Baden, Lindsey R.

Background: Long COVID, the chronic sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection, has affected millions of people worldwide. However, its pathogenesis and treatment remain unknown. To address this critical gap, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) developed the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative that included the Viral Persistence and Reactivation, and Immune Dysregulation (RECOVER-VITAL) study as one of the first of five NIH-sponsored, integrated platform protocols to support the rigorous and rapid investigation of potential interventions for Long COVID. Methods: Experts across academia, the NIH, and the community of patients and caregivers were brought together to design the RECOVER-VITAL protocol. We present the challenges and rationale underpinning critical components of this protocol and provide evidence for use of the platform for efficient execution of current and future Long COVID clinical trials. Facets of the RECOVER-VITAL protocol, including inclusion criteria, intervention groups, study procedures, investigation of biomarkers, and endpoints, were carefully crafted to advance the current and future science and operations of Long COVID clinical trials, particularly in the absence of existing data. The initial trial within the RECOVER-VITAL platform evaluated two durations of an antiviral drug, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, to test the proposed etiology of viral persistence on the Long COVID symptom clusters of autonomic dysfunction, cognitive dysfunction, and exercise intolerance. The primary outcome measures were patient-reported, and secondary outcomes included performance-based measures for each of the symptom clusters of interest. Conclusions: The RECOVER-VITAL platform protocol has substantial implications for the design and conduct of future Long COVID clinical trials.

There is an increased risk of infection in patients with cancer that results in higher morbidity and mortality. Several risk factors can predispose these patients to infectious complications. Some such factors include immunocompromised states like neutropenia, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation, and graft-versus-host disease, while others include immunosuppressive agents like corticosteroids, purine analogs, monoclonal antibodies, and other emerging cancer therapeutics like CAR T-cell therapy. The NCCN Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer-Related Infections address infection concerns that may be observed in these immunocompromised populations and characterize the major pathogens to which patients with cancer are susceptible, with a focus on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of major common and opportunistic infections. This paper highlights 2 recently updated sections of the guidelines, namely, infection concerns related to CAR T-cell therapy and antimicrobial prophylaxis recommendations, including vaccination, in patients at high-risk for infections.

Abstract Accumulating evidence suggests dysregulated immune checkpoint (IC) signaling can exacerbate COVID-19 severity, but the role of these molecules in the pathogenesis of fatal COVID-19-related diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) remains elusive. Understanding how IC proteins influence acute lung injury due to COVID-19 can provide insights into potential therapeutic strategies to modulate immune responses and improve patient outcomes. Here, in a single-center autopsy cohort, we determined the cellular localization of ICs in lung tissue from cases of fatal COVID-19, DAD-comparators, and non-fibrotic controls by using immunohistochemistry, and investigated their association with clinical outcomes. We expanded our findings by performing analyses of publicly available single-cell RNA sequencing datasets from patients with fatal COVID-19 and non-fibrotic controls. We demonstrated the presence of protein-protein interaction networks of ICs in the lung cellular niche by performing transcriptomic profiling of lung tissue-derived RNA counts from patients with fatal COVID-19. Further, we leveraged data from the largest international, multi-center COVID-19 autopsy cohort and validated that, among patients with fatal COVID-19, those with higher PD-L1/CD274 expression in lung endothelial cells had more rapid clinical deterioration. Lastly, in a cohort of individuals with early COVID-19, IC plasma protein levels were elevated in those with persistent SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and adverse clinical outcomes. Collectively, our data provide unique pathological insights into the role of IC dysregulation and differential disease severity in COVID-19.

PURPOSE Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

Abstract Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

Abstract There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Abstract Rationale The leading cause of death in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is severe pneumonia, with many patients developing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). Whether DAD in fatal COVID-19 is distinct from other causes of DAD remains unknown. Objective To compare lung parenchymal and vascular alterations between patients with fatal COVID-19 pneumonia and other DAD-causing etiologies using a multidimensional approach. Methods This autopsy cohort consisted of consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (n = 20) and with respiratory failure and histologic DAD (n = 21; non–COVID-19 viral and nonviral etiologies). Premortem chest computed tomography (CT) scans were evaluated for vascular changes. Postmortem lung tissues were compared using histopathological and computational analyses. Machine-learning-derived morphometric analysis of the microvasculature was performed, with a random forest classifier quantifying vascular congestion (CVasc) in different microscopic compartments. Respiratory mechanics and gas-exchange parameters were evaluated longitudinally in patients with ARDS. Measurements and Main Results In premortem CT, patients with COVID-19 showed more dilated vasculature when all lung segments were evaluated (P = 0.001) compared with controls with DAD. Histopathology revealed vasculopathic changes, including hemangiomatosis-like changes (P = 0.043), thromboemboli (P = 0.0038), pulmonary infarcts (P = 0.047), and perivascular inflammation (P &lt; 0.001). Generalized estimating equations revealed significant regional differences in the lung microarchitecture among all DAD-causing entities. COVID-19 showed a larger overall CVasc range (P = 0.002). Alveolar-septal congestion was associated with a significantly shorter time to death from symptom onset (P = 0.03), length of hospital stay (P = 0.02), and increased ventilatory ratio [an estimate for pulmonary dead space fraction (Vd); p = 0.043] in all cases of ARDS. Conclusions Severe COVID-19 pneumonia is characterized by significant vasculopathy and aberrant alveolar-septal congestion. Our findings also highlight the role that vascular alterations may play in Vd and clinical outcomes in ARDS in general.

Abstract Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Abstract Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy’s efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.