Background Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04327388 ; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 1...

No abstract

Objective The aim of the study was to assess inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes in adult patients admitted to hospital with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and treated with a combination of standard-of-care (SOC) and targeted immunosuppressive therapy including anti-IL-17A (netakimab), anti-IL-6R (tocilizumab), or JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor (baricitinib) or with a standard-of-care therapy alone. Methods The observational cohort study included 154 adults hospitalized between February and August, 2020 with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 with National Early Warning Score2 (NEWS2) < 7 and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels ≤ 140 mg/L on the day of the start of the therapy or observation. Patients were divided into the following groups: I) 4 mg baricitinib, 1 or 2 times a day for an average of 5 days (n = 38); II) 120 mg netakimab, one dose (n = 48); III) 400 mg tocilizumab, one dose (n = 34), IV) SOC only: hydroxychloroquine, antiviral, antibacterial, anticoagulant, and dexamethasone (n = 34). Results CRP levels significantly decreased after 72 h in the tocilizumab (p = 1 x 10-5) and netakimab (p = 8 x 10-4) groups and remained low after 120 h. The effect was stronger with tocilizumab compared to other groups (p = 0.028). A significant decrease in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels was observed 72 h after netakimab therapy (p = 0.029). NEWS2 scores significantly improved 72 h after tocilizumab (p = 6.8 x 10-5) and netakimab (p = 0.01) therapy, and 120 h after the start of tocilizumab (p = 8.6 x 10-5), netakimab (p = 0.001), or baricitinib (p = 4.6 x 10-4) therapy, but not in the SOC group. Blood neutrophil counts (p = 6.4 x 10-4) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios (p = 0.006) significantly increased 72 h after netakimab therapy and remained high after 120 h. The percentage of patients discharged 5-7 days after the start of therapy was higher in the tocilizumab (44.1%) and netakimab (41.7%) groups than in the baricitinib (31.6%) and SOC (23.5%) groups. Compared to SOC (3 of the 34; 8.8%), mortality was lower in netakimab (0 of the 48; 0%, RR = 0.1 (95% CI: 0.0054 to 1.91)), tocilizumab (0 of the 34; 0%, RR = 0.14 (95% CI: 0.0077 to 2.67)), and baricitinib (1 of the 38; 2.6%, RR = 0.3 (95% CI: 0.033 to 2.73)) groups. Conclusion In hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, the combination of SOC with anti-IL-17A or anti-IL-6R therapy were superior or comparable to the combination with JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, and all three were superior to SOC alone. Whereas previous studies did not demonstrate significant benefit of anti-IL-17A therapy for severe COVID-19, our data suggest that such therapy could be a rational choice for mild-to-moderate disease, considering the generally high safety profile of IL-17A blockers. The significant increase in blood neutrophil count in the netakimab group may reflect efflux of neutrophils from inflamed tissues. We therefore hypothesize that neutrophil count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio could serve as markers of therapeutic efficiency for IL-17A-blocking antibodies in the context of active inflammation.

Background Information/communication technologies such as mobile phone applications (apps) would enable chronic urticaria (CU) patients to self‐evaluate their disease activity and control. Yet, recently Antó et al (2021) reported a global paucity of such apps for patients with CU. In this analysis, we assessed patient interest in using apps to monitor CU disease activity and control using questions from the chronic urticaria information and communication technologies (CURICT) study. Methods The methodology for CURICT has been reported. Briefly, a 23‐item questionnaire was completed by 1841 CU patients from 17 UCAREs across 17 countries. Here, we analyzed patient responses to the CURICT questions on the use of apps for urticaria‐related purposes. Results As previously published, the majority of respondents had chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU; 63%; 18% chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) [CIndu]; 19% with both), were female (70%) and in urban areas (75%). Over half of patients were very/extremely interested in an app to monitor disease activity (51%) and control (53%), while only ∼1/10 were not. Patients with both urticaria types versus those with CSU only (odds ratio [OR], 1.36 [1.03–1.79]) and females versus males (OR [95% CI], 1.47 [1.17–1.85]) were more likely to be very to extremely interested in an app to assess disease control. Conclusions Overall, half of the patients with CU were very to extremely interested in using an app to assess their disease activity and control. Development of well‐designed apps, specific to disease types (CSU, CIndU, CSU + CIndU, etc), validated by experts across platforms would help improve the management and possibly outcomes of CU treatment while providing important patient information to be used in future research.

Background:. Emerging evidence links morbidity and mortality of pandemic COVID-19 pneumonia to an inflammatory cytokine storm. Methods: Eighty nine patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and heightened systemic inflammation (elevated serum C reactive protein and interleukin-6 levels) were treated with Tocilizumab (TCZ), a human monoclonal IgG1 antibody to the interleukin-6 receptor. Results: Clinical and laboratory improvement was seen comparing baseline and 1-2 day post-infusion indices. Among 72 patients not receiving mechanical ventilation, NEWS2 scores fell from 5 to 2 (p <0.001) C reactive protein levels fell from 95 to 14 mg/L (p <0.001) and lymphocyte counts rose from 900 to 1000/uL (p=0.036). Sixty three of 72 patients were discharged from hospital, one patient died, and 8 remained in hospital at time of writing. Among 17 patients receiving mechanical ventilation, despite a rapid decrease in CRP levels from 89 to 35 mg/L (p = 0.014) and early improvements in NEWS2 scores in 10 of 17, ten patients died and seven remain in hospital at time of writing. Overall, mortality was only seen in patients who had markedly elevated CRP levels (>30 mg/L) and low lymphocyte counts (<1000/uL) before TCZ administration. Conclusions: Inflammation and lymphocytopenia are linked to mortality in COVID-19. Inhibition of IL-6 activity by administration of Tocilizumab, an anti IL-6 receptor antibody is associated with rapid improvement in both CRP and lymphocyte counts and in clinical indices. Controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm the utility of IL-6 blockade in this setting. Additional interventions will be needed for patients requiring mechanical ventilation.

Background Although chronic urticaria (CU) is a common and primarily affects females, there is little data on how pregnancy interacts with the disease. Objective To analyse the treatment use by CU patients before, during and after pregnancy as well as outcomes of pregnancy. Methods PREG‐CU is an international, multicentre study of the Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence network. Data were collected via a 47‐item‐questionnaire completed by CU patients who became pregnant during their disease course. Results Questionnaires from 288 CU patients from 13 countries were analysed. During pregnancy, most patients (60%) used urticaria medication including standard‐dose second generation H1‐antihistamines (35.1%), first generation H1‐antihistamines (7.6%), high‐dose second‐generation H1‐antihistamines (5.6%) and omalizumab (5.6%). The preterm birth rate was 10.2%; rates were similar between patients who did and did not receive treatment during pregnancy (11.6% vs. 8.7%, respectively). Emergency referrals for CU and twin birth were risk factors for preterm birth. The caesarean delivery rate was 51.3%. More than 90% of new‐borns were healthy at birth. There was no link between any patient or disease characteristics or treatments and medical problems at birth. Conclusion Most CU patients used treatment during pregnancy especially second‐generation antihistamines which seem to be safe during pregnancy regardless of the trimester. The rates of preterm births and medical problems of new‐borns in CU patients were similar to population norms and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy. Emergency referrals for CU increased the risk of preterm birth and emphasize the importance of sufficient treatment to keep urticaria under control during pregnancy.

Cat allergy is a major trigger factor for respiratory reactions (asthma and rhinitis) in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization. In this study, we used a comprehensive panel of purified cat allergen molecules (rFel d 1, nFel d 2, rFel d 3, rFel d 4, rFel d 7, and rFel d 8) that were obtained by recombinant expression in Escherichia coli or by purification as natural proteins to study possible associations with different phenotypes of cat allergy (i.e., rhinitis, conjunctivitis, asthma, and dermatitis) by analyzing molecular IgE recognition profiles in a representative cohort of clinically well-characterized adult cat allergic subjects (n = 84). IgE levels specific to each of the allergen molecules and to natural cat allergen extract were quantified by ImmunoCAP measurements. Cumulative IgE levels specific to the cat allergen molecules correlated significantly with IgE levels specific to the cat allergen extract, indicating that the panel of allergen molecules resembled IgE epitopes of the natural allergen source. rFel d 1 represented the major cat allergen, which was recognized by 97.2% of cat allergic patients; however, rFel d 3, rFel d 4, and rFel d 7 each showed IgE reactivity in more than 50% of cat allergic patients, indicating the importance of additional allergens in cat allergy. Patients with cat-related skin symptoms showed a trend toward higher IgE levels and/or frequencies of sensitization to each of the tested allergen molecules compared with patients suffering only from rhinitis or asthma, while there were no such differences between patients with rhinitis and asthma. The IgE levels specific to allergen molecules, the IgE levels specific to cat allergen extract, and the IgE levels specific to rFel d 1 were significantly higher in patients with four different symptoms compared with patients with 1–2 symptoms. This difference was more pronounced for the sum of IgE levels specific to the allergen molecules and to cat extract than for IgE levels specific for rFel d 1 alone. Our study indicates that, in addition to rFel d 1, rFel d 3, rFel d 4, and rFel d 7 must be considered as important cat allergens. Furthermore, the cumulative sum of IgE levels specific to cat allergen molecules seems to be a biomarker for identifying patients with complex phenotypes of cat allergy. These findings are important for the diagnosis of IgE sensitization to cats and for the design of allergen-specific immunotherapies for the treatment and prevention of cat allergy.

No abstract