[No abstract]

Heat shock proteins (hsp) are well recognized for their protein folding activity. Additionally, hsp expression is enhanced during stress conditions to preserve cellular homeostasis. Hsp are also detected outside cells, released by an active mechanism independent of cell death. Extracellular hsp appear to act as signaling molecules as part of a systemic response to stress. Extracellular hsp do not contain a consensus signal for their secretion via the classical ER-Golgi compartment. Therefore, they are likely exported by an alternative mechanism requiring translocation across the plasma membrane. Since Hsp70, the major inducible hsp, has been detected on surface of stressed cells, we propose that membrane interaction is the first step in the export process. The question that emerges is how does this charged cytosolic protein interact with lipid membranes? Prior studies have shown that Hsp70 formed ion conductance pathways within artificial lipid bilayers. These early observations have been extended herewith using a liposome insertion assay. We showed that Hsp70 selectively interacted with negatively charged phospholipids, particularly phosphatidyl serine (PS), within liposomes, which was followed by insertion into the lipid bilayer, forming high-molecular weight oligomers. Hsp70 displayed a preference for less fluid lipid environments and the region embedded into the lipid membrane was mapped toward the C-terminus end of the molecule. The results from our studies provide evidence of an unexpected ability of a large, charged protein to become inserted into a lipid membrane. This observation provides a new paradigm for the interaction of proteins with lipid environments. In addition, it may explain the export mechanism of an increasing number of proteins that lack the consensus secretory signals.

We use a previously unexplored Bayesian optimization framework, “evolutionary Monte Carlo sampling,” to systematically design the arrangement of defects in an architected microlattice to maximize its strain energy density before undergoing catastrophic failure. Our algorithm searches a design space with billions of 4 × 4 × 5 3D lattices, yet it finds the global optimum with only 250 cost function evaluations. Our optimum has a normalized strain energy density 12,464 times greater than its commonly studied defect-free counterpart. Traditional optimization is inefficient for this microlattice because (i) the design space has discrete, qualitative parameter states as input variables, (ii) the cost function is computationally expensive, and (iii) the design space is large. Our proposed framework is useful for architected materials and for many optimization problems in science and elucidates how defects can enhance the mechanical performance of architected materials.

Introduction: European treatment guidelines in persons with known coronary heart disease (CHD) focus on adherence to antiplatelet therapy, beta-blockers, ACE/ARBs, and lipid-lowering agents, with goals for blood pressure (BP) of < 140/90 mm Hg and LDL cholesterol of < 3.0 mmol/l. Data on adherence to these measures in Eastern Europe are limited. Material and methods: The Third Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Coronary Prevention Study (ROSCOPS III) was conducted in 2005-2006 at 10 primary heath care centres in 601 patients (36% female, mean age 55 years) with CHD including acute myocardial infarction or ischaemia, coronary artery bypass graft, or angioplasty who were examined and interviewed at least 6 months after the event. We examined the proportion of subjects on recommended treatments and at goal for BP, LDL-C, and non-smoking. Results: The proportion of subjects on recommended treatments included 61% for beta-blockers, 79% for ACE/ARBs, 63% for lipid-lowering agents and 74% for antiplatelet therapy. Only 30% of subjects were on all four of these treatments. 59% of subjects had BP at goal of < 140/90 mm Hg and 33% were controlled to < 130/80 mm Hg, 41% for LDL-C, and 88% were non-smokers. Improvements were seen in lipid-lowering and ACE/ARB drug use and non-smoking status from an earlier survey (ROSCOPS II) in 2002-2003. Conclusions: Our data show, despite improvement over recent years, that many persons with CHD in the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina are neither on recommended treatments nor at target for BP and/or LDL-C. Improved efforts targeted at both physicians and patients to address these issues are needed.

Background

It is unknown if early COVID-19 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy can reduce risk of Long COVID. The mAbs amubarvimab/romlusevimab were previously demonstrated to reduce risk of hospitalization/death by 79%. This study assessed the impact of amubarvimab/romlusevimab on late outcomes, including Long COVID.

Methods

Non-hospitalized high-risk adults within 10 days of COVID-19 symptom onset enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial of amubarvimab/romlusevimab for COVID-19 treatment. Late symptoms, assessed using a participant-completed symptom diary, were a pre-specified exploratory endpoint. The primary outcome for this analysis was the composite of Long COVID by participant self-report (presence of COVID-19 symptoms as recorded in the diary at week 36) or hospitalization or death by week 36. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to address incomplete outcome ascertainment, giving weighted risk ratios (wRR) comparing amubarvimab/romlusevimab to placebo.

Findings

Participants received amubarvimab/romlusevimab (n = 390) or placebo (n = 390) between January and July 2021. Median age was 49 years, 52% were female, 18% Black/African American, 49% Hispanic/Latino, and 9% COVID-19-vaccinated at entry. At week 36, 103 (13%) had incomplete outcome ascertainment, and 66 (17%) on amubarvimab/romlusevimab and 92 (24%) on placebo met the primary outcome (wRR = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.93). The difference was driven by fewer hospitalizations/deaths with amubarvimab/romlusevimab (4%) than placebo (13%). Among 652 participants with available diary responses, 53 (16%) on amubarvimab/romlusevimab and 44 (14%) on placebo reported presence of Long COVID.

Interpretation

Amubarvimab/romlusevimab treatment, while highly effective in preventing hospitalizations/deaths, did not reduce risk of Long COVID. Additional interventions are needed to prevent Long COVID.

Funding

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab supplied by Brii Biosciences.

Background

Development of safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics is a high priority. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab are noncompeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies with an extended half-life.

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab.

Design

Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 and 3 platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04518410).

Setting

Nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines.

Patients

Adults within 10 days onset of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who are at high risk for clinical progression.

Intervention

Combination of monoclonal antibodies amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo.

Measurements

Nasopharyngeal and anterior nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 symptoms, safety, and progression to hospitalization or death.

Results

Eight-hundred and seven participants who initiated the study intervention were included in the phase 3 analysis. Median age was 49 years (quartiles, 39 to 58); 51% were female, 18% were Black, and 50% were Hispanic or Latino. Median time from symptom onset at study entry was 6 days (quartiles, 4 to 7). Hospitalizations and/or death occurred in 9 (2.3%) participants in the amubarvimab plus romlusevimab group compared with 44 (10.7%) in the placebo group, with an estimated 79% reduction in events (P < 0.001). This reduction was similar between participants with 5 or less and more than 5 days of symptoms at study entry. Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events through day 28 were seen less frequently among participants randomly assigned to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab (7.3%) than placebo (16.1%) (P < 0.001), with no severe infusion reactions or drug-related serious adverse events.

Limitation

The study population was mostly unvaccinated against COVID-19 and enrolled before the spread of Omicron variants and subvariants.

Conclusion

Amubarvimab plus romlusevimab was safe and significantly reduced the risk for hospitalization and/or death among nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection at high risk for progression to severe disease.

Primary funding source

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Objectives

To determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Design

Retrospective observational study.

Setting

Multicenter, international COVID-19 registry.

Subjects

Adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Data were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19-1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03-1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81-0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20-1.56]; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.