No abstract

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...

IMPORTANCEThe BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine (BioNTech/Pfizer) has high effectiveness that wanes within several months. The third dose is effective in mounting a significant immune response, but its durability is unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare antibody waning after second and third doses and estimate the association of antibody kinetics with susceptibility to infection with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn a prospective longitudinal cohort study in a tertiary medical center in Israel, health care workers who received the BNT162b2 vaccine were followed up monthly for IgG and neutralizing antibody levels. Linear mixed models were used to compare antibody titer waning of second and third doses and to assess whether antibody dynamics were associated with Omicron transmission. Avidity, T cell activation, and microneutralization of sera against different variants of concern were assessed for a subgroup. EXPOSURE Vaccination with a booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the rate of antibody titer change over time, and the secondary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection, as confirmed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS Overall, 4868 health care workers (mean [SD] age, 46.9 [13.7] years; 3558 [73.1%] women) and 3972 health care workers (mean [SD] age, 48.5 [14.1] years; 996 [74.9%] women) were followed up for 5 months after their second and third vaccine doses, respectively. Waning of IgG levels was slower after the third compared with the second dose (1.32%/d [95% CI, 1,29%/d to 1.36%/d] vs 2.26% [95% CI, 2.13%/d 2.38%/d]), as was waning of neutralizing antibody levels (1.32%/d [95% CI, 1.21%/d to 1.43%/d] vs 3.34%/d [95% CI, 3.11%/d to 3.58%/d]). Among 2865 health care workers assessed for Omicron incidence during an additional 2 months of follow-up, lower IgG peak (ratio of means 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.91]) was associated with Omicron infection, and among participants aged 65 years and older, faster waning of IgG and neutralizing antibodies(ratio of mean rates, 1.40; [95% CI, 1.13-1.68] and 3.58 [95% CI, 1.92-6.67], respectively) were associated with Omicron infection. No waning in IgG avidity was observed 112 days after the third dose. Live neutralization of Omicron was lower compared with previous strains, with a geometric mean titer at the peak of 111 (95% CI, 75-166), compared with 942 (95% CI, 585-1518) for WT, 410 (95% CI, 266-634) for Delta; it demonstrated similar waning to 26 (95% CI, 16-42) within 4 months.Among 77 participants tested for T cell activity, mean (SD) T cell activity decreased from 98 (5.4) T cells/10 6 peripheral blood mononuclear cells to 59 (9.3) T cells/10 6 peripheral blood mononuclear cells. (continued) Key Points Question What is the durability of the immune response after 3 vaccine doses, and are antibody kinetics associated with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection? Findings In this cohort study of 3972 health care workers, reduction in antibody levels 5 months after the third BNT16...

No abstract