values reported for genes S and N and IFN-a or IP-10 levels. At T0, the IFN-g T-cell specific response was detected in 50% (5/10) of subjects with positive swab, while anti-RBD/anti-N antibodies showed a positivity rate of 10% (1/10). At T1, the IFN-g T-cell specific response was detected in most of the confirmed-infection subjects (77.8%, 7/9), whereas the serological response was still observed in a minority of them (44.4%, 4/9). Overall, the swab test showed a moderate concordance with the T-cell response (78.6%, k=0.467), and a scarce concordance with the serological one (72.9%, k=0.194). Conclusions: Plasmatic IFN-a and the IFN-g T-cell specific response appear early even in the absence of seroconversion, and show a greater positivity rate than the serological response in household contacts with positive swab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Plasmodium falciparum (P. falciparum) malaria is a significant public health problem in returning travellers, and artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) remains the first choice for treatment. Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the P. falciparum kelch 13 (Pfk13) gene have been associated with artemisinin (ART) resistance. Moreover, the increase in the P. falciparum plasmepsin 2 (Pfpm2) gene copy number was shown to be linked with reduced susceptibility of P. falciparum to piperaquine (PPQ), a partner drug in an ACT regimen. Active molecular surveillance for imported drug-resistant malaria parasites is a pivotal activity to provide adequate chemoprophylaxis and treatment guidelines.Methods: A retrospective study to review imported P. falciparum malaria in patients admitted to Spallanzani Institute between 2014 and 2015 was conducted. Information collected included clinic and epidemiological characteristics such as age, gender, country of origin, time since arrival to our country, travel history. All P.falciparum isolates were analysed for SNPs in the Pfk13 gene and for copy number variations in the Pfpm2 gene.Results: P. falciparum malaria was identified in 54 travellers. The mean age was 37 years, 44 were males. All cases were imported from non-EU countries. In the Pfk13 gene two mutations (R561R and F673L) were detected. Six P. falciparum isolates carried two copies of Pfpm2 gene, and one three copies, representing ≈16% of the analysed isolates.Conclusions: None of the SNPs known to be associated with ART resistance were detected in the examined parasites. Our results provide evidence that Pfpm2 duplications (associated with piperaquine resistance) occur in Africa, emphasizing the necessity to better decode the genetic background associated with PPQ resistance. Further epidemiological investigations in Pfpm2 amplification along with mutations in the Pfk13 gene will be useful for developing and updating anti-malarial guidance in travellers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Remdesivir is a prodrug of the nucleoside analogue GS-441524 and is under evaluation for treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.Objectives: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics of remdesivir and GS-441524 in plasma, bronchoalveolar aspirate (BAS) and CSF in two critically ill COVID-19 patients.Methods: Remdesivir was administered at 200 mg loading dose on the first day followed by 12 days of 100 mg in two critically ill patients. Blood samples were collected immediately after (C0) and at 1 (C1) and 24 h (C24) after intravenous administration on day 3 until day 9. BAS samples were collected on Days 4, 7 and 9 from both patients while one CSF on Day 7 was obtained in one patient. Remdesivir and GS-441524 concentrations were measured in these samples using a validated UHPLC-MS/MS method.Results: We observed higher concentrations of remdesivir at C0 (6- to 7-fold higher than EC50 from in vitro studies) and a notable decay at C1. GS-441524 plasma concentrations reached a peak at C1 and persisted until the next administration. Higher concentrations of GS-441524 were observed in the patient with mild renal dysfunction. Mean BAS/plasma concentration ratios of GS-441524 were 2.3% and 6.4% in Patient 1 and Patient 2, respectively. The CSF concentration found in Patient 2 was 25.7% with respect to plasma. GS-441524 levels in lung and CNS suggest compartmental differences in drug exposure.Conclusions: We report the first pharmacokinetic evaluation of remdesivir and GS-441524 in recovered COVID-19 patients. Further study of the pharmacokinetic profile of remdesivir, GS-441524 and the intracellular triphosphate form are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The pathogenesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. We report the detection of viral RNA from different anatomical districts and the antibody profile in the first 2 COVID-19 cases diagnosed in Italy. Methods We tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA clinical samples, either respiratory and nonrespiratory (ie, saliva, serum, urine, vomit, rectal, ocular, cutaneous, and cervico-vaginal swabs), longitudinally collected from both patients throughout the hospitalization. Serological analysis was carried out on serial serum samples to evaluate IgM, IgA, IgG, and neutralizing antibody levels. Results SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected since the early phase of illness, lasting over 2 weeks in both upper and lower respiratory tract samples. Virus isolate was obtained from acute respiratory samples, while no infectious virus was rescued from late respiratory samples with low viral RNA load, collected when serum antibodies had been developed. Several other specimens came back positive, including saliva, vomit, rectal, cutaneous, cervico-vaginal, and ocular swabs. IgM, IgA, and IgG were detected within the first week of diagnosis, with IgG appearing earlier and at higher titers. Neutralizing antibodies developed during the second week, reaching high titers 32 days after diagnosis. Conclusions Our longitudinal analysis showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in different body samples, which may be associated with broad tropism and different spectra of clinical manifestations and modes of transmission. Profiling antibody response and neutralizing activity can assist in laboratory diagnosis and surveillance actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On January 9 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the identification, by Chinese Health authorities, of a novel coronavirus, further classified as SARS-CoV-2 responsible of a disease (COVID-19) ranging from asymptomatic cases to severe respiratory involvement. On March 9 2020, WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. Italy is the second most affected country by COVID-19 infection after China. The "L. Spallanzani" National Institute for the Infectious Diseases, IRCCS, Rome, Italy, has been the first Italian hospital to admit and manage patients affected by COVID-19. Hereby, we show our recommendations for the management of COVID-19 patients, based on very limited clinical evidences; they should be considered as expert opinions, which may be modified according to newly produced literature data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]