Patel, Bela

Importance Treatment for cognitive dysfunction due to postacute sequelae of long COVID (ie, symptoms of fatigue, malaise, weakness, confusion that persist beyond 12 weeks after an initial COVID infection) remains a significant unmet need. Objective To test evidence-based rehabilitation strategies for improving cognitive symptoms in persons with long COVID. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a 5-arm, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 3 remotely delivered interventions conducted between August 17, 2023, and June 10, 2024. The study took place at 22 trial sites and included the screening of individuals with cognitive long COVID. Interventions Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 arms: adaptive computerized cognitive training (BrainHQ [Posit Science]), cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation involving both group and individual counseling sessions (PASC-Cognitive Recovery [PASC-CoRE]) paired with BrainHQ, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paired with BrainHQ. Two comparator arms were included as follows: unstructured computer puzzles and games (active comparator) and sham tDCS paired with BrainHQ. The interventions occurred 5 times per week over 10 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Cognitive and behavioral in-person assessments were performed at baseline, midintervention, at the end of intervention, and 3 months after the end of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the modified Everyday Cognition Scale 2 (ECog2) completed at the end of the intervention compared to the baseline visit based on participant self-report looking back over the prior 7 days. Results A total of 378 individuals were screened, from which there were 328 participants (median [IQR] age, 48.0 [37.0-58.0] years; 241 female [73.5%]; race: 15 Asian [4.6%], 47 Black [14.3%], and 235 White [71.6%]; ethnicity: 52 Hispanic [15.9%]). None of the 3 active interventions demonstrated benefits on the modified ECog2 in the intention-to-treat population by the end of the intervention period. The adjusted differences in mean change were 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for tDCS-active + BrainHQ vs tDCS-sham + BrainHQ, and 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs BrainHQ alone. Secondary participant-reported outcomes and neuropsychological tests showed no differential benefits for any treatment arm. All 5 arms demonstrated some improvements over time on the modified ECog2 and on secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events attributable to the interventions. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 2 randomized clinical trial failed to demonstrate differential benefits for online cognitive training, a structured cognitive rehabilitation program, and tDCS for cognitive long COVID. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05965739 .

Abstract Background Few antiviral therapies have been studied in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and kidney impairment. Herein, the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of remdesivir, its metabolites, and sulfobutylether-β-cyclodextrin excipient were evaluated in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and severe kidney impairment. Methods In REDPINE, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, participants aged ≥12 years hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia with acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, or kidney failure were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1; 100 mg daily up to day 5) or placebo (enrollment from March 2021 to March 2022). The primary efficacy end point was the composite of the all-cause mortality rate or invasive mechanical ventilation rate through day 29. Safety was evaluated through day 60. Results Although enrollment concluded early, 243 participants were enrolled and treated (remdesivir, n = 163; placebo, n = 80). At baseline, 90 participants (37.0%) had acute kidney injury (remdesivir, n = 60; placebo, n = 30), 64 (26.3%) had chronic kidney disease (remdesivir, n = 44; placebo, n = 20), and 89 (36.6%) had kidney failure (remdesivir, n = 59; placebo, n = 30); and 31 (12.8%) were vaccinated against COVID-19. Composite all-cause mortality or invasive mechanical ventilation rates through day 29 were 29.4% and 32.5% in the remdesivir and placebo group, respectively (P = .61). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 80.4% for remdesivir versus 77.5% for placebo, and serious adverse events in 50.3% versus 50.0%, respectively. Pharmacokinetic plasma exposure to remdesivir was not affected by kidney function. Conclusions Although the study was underpowered, no significant difference in efficacy was observed between treatment groups. REDPINE demonstrated that remdesivir is safe in patients with COVID-19 and severe kidney impairment. Clinical Trials Registration EudraCT 2020-005416-22; Clinical Trials.gov NCT04745351.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined. METHODS This secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization–equivalent anti–Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS SARS-CoV-2 anti–S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION In unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors’ antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460. FUNDING Department of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

ABSTRACT Early COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion to outpatients with COVID-19 decreases progression to hospitalization, but the mechanism of how CCP reduces severity is unknown. Among 882 COVID-19 participants transfused with CCP or control plasma in a randomized controlled trial, 21 cytokines and chemokines were measured using electrochemiluminescence assays. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to evaluate the difference between early (transfused within 5 days of symptom onset) CCP vs early control plasma and late (transfused 6–9 days after symptom onset) CCP vs late control plasma at each visit. Linear mixed-effect models were used to assess the difference in the slope of cytokine change. Median cytokine and chemokine levels were similar between the early CCP and early control groups pre-transfusion. At the day 14 visit, only the median IL-6 ( P = 0.014) and IL-16 ( P = 0.036) levels were lower in the early CCP group compared to the early control group, but these differences were not statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons (requiring P < 0.0024). IL-6 levels decreased significantly faster in the early CCP group from screening to the day 14 visit compared to the early control group ( P < 0.001). No difference was observed in the slope of cytokine change from screening to day 90 between early CCP and early control groups. Late control and late CCP arms showed similar cytokine and chemokine levels through study follow-up. One mechanism by which early CCP transfusion reduces hospitalization may be by decreasing IL-6 levels, as the reduction is associated with better recovery from COVID-19. IMPORTANCE This study examined the role that cytokines may have played in the beneficial outcomes found when outpatient individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 were transfused with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) early in their infection. We found that the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 decreased significantly faster in patients treated early with CCP. Participants with COVID-19 treated with CCP later in the infection did not have the same effect. This decrease in IL-6 levels after early CCP treatment suggests a possible role of inflammation in COVID-19 progression. The evidence of IL-6 involvement brings insight into the possible mechanisms involved in CCP treatment mitigating SARS-CoV-2 severity.

Post-COVID conditions (PCCs) are common and have significant morbidity. Risk factors for PCC include advancing age, female sex, obesity, and diabetes mellitus. Little is known about treatment, inflammation, and PCC. Among 882 individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection participating in a randomized trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) vs control plasma with available biospecimens and symptom data, the association between early CCP treatment, cytokine levels, and PCC was evaluated. Cytokine and chemokine levels were assessed at baseline, day 14, and day 90 using a multiplexed sandwich immunoassay (Meso Scale Discovery). Presence of any self-reported PCC symptoms was assessed at day 90. Associations between CCP treatment, cytokine levels, and PCC were examined using multivariate logistic regression models. One third of the 882 participants had day 90 PCC symptoms, with fatigue (14.5%) and anosmia (14.5%) being most common. Cytokine levels decreased from baseline to day 90. In a multivariable analysis, female sex (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.69 [1.93–3.81]), older age (AOR = 1.32 [1.17–1.50]), and elevated baseline levels of IL-6 (AOR = 1.59 [1.02–2.47]) were independently associated with development of PCC. Those who received early CCP treatment (≤5 days after symptom onset) compared to late CCP treatment had statistically significant lower odds of PCC. IMPORTANCE Approximately 20% of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced long-term health effects, as defined PCC. However, it is unknown if there are any early biomarkers associated with PCC or whether early intervention treatments may decrease the risk of PCC. In a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, this study demonstrates that among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2, increased IL-6 at time of infection is associated with increased odds of PCC. In addition, among individuals treated early, within 5 days of symptom onset, with COVID-19 convalescent plasma, there was a trend for decreased odds of PCC after adjusting for other demographic and clinical characteristics. Future treatment studies should be considered to evaluate the effect of early treatment and anti-IL-6 therapies on PCC development.

AbstractBackgroundCOVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials.Study Design and MethodsWe analyzed data pertaining to transfusion‐related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsThe combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic‐type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID‐19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43–1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre‐existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16–4.67). We did not observe any CCP‐attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID‐19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life‐threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion‐associated complications.DiscussionOutpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID‐19.

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown whether CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. Methods We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted subdistribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. We also assessed the prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. Results Among 1070 outpatients followed up after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (P = .78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 did not differ significantly from those in controls after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache and was found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (P = .16). Conclusions In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared with control. Overall, there were no differences by treatment in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04373460.

Abstract The ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants severely limits available effective monoclonal antibody therapies. Effective drugs are also supply limited. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) qualified for high antibody levels effectively reduces immunocompetent outpatient hospitalization. The Food and Drug Administration currently allows outpatient CCP for the immunosuppressed. Viral-specific antibody levels in CCP can range 10- to 100-fold between donors, unlike the uniform viral-specific monoclonal antibody dosing. Limited data are available on the efficacy of polyclonal CCP to neutralize variants. We examined 108 pre-δ/pre-ο donor units obtained before March 2021, 20 post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units, and 1 pre-δ/pre-ο hyperimmunoglobulin preparation for variant-specific virus (vaccine-related isolate [WA-1], δ, and ο) neutralization correlated to Euroimmun S1 immunoglobulin G antibody levels. We observed a two- to fourfold and 20- to 40-fold drop in virus neutralization from SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 to δ or ο, respectively. CCP antibody levels in the upper 10% of the 108 donations as well as 100% of the post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units and the hyperimmunoglobulin effectively neutralized all 3 variants. High-titer CCP neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.

AbstractConvalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID‐19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID‐19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody‐based therapies.