ABSTRACT
Background. Previous scoring systems have been proposed to predict COVID19 outcomes, however none have been universally adopted. Two scoring systems of interest are Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score (MASS) and Oral Antiviral and Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score (OMASS).MASS prioritized patientsfor outpatient monoclonal antibody treatment based on risk of hospitalization, and OMASS was a modified version of MASS used to prioritize outpatient oral antivirals. We created a modified scoring system (UCH2021) incorporating vaccination status. These scores (table 1) have not been used to predict in-hospital clinical outcomes. We investigate these systems' abilities to predict mortality and oxygen requirements in hospitalized COVID19 patients. They do not require blood tests and allow for more rapid triage. Table 1: MASS, OMASS, UCH2021 Scoring Criteria Methods. A retrospective chart review was performed on 133 patients in two tertiary care centers between March and Sept. 2020 with RT-PCR confirmed SARS CoV2. Baseline risk factors were collected and MASS, OMASS, and UCH2021 were calculated. Primary outcomes included mortality, need for intubation, and need for supplemental oxygen >6L during hospitalization. Secondary analysis assessed if any individual risk factors were associated with those outcomes. These systems were evaluated via area under the curve calculations. Two groups based on an outcome were compared using two-sample t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. Results. All three systems demonstrated some discriminative power for mortality (table 2), but not for oxygen and intubation requirements. There was statistically significant difference in age between survivors and deceased (table 3), and BMI for oxygen requirements (table 4). Other risk factors were not predictive of mortality or oxygen requirement. Table 2: MASS, OMASS, UCH2021 Scores and Mortality in Hospitalized COVID19 Patients Table 3: Age and Mortality in Hospitalized COVID19 Patients Table 4: BMI and Oxygen Requirements in Hospitalized COVID19 Patients Conclusion. The MASS, OMASS, and UCH2021 score all had predictive power in determining in-hospital mortality, with moderate accuracy, however none were predictive of oxygen requirements. Age and BMI were also good predictors of mortality and oxygen requirements respectively. This study was completed prior to vaccine distribution in the US. Further studies would be helpful to assess if UCH2021 score has greater discriminative power in samples with vaccinated patients.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Hepatic involvement during an active primary Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection often results in mild, self-resolving elevation of transaminases and is associated with infectious mononucleosis (IM). EBV rarely reactivates, and most cases occur in immunocompromised individuals. We present a rare case of EBV reactivation in an immunocompetent patient only presenting with cholestatic liver injury. Case Description/Methods: A 19-year-old female with a history of resolved EBV IM one year prior presented with dark urine and jaundice. She had no fever, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, weight changes or night sweats. She had no history of illicit drug, tobacco or alcohol use, recent travel, or sick contacts. Her medications were loratadine and an OCP;she denied use of acetaminophen or herbal supplements. Family history was unrevealing. On exam she was jaundiced but otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests showed AST 97 U/L, ALT 75 U/L, ALP 165 U/L, T-BILI 8.1 mg/dL, D-BILI 5.7 mg/dL. CT abdomen revealed splenomegaly. Work up revealed ASMA titer (1:40), but otherwise negative/ normal ANA, IgG, AMA, HCV Ab, HBV serologies, HAV IgM, CMV PCR, iron studies, tick borne serologies, SARS CoV-2 PCR, A1AT and ceruloplasmin. On the second day, the T-BILI peaked to 12.4 mg/dL, AST 151 U/L, ALT 131 U/L, ALP 237 U/L. (Fig.1) EBV serologies were positive (EBV VCA IgG >750.0 U/ml, EBV VCA IgM >160.0 U/ml), EBV viral load of 23,500 copy/ ml and negative monospot test. On day four, the LFTs improved and she was discharged. One month later LFTs had normalized, and she was asymptomatic. Discussion: EBV reactivation causing cholestatic liver injury is extremely rare in immunocompetent individuals. Furthermore, EBV-induced hepatitis is usually associated with IM but our patient's sole complaint was jaundice and dark urine. Interestingly, she had mononucleosis due to EBV one year prior with unremarkable LFTs. The fact that the hepatitis was caused by the reactivation of the virus instead of a primary infection may be the reason for lack of other symptoms. It is unclear whether EBV reactivation increases the risk of hepatitis. The diagnosis can be made without a liver biopsy if thorough work up for hepatitis is negative and the EBV serologies are positive. The disease is often self-limited and the use of antivirals is controversial and thus there is no clear indication. Our case demonstrates that EBV reactivation presenting without the 'classic' IM symptoms may be under-recognized as a cause of cholestatic liver injury. (Figure Presented).