Search

Background: PKA, a key regulator of cell signaling, phosphorylates a diverse and important array of target molecules and is spatially docked to members of the A-kinase Anchoring Protein (AKAP) family. AKAR2 is a biosensor which yields a FRET signal in vivo, when phosphorylated by PKA. AKAP5, a prominent member of the AKAP family, docks several signaling molecules including PKA, PDE4D, as well as GPCRs, and is obligate for the propagation of the activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade from GPCRs to ERK1,2. Results: Using an AKAR2-AKAP5 fusion "biosensor", we investigated the spatial-temporal activation of AKAP5 undergoing phosphorylation by PKA in response to β-adrenergic stimulation. The pattern of PKA activation reported by AKAR2-AKAP5 is a more rapid and spatially distinct from those "sensed" by AKAR2-AKAP12. Spatial-temporal restriction of activated PKA by AKAP5 was found to "shape" the signaling response. Phosphatase PDE4D tethered to AKAP5 also later reverses within 60 s elevated intracellular cyclic AMP levels stimulated by β-adrenergic agonist. AKAP12, however, fails to attenuate the rise in cyclic AMP over this time. Fusion of the AKAP5 PDE4D-binding-domain to AKAP12 was found to accelerate a reversal of accumulation of intracellular cyclic AMP. Conclusion: AKAPs, which are scaffolds with tethered enzymes, can "shape" the temporal and spatial aspects of cell signaling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study that compared P wave duration and P wave dispersion differences in patients with anxiety disorders and depression since they develop abnormal electrocardiograms. P wave parameters provide general information on central cardiovascular autonomic regulatory responses that are altered by anxiety and depression. The study results showed maximum and minimum P wave duration were greater in patients with psychiatric disorders than in the healthy group. However, P wave dispersion was similar between anxiety and healthy patients.

Background: Serial measurement of virological and immunological biomarkers in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can give valuable insight into the pathogenic roles of viral replication and immune dysregulation. We aimed to characterise biomarker trajectories and their associations with clinical outcomes., Methods: In this international, prospective cohort study, patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 platform trial within the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines programme between Aug 5, 2020 and Sept 30, 2021 were included. Participants were included from 108 sites in Denmark, Greece, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Uganda, the UK, and the USA, and randomised to placebo or one of four neutralising monoclonal antibodies: bamlanivimab (Aug 5 to Oct 13, 2020), sotrovimab (Dec 16, 2020, to March 1, 2021), amubarvimab-romlusevimab (Dec 16, 2020, to March 1, 2021), and tixagevimab-cilgavimab (Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021). This trial included an analysis of 2149 participants with plasma nucleocapsid antigen, anti-nucleocapsid antibody, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-6, and D-dimer measured at baseline and day 1, day 3, and day 5 of enrolment. Day-90 follow-up status was available for 1790 participants. Biomarker trajectories were evaluated for associations with baseline characteristics, a 7-day pulmonary ordinal outcome, 90-day mortality, and 90-day rate of sustained recovery., Findings: The study included 2149 participants. Participant median age was 57 years (IQR 46-68), 1246 (58·0%) of 2149 participants were male and 903 (42·0%) were female; 1792 (83·4%) had at least one comorbidity, and 1764 (82·1%) were unvaccinated. Mortality to day 90 was 172 (8·0%) of 2149 and 189 (8·8%) participants had sustained recovery. A pattern of less favourable trajectories of low anti-nucleocapsid antibody, high plasma nucleocapsid antigen, and high inflammatory markers over the first 5 days was observed for high-risk baseline clinical characteristics or factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. For example, participants with chronic kidney disease demonstrated plasma nucleocapsid antigen 424% higher (95% CI 319-559), CRP 174% higher (150-202), IL-6 173% higher (144-208), D-dimer 149% higher (134-165), and anti-nucleocapsid antibody 39% lower (60-18) to day 5 than those without chronic kidney disease. Participants in the highest quartile for plasma nucleocapsid antigen, CRP, and IL-6 at baseline and day 5 had worse clinical outcomes, including 90-day all-cause mortality (plasma nucleocapsid antigen hazard ratio (HR) 4·50 (95% CI 3·29-6·15), CRP HR 3·37 (2·30-4·94), and IL-6 HR 5·67 (4·12-7·80). This risk persisted for plasma nucleocapsid antigen and CRP after adjustment for baseline biomarker values and other baseline factors., Interpretation: Patients admitted to hospital with less favourable 5-day biomarker trajectories had worse prognosis, suggesting that persistent viral burden might drive inflammation in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, identifying patients that might benefit from escalation of antiviral or anti-inflammatory treatment., Funding: US National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ALG reports receiving institutional funding from Novavax, institutional partnership with AstraZeneca, and being personally named as inventor on a patent used by AstraZeneca. DDM reports receiving grants from the Danish National Research Foundation. DL reports participation in a study funded by Gilead with no salary support. EM reports payments to his institution received from SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Chemic Labs and KODA Therapeutics, and Cidara, and payment for participating in an advisory board for Basilea. KW reports honorarium for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) International Conference in 2023, and travel support from University of California San Francisco. MAM reports institutional funding by the US Department of Defence, Roche-Genetech, and Quantum Health, and personal consulting fees from Gilead, Novartis, and Johnson & Johnson. MKJ reports grants received from Regeneron, Laurent, and Gilead, honoraria from Gilead, and a leadership role with the HIV Medicine Association Board of Directors. PC reports consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Regeneron. All other authors declare no competing interests. All authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (nmAbs) failed to show clear benefit for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Dynamics of virologic and immunologic biomarkers remain poorly understood., Methods: Participants enrolled in the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 trials were randomized to nmAb versus placebo. Longitudinal differences between treatment and placebo groups in levels of plasma nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag), anti-nucleocapsid antibody, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and D-dimer at enrollment, day 1, 3, and 5 were estimated using linear mixed models. A 7-point pulmonary ordinal scale assessed at day 5 was compared using proportional odds models., Results: Analysis included 2149 participants enrolled between August 2020 and September 2021. Treatment resulted in 20% lower levels of plasma N-Ag compared with placebo (95% confidence interval, 12%-27%; P < .001), and a steeper rate of decline through the first 5 days (P < .001). The treatment difference did not vary between subgroups, and no difference was observed in trajectories of other biomarkers or the day 5 pulmonary ordinal scale., Conclusions: Our study suggests that nmAb has an antiviral effect assessed by plasma N-Ag among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with no blunting of the endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response. No effect on systemic inflammation or day 5 clinical status was observed., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04501978., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. A. L. G. reports receiving institutional funding from Novavax, insititutaional partnership with Astra Zeneca, and reports being personally named as inventor on a patent used by Astra Zeneca. D. D. M. reports receiving grant from the Danish National research Foundation. E. M. reports payments to his institution received from SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Chemic Labs/KODA Therapeutics, Cidara, and Leidos Biomedical Research Inc; E. M. also reports being on an advisory board for Basilea. K. W. reports receiving a honorarium for international ARDS conference and travel support from UCSF. M. A. reports a grant from NINDS. M. A. M. reports institutional grants from NHLBI/NIAID, the department of defence, California Institute of Regeneration, Roche-Genentech, and Quantum Health. M. A. M. has also received personal consulting fees from Novartis, Pliant Therapeutics, Johnson and Johnson, Gilead, and Citius Pharmaceuticals. M. K. J. reports institutional grants from Gilead, Laurent, and Regeneron; personal consulting fees from Gilead; and personal honoraria from Cooper Clinic. S. T. is funded by grants from the Australian Medical Foundation and New South Wales Health. The remaining authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Diagnostic limitations challenge management of clinically indistinguishable acute infectious illness globally. Gene expression classification models show great promise distinguishing causes of fever. We generated transcriptional data for a 294-participant (USA, Sri Lanka) discovery cohort with adjudicated viral or bacterial infections of diverse etiology or non-infectious disease mimics. We then derived and cross-validated gene expression classifiers including: 1) a single model to distinguish bacterial vs. viral (Global Fever-Bacterial/Viral [GF-B/V]) and 2) a two-model system to discriminate bacterial and viral in the context of noninfection (Global Fever-Bacterial/Viral/Non-infectious [GF-B/V/N]). We then translated to a multiplex RT-PCR assay and independent validation involved 101 participants (USA, Sri Lanka, Australia, Cambodia, Tanzania). The GF-B/V model discriminated bacterial from viral infection in the discovery cohort an area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) of 0.93. Validation in an independent cohort demonstrated the GF-B/V model had an AUROC of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.90) with overall accuracy of 81.6% (95% CI 72.7-88.5). Performance did not vary with age, demographics, or site. Host transcriptional response diagnostics distinguish bacterial and viral illness across global sites with diverse endemic pathogens., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19., Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021., Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale., Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies., Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Objectives: Sepsis causes significant mortality. However, most patients who die of sepsis do not present with severe infection, hampering efforts to deliver early, aggressive therapy. It is also known that the host gene expression response to infection precedes clinical illness. This study seeks to develop transcriptomic models to predict progression to sepsis or shock within 72 hours of hospitalization and to validate previously identified transcriptomic signatures in the prediction of 28-day mortality., Design: Retrospective differential gene expression analysis and predictive modeling using RNA sequencing data., Patients: Two hundred seventy-seven patients enrolled at four large academic medical centers; all with clinically adjudicated infection were considered for inclusion in this study., Measurements and Main Results: Sepsis progression was defined as an increase in Sepsis 3 category within 72 hours. Transcriptomic data were generated using RNAseq of whole blood. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator modeling was used to identify predictive signatures for various measures of disease progression. Four previously identified gene signatures were tested for their ability to predict 28-day mortality. There were no significant differentially expressed genes in 136 subjects with worsened Sepsis 3 category compared with 141 nonprogressor controls. There were 1,178 differentially expressed genes identified when sepsis progression was defined as ICU admission or 28-day mortality. A model based on these genes predicted progression with an area under the curve of 0.71. Validation of previously identified gene signatures to predict sepsis mortality revealed area under the receiver operating characteristic values of 0.70-0.75 and no significant difference between signatures., Conclusions: Host gene expression was unable to predict sepsis progression when defined by an increase in Sepsis-3 category, suggesting this definition is not a useful framework for transcriptomic prediction methods. However, there was a differential response when progression was defined as ICU admission or death. Validation of previously described signatures predicted 28-day mortality with insufficient accuracy to offer meaningful clinical utility., Competing Interests: Dr. Fiorino’s institution received funding from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (N6600109-C2082) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (UM1AI104681); she received funding from the Eugene A. Stead Scholarship, Duke University School of Medicine. Drs. Fiorino, Burke, McClain, Woods, and Tsalik received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Burke’s institution received funding from DARPA and NIAID. Drs. Burke, Ginsburg, Woods, and Tsalik received funding from Biomeme. Dr. McClain’s institution received funding from the NIH. Dr. Woods’ institution received funding from Janssen; he received funding from IDbyDNA, Vavarian, Nordic, Roche, Molecular Karius, Sanofi, the American Society of Microbiology, and FHI360Clinical. Drs. Henao, Ginsburg, Woods, and Tsalik have filed a patent for a Gene Expression Signatures Useful to Predict or Diagnose Sepsis and Methods of Using the Same. Dr. Tsalik’s institution received funding from Predigen; he received funding from Predigen. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

During pandemics, individuals exhibit differences in risk and clinical outcomes. Here, we developed single-cell high-throughput human in vitro susceptibility testing (scHi-HOST), a method for rapidly identifying genetic variants that confer resistance and susceptibility. We applied this method to influenza A virus (IAV), the cause of four pandemics since the start of the 20 th century. scHi-HOST leverages single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) to simultaneously assign genetic identity to cells in mixed infections of cell lines of European, African, and Asian origin, reveal associated genetic variants for viral burden, and identify expression quantitative trait loci. Integration of scHi-HOST with human challenge and experimental validation demonstrated that a missense variant in endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 1 ( ERAP1 ; rs27895) increased IAV burden in cells and human volunteers. rs27895 exhibits population differentiation, likely contributing to greater permissivity of cells from African populations to IAV. scHi-HOST is a broadly applicable method and resource for decoding infectious-disease genetics., Competing Interests: DECLARATION OF INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests.

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: 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: 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: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers profound and variable immune responses in human hosts. Chromatin remodeling has been observed in individuals severely ill or convalescing with COVID-19, but chromatin remodeling early in disease prior to anti-spike protein IgG seroconversion has not been defined. We performed the Assay for Transposase-Accessible Chromatin using sequencing (ATAC-seq) and RNA-seq on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from outpatients with mild or moderate symptom severity at different stages of clinical illness. Early in the disease course prior to IgG seroconversion, modifications in chromatin accessibility associated with mild or moderate symptoms were already robust and included severity-associated changes in accessibility of genes in interleukin signaling, regulation of cell differentiation and cell morphology. Furthermore, single-cell analyses revealed evolution of the chromatin accessibility landscape and transcription factor motif accessibility for individual PBMC cell types over time. The most extensive remodeling occurred in CD14+ monocytes, where sub-populations with distinct chromatin accessibility profiles were observed prior to seroconversion. Mild symptom severity was marked by upregulation of classical antiviral pathways, including those regulating IRF1 and IRF7, whereas in moderate disease, these classical antiviral signals diminished, suggesting dysregulated and less effective responses. Together, these observations offer novel insight into the epigenome of early mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and suggest that detection of chromatin remodeling in early disease may offer promise for a new class of diagnostic tools for COVID-19., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Importance: Bacterial and viral causes of acute respiratory illness (ARI) are difficult to clinically distinguish, resulting in the inappropriate use of antibacterial therapy. The use of a host gene expression-based test that is able to discriminate bacterial from viral infection in less than 1 hour may improve care and antimicrobial stewardship., Objective: To validate the host response bacterial/viral (HR-B/V) test and assess its ability to accurately differentiate bacterial from viral infection among patients with ARI., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolled 755 children and adults with febrile ARI of 7 or fewer days' duration from 10 US emergency departments. Participants were enrolled from October 3, 2014, to September 1, 2019, followed by additional enrollment of patients with COVID-19 from March 20 to December 3, 2020. Clinical adjudication of enrolled participants identified 616 individuals as having bacterial or viral infection. The primary analysis cohort included 334 participants with high-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator concordance and the presence of an identified pathogen confirmed by microbiological testing). A secondary analysis of the entire cohort of 616 participants included cases with low-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator discordance or the absence of an identified pathogen in microbiological testing). Thirty-three participants with COVID-19 were included post hoc., Interventions: The HR-B/V test quantified the expression of 45 host messenger RNAs in approximately 45 minutes to derive a probability of bacterial infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance characteristics for the HR-B/V test compared with clinical adjudication were reported as either bacterial or viral infection or categorized into 4 likelihood groups (viral very likely [probability score <0.19], viral likely [probability score of 0.19-0.40], bacterial likely [probability score of 0.41-0.73], and bacterial very likely [probability score >0.73]) and compared with procalcitonin measurement., Results: Among 755 enrolled participants, the median age was 26 years (IQR, 16-52 years); 360 participants (47.7%) were female, and 395 (52.3%) were male. A total of 13 participants (1.7%) were American Indian, 13 (1.7%) were Asian, 368 (48.7%) were Black, 131 (17.4%) were Hispanic, 3 (0.4%) were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 297 (39.3%) were White, and 60 (7.9%) were of unspecified race and/or ethnicity. In the primary analysis involving 334 participants, the HR-B/V test had sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI, 77.8%-96.2%), specificity of 82.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-86.6%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.3%-99.1%) for bacterial infection. In comparison, the sensitivity of procalcitonin measurement was 28.6% (95% CI, 16.2%-40.9%; P < .001), the specificity was 87.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-90.7%; P = .006), and the NPV was 87.6% (95% CI, 85.5%-89.5%; P < .001). When stratified into likelihood groups, the HR-B/V test had an NPV of 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1%-100%) for bacterial infection in the viral very likely group and a positive predictive value of 63.4% (95% CI, 47.2%-77.9%) for bacterial infection in the bacterial very likely group. The HR-B/V test correctly identified 30 of 33 participants (90.9%) with acute COVID-19 as having a viral infection., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the HR-B/V test accurately discriminated bacterial from viral infection among patients with febrile ARI and was superior to procalcitonin measurement. The findings suggest that an accurate point-of-need host response test with high NPV may offer an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and patient outcomes.

Background: Measuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another., Methods: This systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies., Results: Signature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets., Conclusions: In this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Compare three host response strategies to distinguish bacterial and viral etiologies of acute respiratory illness (ARI)., Methods: In this observational cohort study, procalcitonin, a 3-protein panel (CRP, IP-10, TRAIL), and a host gene expression mRNA panel were measured in 286 subjects with ARI from four emergency departments. Multinomial logistic regression and leave-one-out cross validation were used to evaluate the protein and mRNA tests., Results: The mRNA panel performed better than alternative strategies to identify bacterial infection: AUC 0.93 vs. 0.83 for the protein panel and 0.84 for procalcitonin (P<0.02 for each comparison). This corresponded to a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 83% for the mRNA panel, 81% and 73% for the protein panel, and 68% and 87% for procalcitonin, respectively. A model utilizing all three strategies was the same as mRNA alone. For the diagnosis of viral infection, the AUC was 0.93 for mRNA and 0.84 for the protein panel (p<0.05). This corresponded to a sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 82% for the mRNA panel, and 85% and 62% for the protein panel, respectively., Conclusions: A gene expression signature was the most accurate host response strategy for classifying subjects with bacterial, viral, or non-infectious ARI., Competing Interests: ELT, RH, MTM, GSG, TWB, and CWW have filed for a patent for Methods to Diagnose and Treat Acute Respiratory Infections (WO 2017/004390 A1).

Background: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19., Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475., Findings: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group., Interpretation: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo., Funding: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Difficulty discriminating bacterial from viral infections drives antibacterial misuse. Host gene expression tests discriminate bacterial and viral etiologies, but their clinical utility has not been evaluated., Methods: Host gene expression and procalcitonin levels were measured in 582 emergency department participants with suspected infection. We also recorded clinician diagnosis and clinician-recommended treatment. These 4 diagnostic strategies were compared with clinical adjudication as the reference. To estimate the clinical impact of host gene expression, we calculated the change in overall Net Benefit (∆NB; the difference in Net Benefit comparing 1 diagnostic strategy with a reference) across a range of prevalence estimates while factoring in the clinical significance of false-positive and -negative errors., Results: Gene expression correctly classified bacterial, viral, or noninfectious illness in 74.1% of subjects, similar to the other strategies. Clinical diagnosis and clinician-recommended treatment revealed a bias toward overdiagnosis of bacterial infection resulting in high sensitivity (92.6% and 94.5%, respectively) but poor specificity (67.2% and 58.8%, respectively), resulting in a 33.3% rate of inappropriate antibacterial use. Gene expression offered a more balanced sensitivity (79.0%) and specificity (80.7%), which corresponded to a statistically significant improvement in average weighted accuracy (79.9% vs 71.5% for procalcitonin and 76.3% for clinician-recommended treatment; P <.0001 for both). Consequently, host gene expression had greater Net Benefit in diagnosing bacterial infection than clinician-recommended treatment (∆NB=6.4%) and procalcitonin (∆NB=17.4%)., Conclusions: Host gene expression-based tests to distinguish bacterial and viral infection can facilitate appropriate treatment, improving patient outcomes and mitigating the antibacterial resistance crisis., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Viruses cause a wide spectrum of clinical disease, the majority being acute respiratory infections (ARI). In most cases, ARI symptoms are similar for different viruses although severity can be variable. The objective of this study was to understand the shared and unique elements of the host transcriptional response to different viral pathogens. We identified 162 subjects in the US and Sri Lanka with infections due to influenza, enterovirus/rhinovirus, human metapneumovirus, dengue virus, cytomegalovirus, Epstein Barr Virus, or adenovirus. Our dataset allowed us to identify common pathways at the molecular level as well as virus-specific differences in the host immune response. Conserved elements of the host response to these viral infections highlighted the importance of interferon pathway activation. However, the magnitude of the responses varied between pathogens. We also identified virus-specific responses to influenza, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and dengue infections. Influenza-specific differentially expressed genes (DEG) revealed up-regulation of pathways related to viral defense and down-regulation of pathways related to T cell and neutrophil responses. Functional analysis of entero/rhinovirus-specific DEGs revealed up-regulation of pathways for neutrophil activation, negative regulation of immune response, and p38MAPK cascade and down-regulation of virus defenses and complement activation. Functional analysis of dengue-specific up-regulated DEGs showed enrichment of pathways for DNA replication and cell division whereas down-regulated DEGs were mainly associated with erythrocyte and myeloid cell homeostasis, reactive oxygen and peroxide metabolic processes. In conclusion, our study will contribute to a better understanding of molecular mechanisms to viral infections in humans and the identification of biomarkers to distinguish different types of viral infections., Competing Interests: ELT, GSG, CWW, and TWB consult for and hold equity in Biomeme, Inc. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Tsalik, Fiorino, Aqeel, Liu, Henao, Ko, Burke, Reller, Bodinayake, Nagahawatte, Arachchi, Devasiri, Kurukulasooriya, McClain, Woods, Ginsburg, Tillekeratne and Schughart.)

While benefits of prone position in mechanically-ventilated patients have been well-described, a randomized-control trial to determine the effects of prone positioning in awake, spontaneously-breathing patients with an acute pneumonia has not been previously conducted. Prone Position and Respiratory Outcomes in Non-Intubated COVID-19 PatiEnts: the "PRONE" Study (PRONE) was conducted in non-intubated hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia as defined by respiratory rate ≥ 20/min or an oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO 2 ) ≤ 93% without supplemental oxygen [1]. The PRONE trial was designed to investigate the effects of prone positioning on need for escalation in respiratory support, as defined by need for transition to a higher acuity level of care, increased fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ), or the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary objectives were to assess the duration of effect of prone positioning on respiratory parameters such as respiratory rate and SpO 2 , as well as other outcomes such as time to discharge or transition in level of care., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Host gene expression signatures discriminate bacterial and viral infection but have not been translated to a clinical test platform. This study enrolled an independent cohort of patients to describe and validate a first-in-class host response bacterial/viral test., Design: Subjects were recruited from 2006 to 2016. Enrollment blood samples were collected in an RNA preservative and banked for later testing. The reference standard was an expert panel clinical adjudication, which was blinded to gene expression and procalcitonin results., Setting: Four U.S. emergency departments., Patients: Six-hundred twenty-three subjects with acute respiratory illness or suspected sepsis., Interventions: Forty-five-transcript signature measured on the BioFire FilmArray System (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT) in ~45 minutes., Measurements and Main Results: Host response bacterial/viral test performance characteristics were evaluated in 623 participants (mean age 46 yr; 45% male) with bacterial infection, viral infection, coinfection, or noninfectious illness. Performance of the host response bacterial/viral test was compared with procalcitonin. The test provided independent probabilities of bacterial and viral infection in ~45 minutes. In the 213-subject training cohort, the host response bacterial/viral test had an area under the curve for bacterial infection of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95) for viral infection. Independent validation in 209 subjects revealed similar performance with an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90) for bacterial infection and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94) for viral infection. The test had 80.1% (95% CI, 73.7-85.4%) average weighted accuracy for bacterial infection and 86.8% (95% CI, 81.8-90.8%) for viral infection in this validation cohort. This was significantly better than 68.7% (95% CI, 62.4-75.4%) observed for procalcitonin (p < 0.001). An additional cohort of 201 subjects with indeterminate phenotypes (coinfection or microbiology-negative infections) revealed similar performance., Conclusions: The host response bacterial/viral measured using the BioFire System rapidly and accurately discriminated bacterial and viral infection better than procalcitonin, which can help support more appropriate antibiotic use., Competing Interests: Dr. Tsalik received in-kind support from BioFire Diagnostics by way of consumables and test instruments; received funding from Predigen, Inc.. BioFire, Inc. provided in-kind support for test development reagents used in this study. Drs. Tsalik, Henao, McClain, Ginsburg, Burke, and Woods disclosed filing for a patent pertaining to the signatures discussed in this study (WO 2017/004390 A1). Dr. Montgomery was an employee of BioFire Diagnostics, LLC. Dr. Nawrocki disclosed he has shares in BioMérieux. Dr. Lydon was supported by the Eugene A. Stead Scholarship from Duke University School of Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Medical Scholars Program. Drs. Tsalik, Ginsburg, and Woods disclosed that they are cofounders of Predigen, Inc. Drs. Tsalik, Ko, Petzold, Cairns, Kingsmore, Fowler, Ginsburg, Burke, and Woods received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Drs. Nawrocki and Hemmert received funding from BioFire Diagnostics, LLC.; and disclosed that they are employees of BioFire Diagnostics, LLC. Dr. Cairns is a consultant for BioMérieux, Inc. Dr. Ko’s institution received funding from the Antibiotic Resistance Leadership Group; disclosed the off-label product use of diagnostic tests. Dr. Petzold received support for article research from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) U01AI066569 and UM1AI104681 U.S. DARPA contract—N66001-09-C2082). Dr. Cairns’ institution received funding from the NIH (NIAID) and the DARPA; and received funding from BioMérieux. Dr. Kingsmore’s institution received funding from the NIH. Dr. Fowler received funding from the NIH, MedImmune, Allergan, Pfizer, Advanced Liquid Logics, Theravance, Novartis, Merck; Medical Biosurfaces; Locus; Affinergy; Contrafect; Karius; Genentech, Regeneron, Basilea, and Janssen; received funding from Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, Basilea, Integrated Biotherapeutics; C3J, Armata, Valanbio; Akagera, Aridis, Novartis, Novadigm, Durata, Debiopharm, Genentech, Achaogen, Affinium, Medicines Co., Cerexa, Tetraphase, Trius, MedImmune, Bayer, Theravance, Basilea, Affinergy, Janssen, xBiotech, Contrafect, Regeneron, Destiny, UpToDate; Stock options Valanbio; a patent for sepsis diagnosis (US9850539B2). Dr. McClain disclosed he has patents pending on diagnostic signatures for respiratory infections. Dr. Crisp was an employee of BioFire Diagnostics and is currently an employee of BioMérieux, Inc. Dr. Ginsburg’s institution received funding from DARPA; received support for article research from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Burke is a consultant for and holds equity in Predigen, Inc. Dr. Burke’s institution received funding from the NIH; received funding from Predigen, Inc.; disclosed he is a coinventor on patents pending on Molecular Methods to Diagnose and Treat Respiratory Infections. Dr. Hemmert disclosed the off-label product use of BioFire FilmArray System. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Sexual dimorphisms in immune responses contribute to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, but the mechanisms governing this disparity remain incompletely understood., Methods: We carried out sex-balanced sampling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from hospitalized and non-hospitalized individuals with confirmed COVID-19, uninfected close contacts, and healthy control individuals for 36-color flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequencing., Findings: Our results revealed a pronounced reduction of circulating mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells in infected females. Integration of published COVID-19 airway tissue datasets suggests that this reduction represented a major wave of MAIT cell extravasation during early infection in females. Moreover, MAIT cells from females possessed an immunologically active gene signature, whereas cells from males were pro-apoptotic., Conclusions: Our findings uncover a female-specific protective MAIT cell profile, potentially shedding light on reduced COVID-19 susceptibility in females., Funding: This work was supported by NIH/NIAID (U01AI066569 and UM1AI104681), the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA; N66001-09-C-2082 and HR0011-17-2-0069), the Veterans Affairs Health System, and Virology Quality Assurance (VQA; 75N93019C00015). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 samples were processed under Biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) with aerosol management enhancement or BSL-3 in the Duke Regional Biocontainment Laboratory, which received partial support for construction from NIH/NIAID (UC6AI058607)., Competing Interests: M.T.M. reports grants for biomarker diagnostics from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Sanofi, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. T.W.B. reports grants from DARPA and is a consultant for Predigen. M.T.M., T.W.B., E.L.T., and C.W.W. report pending patents on molecular methods to diagnose and treat respiratory infections. E.L.T. reports grants on biomarker diagnostics from DARPA and the NIH/Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) and an ownership stake in Predigen. G.S.G. reports an ownership stake in Predigen. C.W.W. reports grants for biomarker diagnostics from DARPA, NIH/ARLG, Predigen, and Sanofi and has received consultancy fees from bioMerieux, Roche, Biofire, Giner, and Biomeme., (© 2021 Elsevier Inc.)

Background: While genome-wide associations studies (GWAS) have successfully elucidated the genetic architecture of complex human traits and diseases, understanding mechanisms that lead from genetic variation to pathophysiology remains an important challenge. Methods are needed to systematically bridge this crucial gap to facilitate experimental testing of hypotheses and translation to clinical utility., Results: Here, we leveraged cross-phenotype associations to identify traits with shared genetic architecture, using linkage disequilibrium (LD) information to accurately capture shared SNPs by proxy, and calculate significance of enrichment. This shared genetic architecture was examined across differing biological scales through incorporating data from catalogs of clinical, cellular, and molecular GWAS. We have created an interactive web database (interactive Cross-Phenotype Analysis of GWAS database (iCPAGdb)) to facilitate exploration and allow rapid analysis of user-uploaded GWAS summary statistics. This database revealed well-known relationships among phenotypes, as well as the generation of novel hypotheses to explain the pathophysiology of common diseases. Application of iCPAGdb to a recent GWAS of severe COVID-19 demonstrated unexpected overlap of GWAS signals between COVID-19 and human diseases, including with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis driven by the DPP9 locus. Transcriptomics from peripheral blood of COVID-19 patients demonstrated that DPP9 was induced in SARS-CoV-2 compared to healthy controls or those with bacterial infection. Further investigation of cross-phenotype SNPs associated with both severe COVID-19 and other human traits demonstrated colocalization of the GWAS signal at the ABO locus with plasma protein levels of a reported receptor of SARS-CoV-2, CD209 (DC-SIGN). This finding points to a possible mechanism whereby glycosylation of CD209 by ABO may regulate COVID-19 disease severity., Conclusions: Thus, connecting genetically related traits across phenotypic scales links human diseases to molecular and cellular measurements that can reveal mechanisms and lead to novel biomarkers and therapeutic approaches. The iCPAGdb web portal is accessible at http://cpag.oit.duke.edu and the software code at https://github.com/tbalmat/iCPAGdb .

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known., Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15., Results: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003)., Conclusions: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)