Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir were the first available oral antivirals (OAs) active against SARS-CoV-2. Trials evaluating the efficacy of OAs involved patients unvaccinated and infected with variants different from those currently circulating. We conducted a retrospective study on patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with OAs during the omicron surge in Italy in order to provide real-life data on the efficacy and safety of OAs during the omicron surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among 257 patients, 56.8% received molnupiravir, while 43.2% received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Patients in the molnupiravir group were older, had a lower body mass index, and had a higher rate of chronic heart disease than those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Three hospitalizations were recorded in the molnupiravir (2.1%) group and one in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (0.9%) group. One patient treated with molnupiravir died. The median time to negativity was 8 days in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group vs. 10 days in the molnupiravir group, p < 0.01. We recorded 37 ADRs (mainly dysgeusia, diarrhea, and nausea) in 31 individuals (12.1%). Only two patients (0.8%) treated with molnupiravir terminated treatment due to ADRs. In conclusion, in a population of mostly vaccinated patients treated with OAs, we observed a low rate of hospitalization, death, and adverse drug reactions. These rates were lower than those reported in pivotal trials.

KL-6 is a sialoglycoprotein antigen which proved elevated in the serum of patients with different interstitial lung diseases, especially in those with a poorer outcome. Given that interstitial pneumonia is the most common presentation of SARS-CoV2 infection, we evaluated the prognostic role of KL-6 in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were prospectively enrolled. Blood samples were collected at the time of enrolment (TOE) and on day 7 (T1). Serum KL-6 concentrations were measured by chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay using a KL-6 antibody kit (LUMIPULSE G1200, Fujirebio) and the cut-off value was set at >1000 U/mL. Fifteen out of 34 enrolled patients (44.1%) died. Patients with unfavourable outcome showed significantly lower P/F ratio and higher IL-6 values and plasmatic concentrations of KL-6 at TOE compared with those who survived (median KL-6: 1188 U/mL vs. 260 U/mL, p < 0.001). KL-6 > 1000 U/mL resulted independently associated with death (aOR: 11.29, p < 0.05) with a positive predictive value of 83.3%. Our results suggest that KL-6 is a reliable indicator of pulmonary function and unfavourable outcome in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. A KL-6 value > 1000 U/mL resulted independently associated with death and showed good accuracy in predicting a poorer outcome. KL-6 may thus represent a quick, inexpensive, and sensitive parameter to stratify the risk of severe respiratory failure and death.

Objective: to describe a single-center experience of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) in non-HIV patients recovering from COVID-19. Methods: We report the cases of five non-HIV patients with COVID-19 who also developed PJP at a University Hospital. Results: With the exception of one subject, who experienced an atypical and prolonged course of COVID-19, all the patients developed PJP after the clinical resolution of COVID-19 pneumonia. All but one patient had no pre-existing immunosuppressive conditions or other risk factors for PJP development at COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, following the course of COVID-19 infection, all the patients fulfilled at least one host factor for PJP; indeed, all the patients had received at least 2 weeks of high-dose steroids and three out of five had a CD4+ cell count <200/mm³. Conclusions: The use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 respiratory impairment seems to be the most common risk factor for PJP, together with viral-induced and iatrogenic lymphopenia. The worsening in respiratory function and the characteristic radiological picture during or after COVID-19 pneumonia should raise the suspicion of PJP, even in immunocompetent patients. PJP primary chemoprophylaxis can be considered in selected high-risk COVID-19 patients, but further studies are needed.

Tackling antibiotic resistance represents one of the major challenges in modern medicine, and limiting antibiotics’ overuse represents the first step in this fight. Most antibiotics are prescribed in primary care settings, and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are one of the most common indications for their prescription. An expert panel conducted an extensive report on C-reactive protein point-of-care (CRP POC) testing in the evaluation of LRTIs and its usefulness to limit antibiotic prescriptions. The expert panel stated that CRP POC testing is a potentially useful tool to limit antibiotic prescriptions for LRTI in a community setting. CRP POC must be used in conjunction with other strategies such as improved communication skills and the use of other molecular POC testing. Potential barriers to the adoption of CRP POC testing are financial and logistical issues. Moreover, the efficacy in limiting antibiotic prescriptions could be hampered by the fact that, in some countries, patients may gain access to antibiotics even without a prescription. Through the realization of a better reimbursement structure, the inclusion in standardized procedures in local guidelines, and better patient education, CRP point-of-care testing can represent a cornerstone in the fight against antimicrobial resistance.

Ivan Gentile and Nicola Schiano Moriello discuss the potential of monoclonal antibody prophylaxis against COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised patients.

Molnupiravir and Nirmatrelvir are the first available oral antivirals (OA) active against SARS-CoV-2. However, the trials evaluating the efficacy of OAs involved patients unvaccinated and infected with variants different from those currently circulating. The purpose of this study is to provide real-life data on the efficacy and safety of OAs during the omicron surge of COVID-19 pandemic in a cohort of mostly vaccinated patients. We conducted a retrospective study on patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with OAs during the omicron surge in Italy. We enrolled 257 patients. Of these, 146 (56.8%) were treated with molnupiravir and 111 (43.2%) with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Patients in molnupiravir group were older, had a lower body mass index, and a higher rate of chronic heart disease than those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. During the 14-day follow-up, four hospitalizations were recorded (1.6%), three in molnupiravir (2.1%) and 1 in nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (0.9%) group. Only one patient (who had received molnupiravir) died. Median time-to-negativity of nasal swab was 8 days (8 days in nirmatrelvir/ritonavir vs . 10 days in molnupiravir group, p<0.01). Globally, we recorded 37 adverse drug reactions (mainly dysgeusia, diarrhea, and nausea) in 31 of 257 individuals (12.1%). Only two patients (0.8%), both receiving molnupiravir, terminated treatment due to the development of adverse drug reactions. In conclusion, during the omicron surge, in a population of mostly vaccinated patients treated with molnupiravir or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, we observed a low rate of hospitalization, death, and adverse drug reactions. These rates were even lower than those reported in pivotal trials.