Psychological outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19: Data from a multidisciplinary follow-up screening program for recovered patients

Patients who are hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) face an extremely stressful experience that might challenge their mental health. The study aims to describe the psychological condition of recovered patients, focusing on anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as post-traumatic stress. All the recovered COVID-19 patients who accessed to a multi- disciplinary follow-up screening program scheduled within two months after their hospital discharge were included. As far as the psychological assessment, patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised for post-traumatic stress. Socio-demographic and clinical data (days of hospitalization, intensity of received care, and number of supportive sessions with the hospital psychologist after the hospitalization) were collected. Descriptive, correlation and regression analyses were conducted. The sample includes 261 patients (68.2% men), aged between 23 and 90 (mean=58.9 st. dev=13.3). High numbers of patients reported anxiety (28%) and depression symptoms (17%), as well as post-traumatic stress (36.4%). Impaired outcomes were associated with female gender, while patient's age was found to be negatively correlated with anxiety symptoms. 13.8% of patients underwent a psychological visit and 6.1% of them were taken in charge for psychological support. Few months after hospital discharge, individuals recovered by COVID-19 reported negative consequences on their mental health. Understanding the impact that COVID-19 and hospitalization have on recovered patients may provide in- sights about how to develop an effective psychological intervention to help them deal with such psychological distress and prevent further psychopathological effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Sarilumab plus standard of care vs standard of care for the treatment of severe COVID-19: a phase 3, randomized, open-labeled, multi-center study (ESCAPE study).

Background: Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76). Findings: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% [95% CI 81-94] in arm A vs 85% [74-93], HR 1.07 [0.8-1.5] in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP) < 7 mg/dL (88% [77-96] vs 79% [63-91], HR 1.55 [0.9-2.6]; log-rank p = 0.049) and in the strata with lymphocytes <870/mmc (90% [79-96]) vs (73% [55-89], HR 1.53 [0.9-2.7]; log-rank p = 0.058). Overall, 39/121 (32%) AEs were reported in arm A and 14/55 (23%) in B (p = 0.195), while serious AEs were 22/121 (18%) and 7/55 (11%), respectively (p = 0.244). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: The efficacy of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 was not demonstrated both in the overall and in the stratified for severity analysis population. Exploratory analyses suggested that subsets of patients with lower CRP values or lower lymphocyte counts might have had benefit with sarilumab treatment, but this finding would require replication in other studies. The relatively low rate of concomitant corticosteroid use, could partially explain our results. Funding: This study was supported by INMI "Lazzaro Spallanzani" Ricerca Corrente Linea 1 on emerging and reemerging infections, funded by Italian Ministry of Health.

Real World Estimate of Vaccination Protection in Individuals Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Whether vaccination confers a protective effect against progression after hospital admission for COVID-19 remains to be elucidated. Observational study including all the patients admitted to San Paolo Hospital in Milan for COVID-19 in 2021. Previous vaccination was categorized as: none, one dose, full vaccination (two or three doses >14 days before symptoms onset). Data were collected at hospital admission, including demographic and clinical variables, age-unadjusted Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI). The highest intensity of ventilation during hospitalization was registered. The endpoints were in-hospital death (primary) and mechanical ventilation/death (secondary). Survival analysis was conducted by means of Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models. Effect measure modification by age was formally tested. We included 956 patients: 151 (16%) fully vaccinated (18 also third dose), 62 (7%) one dose vaccinated, 743 (78%) unvaccinated. People fully vaccinated were older and suffering from more comorbidities than unvaccinated. By 28 days, the risk of death was of 35.9% (95%CI: 30.1-41.7) in unvaccinated, 41.5% (24.5-58.5) in one dose and 28.4% (18.2-38.5) in fully vaccinated (p = 0.63). After controlling for age, ethnicity, CCI and month of admission, fully vaccinated participants showed a risk reduction of 50% for both in-hospital death, AHR 0.50 (95%CI: 0.30-0.84) and for mechanical ventilation or death, AHR 0.49 (95%CI: 0.35-0.69) compared to unvaccinated, regardless of age (interaction p > 0.56). Fully vaccinated individuals in whom vaccine failed to keep them out of hospital, appeared to be protected against critical disease or death when compared to non-vaccinated. These data support universal COVID-19 vaccination.

One-year cognitive follow-up of COVID-19 hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cognitive dysfunction has been observed following recovery from COVID-19. To the best of our knowledge, however, no study has assessed the progression of cognitive impairment after 1 year. The aim was to assess cognitive functioning at 1 year from hospital discharge, and eventual associations with specific clinical variables. METHODS: Seventy-six patients (aged 22-74 years) who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 were recruited. Patients received neuropsychological assessments at 5 (n = 76) and 12 months (n = 53) from hospital discharge. RESULTS: Over half (63.2%) of the patients had deficits in at least one test at 5 months. Compared to the assessment at 5 months, verbal memory, attention and processing speed improved significantly after 1 year (all p < 0.05), whereas visuospatial memory did not (all p > 0.500). The most affected domains after 1 year were processing speed (28.3%) and long-term visuospatial (18.1%) and verbal (15.1%) memory. Lower PaO2 /FiO2 ratios in the acute phase were associated with worse verbal long-term memory (p = 0.029) and visuospatial learning (p = 0.041) at 5 months. Worse visuospatial long-term memory at 5 months was associated with hyposmia (p = 0.020) and dysgeusia (p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Our study expands the results from previous studies showing that cognitive impairment can still be observed after 1 year. Patients with severe COVID-19 should receive periodic cognitive follow-up evaluations, as cognitive deficits in recovered patients could have social and occupational implications.

Female gender is associated with long COVID syndrome: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the association between female gender and long COVID syndrome, defined as persistence of physical and/or psychological symptoms for more than 4 weeks after recovery from acute COVID-19 disease. The secondary aim was to identify predictors of long COVID syndrome by multivariable logistic regression analysis. METHODS: This was a single-centre prospective cohort study conducted at San Paolo Hospital in Milan, Italy. We enrolled adult patients who were evaluated at the post-COVID outpatient service of our Infectious Diseases Unit between 15 April 2020 and 15 December 2020. Participants were individuals who had clinically recovered from COVID-19 and in whom virological clearance had occurred. Previous infection by SARS-CoV-2 was microbiologically documented by positivity using a reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasopharyngeal swab. All enrolled patients underwent blood tests and a comprehensive medical examination at follow-up. Individuals were interviewed about resolved and persisting symptoms and were asked to fill in two questionnaires to allow assessment of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression symptoms (HADS) score and of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) score. RESULTS: A total of 377 patients were enrolled in the study. The median time from symtpom onset to virological clerance was 44 (37-53) days. A diagnosis of long COVID syndrome was made in 260/377 (69%) patients. The most common reported symptoms were fatigue (149/377, 39.5%), exertional dyspnoea (109/377, 28.9%), musculoskeletal pain (80/377, 21.2%) and "brain fog" (76/377, 20.2%). Anxiety symptoms were ascertained in 71/377 (18.8%) individuals, whereas 40/377 (10.6%) patients presented symptoms of depression. Post-traumatic stress disorder (defined by a pathological IES-R score) was diagnosed in one-third of patients (85/275, 31%). Female gender was independently associated with long COVID syndrome at multivariable analysis (AOR 3.3 vs. males, 95% CI 1.8-6.2, p < 0.0001). Advanced age (adjusted (A)OR 1.03 for 10 years older, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p 0.01) and active smoking (AOR 0.19 for former smokers vs. active smokers, 95% CI 0.06-0.62, p 0.002) were also associated with a higher risk of long COVID, while no association was found between severity of disease and long COVID (AOR 0.67 for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV)/orotracheal intubation (OTI) vs. no 02 therapy, 95% CI 0.29-1.55, p 0.85). DISCUSSION: Factors that were found to be associated with a higher risk of developing "long COVID" syndrome were female gender, older age and active smoking, but not severity of the acute disease. Individuals affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection with the aforementioned features should be early identified and involved in follow-up programmes.

Declining Mortality Rate of Hospitalised Patients in the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Epidemics in Italy: Risk Factors and the Age-Specific Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rate from COVID-19 in Italy is among the world's highest. We aimed to ascertain whether there was any reduction of in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in the second-wave period (October 2020-January 2021) compared to the first one (February-May 2020); further, we verified whether there were clusters of hospitalised patients who particularly benefitted from reduced mortality rate. METHODS: Data collected related to in-patients' demographics, clinical, laboratory, therapies and outcome. Primary end-point was time to in-hospital death. Factors associated were evaluated by uni- and multivariable analyses. A flow diagram was created to determine the rate of in-hospital death according to individual and disease characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1561 patients were included. The 14-day cumulative incidence of in-hospital death by competing risk regression was of 24.8% (95% CI: 21.3-28.5) and 15.9% (95% CI: 13.7-18.2) in the first and second wave. We observed that the highest relative reduction of death from first to second wave (more than 47%) occurred mainly in the clusters of patients younger than 70 years. CONCLUSIONS: Progress in care and supporting therapies did affect population over 70 years to a lesser extent. Preventive and vaccination campaigns should focus on individuals whose risk of death from COVID-19 remains high.

Incidence, Risk Factors and Impact on Clinical Outcomes of Bloodstream Infections in Patients Hospitalised with COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

With the aim of describing the burden and epidemiology of community-acquired/healthcare-associated and hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (CA/HCA-BSIs and HA-BSIs) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and evaluating the risk factors for BSIs and their relative impact on mortality, an observational cohort study was performed on patients hospitalised with COVID-19 at San Paolo Hospital in Milan, Italy from 24 February to 30 November 2020. Among 1351 consecutive patients hospitalised with COVID-19, 18 (1.3%) had CA/HCA-BSI and 51 (3.8%) HA-BSI for a total of 82 episodes of BSI. The overall incidence of HA-BSI was 3.3/1000 patient-days (95% CI 2.4-4.2). Patients with HA-BSI had a longer hospital stay compared to CA/HCA-BSI and no-BSI groups (27 (IQR 21-35) vs. 12 (7-29) vs. 9 (5-17) median-days, p < 0.001) but a similar in-hospital mortality (31% vs. 33% vs. 25%, p = 0.421). BSI was not associated with an increased risk of mortality (CA/HCA-BSI vs. non-BSI aOR 1.27 95% CI 0.41-3.90, p = 0.681; HA-BSI vs. non-BSI aOR 1.29 95% CI 0.65-2.54, p = 0.463). Upon multivariate analysis, NIMV/CPAP (aOR 2.09, 95% CI 1.06-4.12, p = 0.034), IMV (aOR 5.13, 95% CI 2.08-12.65, p < 0.001) and corticosteroid treatment (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.06-4.19, p = 0.032) were confirmed as independent factors associated with HA-BSI. Development of HA-BSI did not significantly affect mortality. Patients treated with corticosteroid therapy had double the risk of developing BSI.

Psychological outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19: Data from a multidisciplinary follow-up screening program for recovered patients

Patients who are hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) face an extremely stressful experience that might challenge their mental health. The study aims to describe the psychological condition of recovered patients, focusing on anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as post-traumatic stress. All the recovered COVID-19 patients who accessed to a multi- disciplinary follow-up screening program scheduled within two months after their hospital discharge were included. As far as the psychological assessment, patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised for post-traumatic stress. Socio-demographic and clinical data (days of hospitalization, intensity of received care, and number of supportive sessions with the hospital psychologist after the hospitalization) were collected. Descriptive, correlation and regression analyses were conducted. The sample includes 261 patients (68.2% men), aged between 23 and 90 (mean=58.9 st. dev=13.3). High numbers of patients reported anxiety (28%) and depression symptoms (17%), as well as post-traumatic stress (36.4%). Impaired outcomes were associated with female gender, while patient's age was found to be negatively correlated with anxiety symptoms. 13.8% of patients underwent a psychological visit and 6.1% of them were taken in charge for psychological support. Few months after hospital discharge, individuals recovered by COVID-19 reported negative consequences on their mental health. Understanding the impact that COVID-19 and hospitalization have on recovered patients may provide in- sights about how to develop an effective psychological intervention to help them deal with such psychological distress and prevent further psychopathological effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

A Quantitative Estimate of the Expected Shortening of the Median Isolation Period of Patients With COVID-19 After the Adoption of a Symptom-Based Strategy.

A long period of isolation was observed in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Milan over March-September 2020 (45; IQR: 37-54 days). A significantly shorter period would have been observed by the application of May-WHO (22, IQR: 17-30 days, P < 0.001) and October-Italian (26, IQR: 21-34 days, P < 0.001) Guidelines. The adoption of the new symptom-based criteria is likely to lead to a significant reduction in the length of the isolation period with potential social, economic and psychological benefits, particularly in the younger population with mild/moderate disease and no comorbidities. In our opinion, the release from isolation after 21 days from symptoms onset, even without a PCR diagnostic test, in most cases seems the most adequate strategy that could balance precautions to prevent SARS CoV-2 transmission and unnecessary prolonged isolation or overuse of diagnostic testing.

Anxiety and depression symptoms after virological clearance of COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in Milan, Italy.

Prevalence of anxiety or depression was investigated in 105 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients at 1 to 3 months from virological clearance by hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS-A/D). 30% of patients displayed pathological HADS-A/D, 52.4% showed persistent symptoms. Pathological patients with HADS-A/D more commonly reported symptom persistence, even after adjustment for age, gender, and disease severity. Psychological assessments should be encouraged in COVID-19 patients' follow-up.

Long-Lasting Cognitive Abnormalities after COVID-19.

Considering the mechanisms capable of causing brain alterations in COVID-19, we aimed to study the occurrence of cognitive abnormalities in the months following hospital discharge. We recruited 38 (aged 22-74 years; 27 males) patients hospitalized for complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonintensive COVID units. Participants underwent neuropsychological testing about 5 months after hospital discharge. Of all patients, 42.1% had processing speed deficits, while 26.3% showed delayed verbal recall deficits. Twenty-one percent presented with deficits in both processing speed and verbal memory. Bivariate analysis revealed a positive correlation between the lowest arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2) to fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) (P/F) ratio during hospitalization and verbal memory consolidation performance (SRT-LTS score, r = 0.404, p = 0.027), as well as a positive correlation between SpO2 levels upon hospital arrival and delayed verbal recall performance (SRT-D score, rs = 0.373, p = 0.042). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during hospitalization was associated with worse verbal memory performance (ARDS vs. no ARDS: SRT-LTS mean score = 30.63 ± 13.33 vs. 44.50 ± 13.16, p = 0.007; SRT-D mean score = 5.95 ± 2.56 vs. 8.10 ± 2.62, p = 0.029). Cognitive abnormalities can frequently be found in COVID-19 patients 5 months after hospital discharge. Increased fatigability, deficits of concentration and memory, and overall decreased cognitive speed months after hospital discharge can interfere with work and daily activities.

Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Detection With Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

Background: SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects have been proven contagious in the symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic phase. The identification of these patients is crucial in order to prevent virus circulation. No reliable data on the sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are available because of the lack of a shared reference standard to identify SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. The aim of our study was to collect data on patients with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 who underwent serial testing to assess NPS sensitivity. Methods: The study was a multi-center, observational, retrospective clinical study with consecutive enrollment. We enrolled patients who met all of the following inclusion criteria: clinical recovery, documented SARS-CoV-2 infection (≥1 positive rRT-PCR result) and ≥1 positive NPS among the first two follow-up swabs. A positive NPS not preceded by a negative nasopharyngeal swab collected 24-48 h earlier was considered a true positive. A negative NPS followed by a positive NPS collected 24-48 h later was regarded as a false negative. The primary outcome was to define sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection with NPS. Results: Three hundred and ninety three NPS were evaluated in 233 patients; the sensitivity was 77% (95% CI, 73 to 81%). Sensitivity of the first follow-up NPS (n = 233) was 79% (95% CI, 73 to 84%) with no significant variations over time. We found no statistically significant differences in the sensitivity of the first follow-up NPS according to time since symptom onset, age, sex, number of comorbidities, and onset symptoms. Conclusions: NPS utility in the diagnostic algorithm of COVID-19 should be reconsidered.

The importance of patients' case-mix for the correct interpretation of the hospital fatality rate in COVID-19 disease.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to document data on the epidemiology and factors associated with clinical course leading to death of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study on patients hospitalised with COVID-19 disease in February-24th/May-17th 2020 in Milan, Italy. Uni-multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed. Death's percentage by two-weeks' intervals according to age and disease severity was analysed. RESULTS: A total of 174/539 (32.3%) patients died in hospital over 8228 person-day follow-up; the 14-day Kaplan-Meier probability of death was 29.5% (95%CI: 25.5-34.0). Older age, burden of comorbidities, COVID-19 disease severity, inflammatory markers at admission were independent predictors of increased risk, while several drug-combinations were predictors of reduced risk of in-hospital death. The highest fatality rate, 36.5%, occurred during the 2nd-3rd week of March, when 55.4% of patients presented with severe disease, while a second peak, by the end of April, was related to the admission of older patients (55% ≥80 years) with less severe disease, 30% coming from long-term care facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The unusual fatality rate in our setting is likely to be related to age and the clinical conditions of our patients. These findings may be useful to better allocate resources of the national healthcare system, in case of re-intensification of COVID-19 epidemics.