Search

Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with high morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, impaired humoral response renders severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 134) within four risk groups ((1) cancer (n = 56); (2) immunosuppression (n = 16); (3) laboratory-based risk factors (n = 36); and (4) advanced age (n = 26)) randomized to standard of care (control arm) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (plasma arm). No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29; P = 0.205). However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50; P = 0.003) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28; P = 0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer (P = 0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer who are unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.

Background Patients with hematological malignancy or other cancers as well as immunosuppression bear a high risk for severe COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are efficient at early stages of the disease but may lose potency with new variants. Trials on plasma from convalescent donors in unselected patients have not shown clinical benefit. No randomized trials focussing on patients with underlying disease have been published. Methods We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate efficacy of plasma (CVP - convalescent or after vaccination) in patients with COVID-19 at high risk for adverse outcome in Germany. We assessed the effect of high-titer CVP (2 units from different donors, 238-337 ml each, on subsequent days). Patients with hematological or other malignancy (group 1), immunosuppression (group 2), age >50 and ≤75 years and lymphopenia and/or high D-dimers (group 3) or age >75 years (group 4) who were hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and with an oxygen saturation ≤94% were included. Primary outcome measure was time to clinical improvement on a seven-point ordinal scale, secondary outcome was mortality (Janssen et al. Trials 2020 Oct 6;21(1):828). Results Overall, 133 patients were randomized, 68 received CVP with an additional 10 patients as a crossover on day 10. Median age (range) was 68 years (39-95) in the CVP group and 70 (38-90) in controls. For the entire cohort, no significant difference was seen in time to improvement (median days: CVP 12.5 vs. control 18; HR 1.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.85), p=0.29). Subgroup analysis (group 1+2) revealed shortened time to improvement (median days CVP 13 vs. control 32; HR 2.03 (95%CI 1.17-3.6), p=0.01) and mortality was reduced (mortality CVP n=6 (18%) vs. control n=10 (29%). No significant differences in time to improvement were observed in group 3 or 4 (HR 0.72 (95%CI 0.41-1.28), p=0.26). No relevant adverse events were observed. Conclusion CVP improves time to clinical improvement and mortality for COVID-19 patients with underlying hematological disease/cancer or other reasons of impaired immune response. Even with new variants, high-titer CVP may offer a widely available and inexpensive therapy option in high-risk groups. Funding BMBF FKZ 01KI20152; EudraCT 2020-001632-10. Disclosures Uta Merle, MD, Gilead: Sponsored congress travel and accommodation Markus Weigand, MD, Bbraun: Speakers fee/ad boards fee|Biotest: Speakers fee/ad boards fee|Eumedica: Speakers fee/ad boards fee|Gilead: Speakers fee/ad boards fee|MSD: Speakers fee/ad boards fee|Pfizer: Speakers fee/ad boards fee|Shionogi: Speakers fee/ad boards fee|SOBI: Speakers fee/ad boards fee Martin Bornhäuser, MD, Alexion: Honoraria|Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria|MSD: Honoraria|Novartis: Honoraria Nael Alakel, MD, Amgen: personal fee, travel grant|Gilead: personal fee, travel grant|MSD Sharp and Dohme GmbH: personal fee, travel grant|Pfizer: personal fee, travel grant Timo Wolf, MD, Gilead Sciences: Lecture fee, travel grant|Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Lecture fee, travel grant|Merck Sharp Dome: Lecture fee, travel grant Maria Vehreschild, Prof. Dr., 3M: speaker fee|Astellas: Advisor/Consultant|Astellas: speaker fee|biologische heilmittel heel gmbh: Grant/Research Support|BioNtech: Grant/Research Support|EUMEDICA: Advisor/Consultant|Farmak International Holding: Advisor/Consultant|Ferring: Advisor/Consultant|Ferring: Speaker fee|Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Immunic AG: Advisor/Consultant|MaaT: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Merck: speaker fee|MSD: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Grant/Research Support|MSD: speaker fees|Pfizer: speaker fee|Roche Molecular Systems: Grant/Research Support|Roche Molecular Systems: speaker fees|SocraRTec R&D GmbH: Advisor/Consultant|Takeda California: Grant/Research Support Hanns-Martin Lorenz, MD, Abbvie: Advisor/Consultant|Abbvie: Honoraria|Actelion: Advisor/Consultant|Actelion: Honoraria|Alexion: Advisor/Consultant|Alexion: Honoraria|Amgen: Advisor/Consultant|Amgen: Grant/Research Support|Astra Zeneca: Advisor/Consultant|Astra Zeneca: Honoraria|Baxter: Advisor/Consultant|Baxter: Advisor/Consultant|Baxter: Honoraria|Baxter: Honoraria|Bayer Vital: Advisor/Consultant|Bayer Vital: Honoraria|Biogen: Advisor/Consultant|Biogen: Honoraria|BMS: Advisor/Consultant|BMS: Honoraria|Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisor/Consultant|Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria|Celgene: Advisor/Consultant|Celgene: Honoraria|Fresenius: Advisor/Consultant|Fresenius: Honoraria|Genzyme: Advisor/Consultant|Genzyme: Honoraria|Gilead/Galapagos: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead/Galapagos: Honoraria|GSK: Advisor/Consultant|GSK: Honoraria|Hexal: Advisor/Consultant|Hexal: Honoraria|Janssen-Cilag: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria|Lilly: Advisor/Consultant|Lilly: Honoraria|Medac: Advisor/Consultant|Medac: Honoraria|MSD: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Honoraria|Mundipharm: Advisor/Consultant|Mundipharm: Honoraria|Mylan: Advisor/Consultant|Mylan: Honoraria|Novartis: Advisor/Consultant|Novartis: Honoraria|octapharm: Advisor/Consultant|octapharm: Honoraria|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Honoraria|Roche/Chugai: Advisor/Consultant|Roche/Chugai: Honoraria|Sandoz: Advisor/Consultant|Sandoz: Honoraria|Sanofi: Advisor/Consultant|Sanofi: Honoraria|Shire: Advisor/Consultant|Shire: Honoraria|SOBI: Advisor/Consultant|SOBI: Honoraria|Thermo Fisher: Advisor/Consultant|Thermo Fisher: Honoraria|UCB: Advisor/Consultant|UCB: Honoraria.

Highlights Application of a POC-CCA rapid diagnostic test and serology for detection of schistosomiasis in HIV-positive individuals in urban Malawi • High serological positivity for schistosomiasis in adult persons living with HIV (PLWH) in Lilongwe, Malawi • Overall diagnostic agreement between POC-CCA and serology techniques for schistosomiasis was fair (kappa: 0.293, p=0.016) • Improved diagnostic work-up for schistosomiaisis is warranted in PLWH in Malawi

Objectives Primary objectives • To assess the time from randomisation until an improvement within 84 days defined as two points on a seven point ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospital admission by infusion of plasma from subjects after convalescence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or standard of care. Secondary objectives • To assess overall survival, and the overall survival rate at 28 56 and 84 days. • To assess SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and load as well as antibody titres. • To assess the percentage of patients that required mechanical ventilation. • To assess time from randomisation until discharge. Trial design Randomised, open-label, multicenter phase II trial, designed to assess the clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 disease in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) following treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma or standard of care. Participants High-risk patients >18 years of age hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection in 10-15 university medical centres will be included. High-risk is defined as SARS-CoV-2 positive infection with Oxygen saturation at ≤ 94% at ambient air with additional risk features as categorised in 4 groups: • Group 1, pre-existing or concurrent hematological malignancy and/or active cancer therapy (incl. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery) within the last 24 months or less. • Group 2, chronic immunosuppression not meeting the criteria of group 1. • Group 3, age ≥ 50 - 75 years meeting neither the criteria of group 1 nor group 2 and at least one of these criteria: Lymphopenia < 0.8 x G/l and/or D-dimer > 1μg/mL. • Group 4, age ≥ 75 years meeting neither the criteria of group 1 nor group 2. Observation time for all patients is expected to be at least 3 months after entry into the study. Patients receive convalescent plasma for two days (day 1 and day 2) or standard of care. For patients in the standard arm, cross over is allowed from day 10 in case of not improving or worsening clinical condition. Nose/throat swabs for determination of viral load are collected at day 0 and day 1 (before first CP administration) and subsequently at day 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 28 or until discharge. Serum for SARS-Cov-2 diagnostic is collected at baseline and subsequently at day 3, 7, 14 and once during the follow-up period (between day 35 and day 84). There is a regular follow-up of 3 months. All discharged patients are followed by regular phone calls. All visits, time points and study assessments are summarized in the Trial Schedule (see full protocol Table 1). All participating trial sites will be supplied with study specific visit worksheets that list all assessments and procedures to be completed at each visit. All findings including clinical and laboratory data are documented by the investigator or an authorized member of the study team in the patient's medical record and in the electronic case report forms (eCRFs). Intervention and comparator This trial will analyze the effects of convalescent plasma from recovered subjects with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in high-risk patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients at high risk for a poor outcome due to underlying disease, age or condition as listed above are eligible for enrollment. In addition, eligible patients have a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and O2 saturation ≤ 94% while breathing ambient air. Patients are randomised to receive (experimental arm) or not receive (standard arm) convalescent plasma in two bags (238 - 337 ml plasma each) from different donors (day 1, day 2). A cross over from the standard arm into the experimental arm is possible after day 10 in case of not improving or worsening clinical condition. Main outcomes Primary endpoints: The main purpose of the study is to assess the time from randomisation until an improvement within 84 days defined as two points on a seven-point ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospital admission by infusion of plasma from subjects after convalescence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or standard of care. Secondary endpoints: • Overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause 28-day, 56-day and 84-day overall survival rates. • SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and load as well as antibody titres. • Requirement mechanical ventilation at any time during hospital stay (yes/no). • Time until discharge from randomisation. • Viral load, changes in antibody titers and cytokine profiles are analysed in an exploratory manner using paired non-parametric tests (before – after treatment). Randomisation Upon confirmation of eligibility (patients must meet all inclusion criteria and must not meet exclusion criteria described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of the full protocol), the clinical site must contact a centralized internet randomization system (https://randomizer.at/). Patients are randomized using block randomisation to one of the two arms, experimental arm or standard arm, in a 1:1 ratio considering a stratification according to the 4 risk groups (see Participants). Blinding (masking) The study is open-label, no blinding will be performed. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) A total number of 174 patients is required for the entire trial, n=87 per group. Trial Status Protocol version 1.2 dated 09/07/2020. A recruitment period of approximately 9 months and an overall study duration of approximately 12 months is anticipated. Recruitment of patients starts in the third quarter of 2020. The study duration of an individual patient is planned to be 3 months. After finishing all study-relevant procedures, therapy, and follow-up period, the patient is followed in terms of routine care and treated if necessary. Total trial duration: 18 months Duration of the clinical phase: 12 months First patient first visit (FPFV): 3rd Quarter 2020 Last patient first visit (LPFV): 2nd Quarter 2021 Last patient last visit (LPLV): 3rd Quarter 2021 Trial Report completed: 4th Quarter 2021 Trial registration EudraCT Number: 2020-001632-10, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE, registered on 04/04/2020. Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2). The eCRF is attached (Additional file 3).

Journal of paediatrics and child health 56(6), 964-966 (2019). doi:10.1111/jpc.14721, Published by Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford [u.a.]

Diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is challenging. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated EPTB is applied in sub-Saharan Africa. This study aimed at evaluating the applicability of POCUS for diagnosing EPTB in HIV-positive and HIV-negative presumptive tuberculosis (TB) patients in India, a country of moderate relative TB and HIV burden. Presumptive TB patients at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, India, prospectively underwent POCUS evaluating for pericardial, pleural and ascitic effusion, abdominal lymphadenopathy, and hepatic and splenic microabscesses. Findings were correlated with TB category (confirmed TB, clinical TB, unlikely TB), HIV status, and discharge diagnoses. A total of 425 patients underwent POCUS; 81 (20%) were HIV-positive. POCUS findings were more common in HIV/TB coinfected patients than in HIV-positive patients with unlikely TB (24/40 (60%) versus 9/41 (22%), P < 0.001). Abdominal lymphadenopathy and splenic microabscesses were strongly associated with TB in HIV-positive patients (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001). POCUS findings did not correlate with TB in HIV-negative patients; a third of HIV-negative patients with unlikely TB and POCUS findings had cancer, another third other infectious diseases. Sonographic findings were common in HIV-positive and HIV-negative presumptive TB patients. POCUS was a useful bedside test for the detection of HIV-associated EPTB. In HIV-negative patients, POCUS detected features associated with EPTB but also of malignancy and other infectious diseases.

We read with interest the review article entitled “Imaging features of extrapulmonary tuberculosis” (EPTB), which rightly concludes that imaging plays an important role in the diagnosis and follow-up of EPTB (Gambhir et al., 2017). However, rather than a systematic review of all available modalities, this review appears to have focused on promoting the potential role of positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET–CT) imaging, as the authors concluded that it may play a role in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients, especially in developing countries.

During the design process of compressor and turbine blades the investigation of flutter phenomena becomes increasingly important since higher load and better efficiency are desired. As an improvement on the numerical analysis and prediction of unsteady flow through turbomachine cascades with vibrating blades a time accurate Navier Stokes code for S1-stream surfaces SAFES1 is presented within the scope of this paper. To validate the code, numerical results for sub- and transonic test cases of a turbine and a compressor cascade are compared with experimental data. Their good agreement and comparison with Euler calculations show the necessity to take into account viscous effects. To cope with shock waves and areas of separation in laminar or turbulent flow, the fully non linearized Navier Stokes equations are solved using an algebraic turbulence model by Baldwin and Lomax. An approximative upwind flux difference splitting scheme suggested by Roe is implemented. Third order spatial accuracy can be achieved by the MUSCL technique in conjunction with a TVD scheme and a flux limiter by van Albada. By applying either an explicit or an implicit scheme the algorithm can give second order temporal accuracy. The implicit scheme exactly describes the time dependent solution by following a Newton subiteration for every time step. The blades are discretized in a single passage by a C- or O-type grid. The harmonic motion of the blades is bending or torsion or both simultaneously in a non-rotating or rotating frame of reference. For the chosen mode of oscillation the time dependent axial and circumferential blade forces are determined as well as the resulting moment and damping coefficient. To handle a phaseshift between the motion of the blades a direct store method is used. For the unsteady grid movement a fast grid generation is performed in the core region.

Subject of this paper is a numerical method for the simulation of flutter in three dimensional oscillating cascades. Unsteadiness can be caused by bending and torsional oscillation modes simultaneously. The goal of the investigation is the evaluation of the resulting blade forces and moments. The flow is assumed to be time-dependent and inviscid. By solving the Euler equations in a nonlinear way, large oscillations as well of the airfoil as of existing shocks can be treated. The numerical solution follows a Godunov-type upwind scheme, formulated in node centered finite volume technique. An approximative Riemann solver proposed by Roe is used to determine the fluxes over the surfaces of the control volume. Since unphysical expansion shocks have to be suppressed, a modification of the transonic characteristic speeds is included. The extrapolation of the flow values onto the control volumes’ surfaces is done by means of the MUSCL technique, embedded in a TVD-scheme with the flux limiter by van Albada. The computational domain is restricted to only one channel and the periodic values are stored over one period of oscillation. A special technique is introduced, which reduces both the effort in CPU-time and in computer memory. Results are included for compressor and turbine geometries in sub- and transonic flow.