Background

In patients with COVID-19, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) might be a mediator of the hyperactive inflammatory response associated with respiratory failure and death. We aimed to evaluate whether mavrilimumab, a monoclonal antibody to the GM-CSF receptor, would improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.

Methods

This investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial was done at seven hospitals in the USA. Inclusion required hospitalisation, COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxaemia, and a C-reactive protein concentration of more than 5 mg/dL. Patients were excluded if they required mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, with stratification by hospital site, to receive mavrilimumab 6 mg/kg as a single intravenous infusion, or placebo. Participants and all clinical and research personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and off supplemental oxygen therapy at day 14. The primary outcome and safety were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04399980, NCT04463004, and NCT04492514.

Findings

Between May 28 and Sept 15, 2020, 40 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to mavrilimumab (n=21) or placebo (n=19). A trial of 60 patients was planned, but given slow enrolment, the study was stopped early to inform the natural history and potential treatment effect. At day 14, 12 (57%) patients in the mavrilimumab group were alive and off supplemental oxygen therapy compared with nine (47%) patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 1·48 [95% CI 0·43-5·16]; p=0·76). There were no treatment-related deaths, and adverse events were similar between groups.

Interpretation

There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and off oxygen therapy at day 14, although benefit or harm of mavrilimumab therapy in this patient population remains possible given the wide confidence intervals, and larger trials should be completed.

Funding

Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals.

Background

Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) may represent undiagnosed early-stage or subclinical interstitial lung disease (ILD). ILA are often observed incidentally in patients who subsequently develop clinically overt ILD. There is limited information on consensus definitions for, and the appropriate evaluation of, ILA. Early recognition of patients with ILD remains challenging, yet critically important. Expert consensus could inform early recognition and referral.

Research question

Can consensus-based expert recommendations be identified to guide clinicians in the recognition, referral, and follow-up of patients with or at risk of developing early ILDs?

Study design and methods

Pulmonologists and radiologists with expertise in ILD participated in two iterative rounds of surveys. The surveys aimed to establish consensus regarding ILA reporting, identification of patients with ILA, and identification of populations that might benefit from screening for ILD. Recommended referral criteria and follow-up processes were also addressed. Threshold for consensus was defined a priori as ≥ 75% agreement or disagreement.

Results

Fifty-five experts were invited and 44 participated; consensus was reached on 39 of 85 questions. The following clinically important statements achieved consensus: honeycombing and traction bronchiectasis or bronchiolectasis indicate potentially progressive ILD; honeycombing detected during lung cancer screening should be reported as potentially significant (eg, with the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System "S-modifier" [Lung-RADS; which indicates clinically significant or potentially significant noncancer findings]), recommending referral to a pulmonologist in the radiology report; high-resolution CT imaging and full pulmonary function tests should be ordered if nondependent subpleural reticulation, traction bronchiectasis, honeycombing, centrilobular ground-glass nodules, or patchy ground-glass opacity are observed on CT imaging; patients with honeycombing or traction bronchiectasis should be referred to a pulmonologist irrespective of diffusion capacity values; and patients with systemic sclerosis should be screened with pulmonary function tests for early-stage ILD.

Interpretation

Guidance was established for identifying clinically relevant ILA, subsequent referral, and follow-up. These results lay the foundation for developing practical guidance on managing patients with ILA.

Background

Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19.

Objective

To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2.

Design

Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge.

Setting

114 centers in 10 countries.

Participants

Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms.

Measurements

Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively.

Results

Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity.

Limitations

Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available.

Conclusion

Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.

Primary funding source

U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.