A dysregulated immune response with hyperinflammation is observed in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and potential benefits of human recombinant C1 esterase inhibitor (conestat alfa), a complement, contact activation and kallikrein-kinin system regulator, in severe COVID-19. Patients with evidence of progressive disease after 24 h including an oxygen saturation <93% at rest in ambient air were included at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland in April 2020. Conestat alfa was administered by intravenous injections of 8400 IU followed by 3 additional doses of 4200 IU in 12-h intervals. Five patients (age range, 53-85 years; one woman) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (11-39% lung involvement on computed tomography scan of the chest) were treated a median of 1 day (range 1-7 days) after admission. Treatment was well-tolerated. Immediate defervescence occurred, and inflammatory markers and oxygen supplementation decreased or stabilized in 4 patients (e.g., median C-reactive protein 203 (range 31-235) mg/L before vs. 32 (12-72) mg/L on day 5). Only one patient required mechanical ventilation. All patients recovered. C1INH concentrations were elevated before conestat alfa treatment. Levels of complement activation products declined after treatment. Viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs declined in 4 patients. In this uncontrolled case series, targeting multiple inflammatory cascades by conestat alfa was safe and associated with clinical improvements in the majority of severe COVID-19 patients. Controlled clinical trials are needed to assess its safety and efficacy in preventing disease progression.

BackgroundAn increase of pertussis cases, especially in young infants and adolescents, has been noted in various countries. Whooping cough is most serious in neonates and young infants in whom it may cause serious complications such as cyanosis, apnoea, pneumonia, encephalopathy and death. To protect newborns and infants too young to be fully immunized, immunization of close contact persons has been proposed (“cocoon strategy”) and implemented in several countries, including Switzerland in 2011. The goal of this study was to assess knowledge about pertussis among parents of newborns and acceptance, practicability and implementation of the recently recommended pertussis cocoon strategy in Switzerland.MethodsWe performed a cross sectional survey among all parents of newborns born between May and September 2012 and 2013 in Basel city and country. Regional statistical offices provided family addresses after approval by the ethical and data protection committees. A standardized questionnaire with detailed instructions was sent to all eligible families. For statistical analyses, independent proportions were compared by Pearson’s chi-squared test.ResultsOf 3546 eligible parents, 884 (25%) participated. All three questions exploring pertussis knowledge were answered correctly by 37% of parents; 25% gave two correct answers, 22% gave one correct answer and in the remaining 16% no answer was correct. Pertussis immunization as part of cocooning was recommended to 20% and 37% of mothers and 14% and 32% of fathers in the 2012 and 2013 study cohorts, respectively. Principal advisors for cocooning were pediatricians (66%) followed by gynecologists/obstetricians (12%) and general practitioners (5%). When recommended, 64% of mothers and 59% of fathers accepted pertussis immunization. The majority of vaccinations were administered in the perinatal period and within 2 months of the child’s birth. However, cocooning remained incomplete in 93% of families and in most families <50% of close contacts received pertussis vaccination.ConclusionsImplementation of cocooning for protecting newborns from pertussis is challenging and usually remains incomplete. Pertussis immunization rates among close contacts of newborns need to be improved. Ideally, all healthcare providers involved in family planning, pregnancy and child birth should recommend cocooning. Pertussis immunization of pregnant women is an additional measure for optimal protection of newborns and should be promoted.

Objectives Conestat alfa, a recombinant human C1 esterase inhibitor, is a multi-target inhibitor of inflammatory cascades including the complement, the kinin-kallikrein and the contact activation system. The study objective is to investigate the efficacy and safety of conestat alfa in improving disease severity and short-term outcome in COVID-19 patients with pulmonary disease. Trial design This study is an investigator-initiated, randomized (2:1 ratio), open-label, parallel-group, controlled, multi-center, phase 2a clinical trial. Participants This trial is conducted in 3 hospitals in Switzerland, 1 hospital in Brazil and 1 hospital in Mexico (academic and non-academic). All patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization for at least 3 calendar days for severe COVID-19 will be screened for study eligibility. Inclusion criteria: - Signed informed consent - Age 18-85 years - Evidence of pulmonary involvement on CT scan or X-ray of the chest - Duration of symptoms associated with COVID-19 ≤ 10 days - At least one of the following risk factors for progression to mechanical ventilation on the day of enrolment: 1) Arterial hypertension 2) ≥ 50 years 3) Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) 4) History of cardiovascular disease 5) Chronic pulmonary disease 6) Chronic renal disease 7) C-reactive protein > 35mg/L 8) Oxygen saturation at rest of ≤ 94% when breathing ambient air Exclusion criteria: - Incapacity or inability to provide informed consent - Contraindications to the class of drugs under investigation (C1 esterase inhibitor) - Treatment with tocilizumab or another IL-6R or IL-6 inhibitor before enrolment - History or suspicion of allergy to rabbits - Pregnancy or breast feeding - Active or anticipated treatment with any other complement inhibitor - Liver cirrhosis (any Child-Pugh score) - Admission to an ICU on the day or anticipated within the next 24 hours of enrolment - Invasive or non-invasive ventilation - Participation in another study with any investigational drug within the 30 days prior to enrolment - Enrolment of the study investigators, their family members, employees and other closely related or dependent persons Intervention and comparator Patients randomized to the experimental arm will receive conestat alfa in addition to standard of care (SOC). Conestat alfa (8400 U followed by 4200 U every 8 hours) will be administered as a slow intravenous injection (5-10 minutes) over a 72-hour period (i.e. 9 administrations in total). The first conestat alfa treatment will be administered on the day of enrolment. The control group will receive SOC only. SOC treatment will be administered according to local institutional guidelines, including supplemental oxygen, antibiotics, corticosteroids, remdesivir, and anticoagulation. Main outcomes The primary endpoint of this trial is disease severity on day 7 after enrolment assessed by an adapted WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (score 0 will be omitted and score 6 and 7 will be combined) from 1 (no limitation of activities) to 7 (death). Secondary outcomes include (i) the time to clinical improvement (time from randomization to an improvement of two points on the WHO ordinal scale or discharge from hospital) within 14 days after enrolment, (ii) the proportion of participants alive and not having required invasive or non-invasive ventilation at 14 days after enrolment and (iii) the proportion of subjects without an acute lung injury (defined by PaO2/FiO2 ratio of ≤300mmHg) within 14 days after enrolment. Exploratory outcomes include virological clearance, C1 esterase inhibitor pharmacokinetics and changes in routine laboratory parameters and inflammatory proteins. Randomisation Subjects will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with conestat alfa in addition to SOC or SOC only. Randomization is performed via an interactive web response system (SecuTrial®). Blinding (masking) In this open-label trial, participants, caregivers and outcome assessors are not blinded to group assignment. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) We will randomise approximately 120 individuals (80 in the active treatment arm, 40 in the SOC group). Two interim analyses after 40 and 80 patients are planned according to the Pocock adjusted levels αp = 0.0221. The results of the interim analysis will allow adjustment of the sample size (Lehmacher, Wassmer, 1999). Trial Status PROTECT-COVID-19 protocol version 3.0 (July 07 2020). Participant recruitment started on July 30 2020 in one center (Basel, Switzerland, first participant included on August 06 2020). In four of five study centers patients are actively recruited. Participation of the fifth study center (Mexico) is anticipated by mid December 2020. Completion of trial recruitment depends on the development of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, number: NCT04414631, registered on 4 June 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Immune checkpoint inhibition has revolutionized the treatment of several solid cancers, most notably melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Drugs targeting cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen (CTLA)-4 and programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) have made their way into routine clinical use; however, this has not been without difficulties. Stimulation of the immune system to target cancer has been found to result in a reduction of self-tolerance, leading to the development of adverse effects that resemble autoimmunity. These adverse effects are erratic in their onset and severity and can theoretically affect any organ type. Several mechanisms for immunerelated toxicity have been investigated over recent years; however, no consensus on the cause or prediction of toxicity has been reached. This review seeks to examine reported evidence for possible mechanisms of toxicity, methods for prediction of those at risk and a discussion of future prospects within the field.

The evaluation demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the programme and confirmed the relevance of mixed method process evaluation to adjust and improve programme implementation. The introduction of multidisciplinary teams in a context characterised by fragmentation of care was identified as the main challenge in the programme implementation and could not be achieved as expected. Despite this area for improvement, patients' feedback and early effectiveness results confirmed the benefits of COPD integrated care programmes emphasising self-management education.