Among patients with Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the ability to identify patients at risk for deterioration during their hospital stay is essential for effective patient allocation and management. To predict patient risk for critical COVID-19 based on status at admission using machine-learning models. Retrospective study based on a database of tertiary medical center with designated departments for patients with COVID-19. Patients with severe COVID-19 at admission, based on low oxygen saturation, low partial arterial oxygen pressure, were excluded. The primary outcome was risk for critical disease, defined as mechanical ventilation, multi-organ failure, admission to the ICU, and/or death. Three different machine-learning models were used to predict patient deterioration and compared to currently suggested predictors and to the APACHEII risk-prediction score. Among 6995 patients evaluated, 162 were hospitalized with non-severe COVID-19, of them, 25 (15.4%) patients deteriorated to critical COVID-19. Machine-learning models outperformed the all other parameters, including the APACHE II score (ROC AUC of 0.92 vs. 0.79, respectively), reaching 88.0% sensitivity, 92.7% specificity and 92.0% accuracy in predicting critical COVID-19. The most contributory variables to the models were APACHE II score, white blood cell count, time from symptoms to admission, oxygen saturation and blood lymphocytes count. Machine-learning models demonstrated high efficacy in predicting critical COVID-19 compared to the most efficacious tools available. Hence, artificial intelligence may be applied for accurate risk prediction of patients with COVID-19, to optimize patients triage and in-hospital allocation, better prioritization of medical resources and improved overall management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND The repeated waves of the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the necessity to optimize vaccine responses in immunocompromised populations. We investigated the safety and immunogenicity of a third, booster, dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine in heart transplant (HT) patients. METHODS The cohort comprised 96 adult HT patients who received a third homologous dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine 168 days after the second dose. The vaccine-induced antibody responses of both receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG and neutralizing antibodies were assessed in all patients, with a positive antibody response being defined as the presence of either IgG anti-RBD or neutralizing antibodies. For a subset of patients, T cell response was also studied. RESULTS The third dose was associated with a low rate of adverse events, mostly mild pain at the injection site. No serious adverse events were recorded, and there were no episodes of rejection. At 18 days following the third dose of the vaccine, the positive antibody response increased from 23% to 67%, with a corresponding increase in neutralizing capacity. The third dose elicited SARS-CoV-2 neutralization titers >9-fold and IgG anti-RBD antibodies >3-fold of the range achieved after the two primary doses. Mycophenolate use, lower eGFR and higher C-reactive protein were independently associated with a reduced likelihood of generating an immune response. Importantly, a specific T-cell response following the third dose was evident in the majority of transplant recipients. CONCLUSIONS An homologous third booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine gave overall consistent tolerability and a good safety profile, while eliciting humoral and cellular immune responses.

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...