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 α_p = 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.

Protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and associated clinical sequelae requires well-coordinated metabolic and immune responses that limit viral spread and promote recovery of damaged systems. However, the role of the gut microbiota in regulating these responses has not been thoroughly investigated. In order to identify mechanisms underpinning microbiota interactions with host immune and metabolic systems that influence coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, we performed a multi-omics analysis on hospitalized COVID-19 patients and compared those with the most severe outcome (i.e. death, n = 41) to those with severe non-fatal disease (n = 89), or mild/moderate disease (n = 42), that recovered. A distinct subset of 8 cytokines (e.g. TSLP) and 140 metabolites (e.g. quinolinate) in sera identified those with a fatal outcome to infection. In addition, elevated levels of multiple pathobionts and lower levels of protective or anti-inflammatory microbes were observed in the fecal microbiome of those with the poorest clinical outcomes. Weighted gene correlation network analysis (WGCNA) identified modules that associated severity-associated cytokines with tryptophan metabolism, coagulation-linked fibrinopeptides, and bile acids with multiple pathobionts, such as Enterococcus. In contrast, less severe clinical outcomes are associated with clusters of anti-inflammatory microbes such as Bifidobacterium or Ruminococcus, short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and IL-17A. Our study uncovered distinct mechanistic modules that link host and microbiome processes with fatal outcomes to SARS-CoV-2 infection. These features may be useful to identify at risk individuals, but also highlight a role for the microbiome in modifying hyperinflammatory responses to SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious agents.

Objective: A high genomic load of Pneumococcus from blood or cerebrospinal fluid has been associated with increased mortality. We aimed to analyse whether nasopharyngeal colonisation density in HIV-infected patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is associated with markers of disease severity or poor outcome. Methods: Quantitative lytA real-time PCR was performed on nasopharyngeal swabs in HIV-infected South African adults hospitalised for acute CAP at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital, Soweto, South Africa. Pneumonia aetiology was considered pneumococcal if any sputum culture or Gram stain, urinary pneumococcal C-polysaccharide-based antigen, blood culture or whole blood lytA real-time PCR revealed pneumococci. Results: There was a moderate correlation between the mean nasopharyngeal colonisation densities and increasing CURB65 scores among all-cause patients with pneumonia (Spearman correlation coefficient r=0.15, p=0.06) or with the Pitt bacteraemia score among patients with pneumococcal bacteraemia (p=0.63). In patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, nasopharyngeal pneumococcal colonisation density was higher among non-survivors than survivors (7.7 vs 6.1 log ₁₀ copies/mL, respectively, p=0.02) and among those who had pneumococci identified from blood cultures and/or by whole blood lytA real-time PCR than those with non-bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia (6.6 vs 5.6 log ₁₀ copies/mL, p=0.03). Nasopharyngeal colonisation density correlated positively with the biomarkers procalcitonin (Spearman correlation coefficient r=0.37, p<0.0001), proadrenomedullin (r=0.39, p=0.008) and copeptin (r=0.30, p=0.01). Conclusions: In addition to its previously reported role as a diagnostic tool for pneumococcal pneumonia, quantitative nasopharyngeal colonisation density also correlates with mortality and prognostic biomarkers. It may also be useful as a severity marker for pneumococcal pneumonia in HIV-infected adults.

Quantitative lytA real-time PCR (rtPCR) results from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs distinguish community-acquired pneumococcal pneumonia (CAP) from asymptomatic colonization. The use of an optimized cutoff value improved pneumococcal etiology determination compared to that of traditional diagnostic methods. Here, we compare the utility of lytA rtPCR from induced sputum and from NP swabs. Pneumococcus was considered the cause of CAP in HIV-infected South African adults if blood culture, induced-sputum culture or Gram stain, urine antigen test, or whole-blood lytA rtPCR revealed pneumococcus or if lytA rtPCR from NP swabs gave a result of >8,000 copies/ml. lytA rtPCR was also performed on induced sputum. Pneumococcus was detected by lytA rtPCR from sputum in 149 (67.1%) of 222 patients with available induced sputum, whereas the results of either Gram stain or culture of sputum were positive in 105 of 229 patients (45.9%; P < 0.001). The mean copy numbers from sputum were higher when the sputum cultures were positive than when the sputum cultures were negative (7.9 versus 5.6 log ₁₀ copies/ml; P < 0.001). Against the composite diagnostic standard, a cutoff value of 10,000 copies/ml for good-quality sputum lytA rtPCR had a sensitivity of 78.1% and a specificity of 80.0%. This cutoff value performed similarly to the previously identified cutoff value of 8,000 copies/ml for NP swab lytA rtPCR (area under the curve receiver operating characteristic [AUC-ROC], 80.4% for sputum of any quality versus 79.6% for NP swabs). The AUC-ROC for good-quality sputum was 83.2%. Overall, lytA rtPCR performs similarly well on induced sputum as on NP swabs for most patients but performs slightly better if good-quality sputum can be obtained. Due to the ease of specimen collection, NP swabs may be preferable for the diagnosis of pneumococcal pneumonia.