Enoxaparin for outpatients with COVID-19: 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multinational, phase III OVID trial.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial. METHODS: Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms.

Pulmonary Surfactant Proteins are Inhibited by IgA Autoantibodies in Severe COVID-19.

RATIONALE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome with fatal outcomes. Evidence suggests that dysregulated immune responses, including autoimmunity, are key pathogenic factors. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether IgA autoantibodies target lung-specific proteins and contribute to disease severity. METHODS: We collected 147 blood, 9 lung tissue, and 36 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from three tertiary hospitals in Switzerland and one in Germany. Severe COVID-19 was defined by the need to administer oxygen. We investigated the presence of IgA autoantibodies and their effects on pulmonary surfactant in COVID-19 using the following methods: immunofluorescence on tissue samples, immunoprecipitations followed by mass spectrometry on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays on blood samples, and surface tension measurements with medical surfactant. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: IgA autoantibodies targeting pulmonary surfactant proteins B and C were elevated in patients with severe COVID-19, but not in patients with influenza or bacterial pneumonia. Notably, pulmonary surfactant failed to reduce surface tension after incubation with either plasma or purified IgA from patients with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that patients with severe COVID-19 harbor IgA against pulmonary surfactant proteins B and C and that these antibodies block the function of lung surfactant, potentially contributing to alveolar collapse and poor oxygenation. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Complement and endothelial cell activation in COVID-19 patients compared to controls with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: A prospective cohort study.

Background: Thromboinflammation may influence disease outcome in COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate complement and endothelial cell activation in patients with confirmed COVID-19 compared to controls with clinically suspected but excluded SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: In a prospective, observational, single-center study, patients presenting with clinically suspected COVID-19 were recruited in the emergency department. Blood samples on presentation were obtained for analysis of C5a, sC5b-9, E-selectin, Galectin-3, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1. Results: 153 cases and 166 controls (suffering mainly from non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viral infections, non-infectious inflammatory conditions and bacterial pneumonia) were included. Hospital admission occurred in 62% and 45% of cases and controls, respectively. C5a and VCAM-1 concentrations were significantly elevated and E-selectin concentrations decreased in COVID-19 out- and inpatients compared to the respective controls. However, relative differences in outpatients vs. inpatients in most biomarkers were comparable between cases and controls. Elevated concentrations of C5a, Galectin-3, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 on presentation were associated with the composite outcome of ICU- admission or 30-day mortality in COVID-19 and controls, yet more pronounced in COVID-19. C5a and sC5b-9 concentrations were significantly higher in COVID-19 males vs. females, which was not observed in the control group. Conclusions: Our data indicate an activation of the complement cascade and endothelium in COVID-19 beyond a nonspecific inflammatory trigger as observed in controls (i.e., "over"-activation).

Inverse relationship between IL-6 and sodium levels in patients with COVID-19 and other respiratory tract infections: data from the COVIVA study.

Objective: Hyponatremia in COVID-19 is often due to the syndrome of inadequate antidiuresis (SIAD), possibly mediated by interleukin-6 (IL-6)-induced non-osmotic arginine vasopressin (AVP) secretion. We hypothesized an inverse association between IL-6 and plasma sodium concentration, stronger in COVID-19 compared to other respiratory infections. Design: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study including patients with COVID-19 suspicion admitted to the Emergency Department, University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, between March and July 2020. Methods: We included patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and patients with similar symptoms, further subclassified into bacterial and other viral respiratory infections. The primary objective was to investigate the association between plasma sodium and IL-6 levels. Results: A total of 500 patients were included, 184 (37%) with COVID-19, 92 (18%) with bacterial respiratory infections, and 224 (45%) with other viral respiratory infections. In all groups, median (IQR) IL-6 levels were significantly higher in hyponatremic compared to normonatremic patients (COVID-19: 43.4 (28.4, 59.8) vs 9.2 (2.8, 32.7) pg/mL, P < 0.001; bacterial: 122.1 (63.0, 282.0) vs 67.1 (24.9, 252.0) pg/mL, P < 0.05; viral: 14.1 (6.9, 84.7) vs 4.3 (2.1, 14.4) pg/mL, P < 0.05). IL-6 levels were negatively correlated with plasma sodium levels in COVID-19, whereas the correlation in bacterial and other viral infections was weaker (COVID-19: R = -0.48, P < 0.001; bacterial: R = -0.25, P = 0.05, viral: R = -0.27, P < 0.001). Conclusions: IL-6 levels were inversely correlated with plasma sodium levels, with a stronger correlation in COVID-19 compared to bacterial and other viral infections. IL-6 might stimulate AVP secretion and lead to higher rates of hyponatremia due to the SIAD in these patients.

Complement and endothelial cell activation in COVID-19 patients compared to controls with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: A prospective cohort study

Background Thromboinflammation may influence disease outcome in COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate complement and endothelial cell activation in patients with confirmed COVID-19 compared to controls with clinically suspected but excluded SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods In a prospective, observational, single-center study, patients presenting with clinically suspected COVID-19 were recruited in the emergency department. Blood samples on presentation were obtained for analysis of C5a, sC5b-9, E-selectin, Galectin-3, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1. Results 153 cases and 166 controls (suffering mainly from non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viral infections, non-infectious inflammatory conditions and bacterial pneumonia) were included. Hospital admission occurred in 62% and 45% of cases and controls, respectively. C5a and VCAM-1 concentrations were significantly elevated and E-selectin concentrations decreased in COVID-19 out- and inpatients compared to the respective controls. However, relative differences in outpatients vs. inpatients in most biomarkers were comparable between cases and controls. Elevated concentrations of C5a, Galectin-3, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 on presentation were associated with the composite outcome of ICU- admission or 30-day mortality in COVID-19 and controls, yet more pronounced in COVID-19. C5a and sC5b-9 concentrations were significantly higher in COVID-19 males vs. females, which was not observed in the control group. Conclusions Our data indicate an activation of the complement cascade and endothelium in COVID-19 beyond a nonspecific inflammatory trigger as observed in controls (i.e., “over”-activation).

Sex disparities in patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting at an emergency department in Switzerland.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: In the global COVID-19 pandemic, female sex is associated with comparable infection rates but better outcome. However, most studies lacked appropriate controls. We investigated whether these sex disparity findings are specific to patients with COVID-19 or generalizable to patients presenting to the emergency room (ER) with similar symptoms but no COVID-19. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, consecutive patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 were recruited at the ER of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland from March to June 2020. Patients were categorized as SARS-CoV-2 positive (cases) or negative (controls) based on nasopharyngeal PCR swab tests. The final clinical diagnosis was determined for all patients. The primary outcome was a composite of intensive care admission, rehospitalization for respiratory distress and all-cause death within 30 days. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models to explore associations between sex and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1,081 consecutive ER patients, 191 (18%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with an even sex distribution (17.9% female vs. 17.5% male, p = 0.855). In COVID-19 patients, female sex was associated with lower risk of hospitalization (51% vs. 66%, p = 0.034), lower necessity of haemodynamic support (8% vs. 20%, p = 0.029), lower rates of intubation (10% vs. 21%, p = 0.037) and the primary outcome (18% vs. 31%, p = 0.045; age-adjusted HR 0.536, 95%CI 0.290-0.989, p = 0.046) compared with male sex. Sex disparities were most prominent in patients ≥55 years (HR for composite primary outcome in women 0.415, 95%CI 0.201-0.855, p = 0.017). In contrast to the COVID-19 patients, no sex-specific differences in outcomes were observed in the unselected overall control group (age-adjusted HR 0.844, 95%CI 0.560-1.273, p = 0.419) or in a subgroup of controls with upper respiratory tract infections or pneumonia (age-adjusted HR 0.840, 95%CI 0.418-1.688, p = 0.624). CONCLUSION: In this unselected, consecutive cohort study at a tertiary hospital in Switzerland, female sex is associated with better outcome in patients presenting to the ER with COVID-19. These sex disparities seem to be at least partly specific to COVID-19, as they were not observed in comparable controls.

Clinical utility of inflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19 in direct comparison to other respiratory infections-A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory biomarkers are associated with severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, direct comparisons of their utility in COVID-19 versus other respiratory infections are largely missing. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the prognostic utility of various inflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19 compared to patients with other respiratory infections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled. Levels of Interleukin-6 (IL-6), c-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, ferritin, and leukocytes were compared between COVID-19, other viral respiratory infections, and bacterial pneumonia. Primary outcome was the need for hospitalisation, secondary outcome was the composite of intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death at 30 days. RESULTS: Among 514 patients with confirmed respiratory infections, 191 (37%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, 227 (44%) with another viral respiratory infection (viral controls), and 96 (19%) with bacterial pneumonia (bacterial controls). All inflammatory biomarkers differed significantly between diagnoses and were numerically higher in hospitalized patients, regardless of diagnoses. Discriminative accuracy for hospitalisation was highest for IL-6 and CRP in all three diagnoses (in COVID-19, area under the curve (AUC) for IL-6 0.899 [95%CI 0.850-0.948]; AUC for CRP 0.922 [95%CI 0.879-0.964]). Similarly, IL-6 and CRP ranged among the strongest predictors for ICU admission or death at 30 days in COVID-19 (AUC for IL-6 0.794 [95%CI 0.694-0.894]; AUC for CRP 0.807 [95%CI 0.721-0.893]) and both controls. Predictive values of inflammatory biomarkers were generally higher in COVID-19 than in controls. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 and other respiratory infections, inflammatory biomarkers harbour strong prognostic information, particularly IL-6 and CRP. Their routine use may support early management decisions.

Enoxaparin for primary thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 (OVID): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a viral prothrombotic respiratory infection. Heparins exert antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects, and might have antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin would prevent untoward hospitalisation and death in symptomatic, but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: OVID was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial and was done at eight centres in Switzerland and Germany. Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute COVID-19 were eligible if they presented with respiratory symptoms or body temperature higher than 37·5°C. Eligible participants underwent block-stratified randomisation (by age group 50-70 vs >70 years and by study centre) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days versus standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was a composite of any untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days of randomisation. Analysis of the efficacy outcomes was done in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04400799) and has been completed. FINDINGS: At the predefined formal interim analysis for efficacy (50% of total study population), the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended early termination of the trial on the basis of predefined statistical criteria having considered the very low probability of showing superiority of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for the primary outcome under the initial study design assumptions. Between Aug 15, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, from 3319 participants prescreened, 472 were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (n=234) or standard of care (n=238). The median age was 57 years (IQR 53-62) and 217 (46%) were women. The 30-day risk of the primary outcome was similar in participants allocated to receive enoxaparin and in controls (8 [3%] of 234 vs 8 [3%] of 238; adjusted relative risk 0·98; 95% CI 0·37-2·56; p=0·96). All hospitalisations were related to COVID-19. No deaths were reported during the study. No major bleeding events were recorded. Eight serious adverse events were recorded in the enoxaparin group versus nine in the control group. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin does not reduce early hospitalisations and deaths among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Futility of the treatment under the initial study design assumptions could not be conclusively assessed owing to under-representation of older patients and consequent low event rates. FUNDING: SNSF (National Research Programme COVID-19 NRP78: 198352), University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Dr-Ing Georg Pollert (Berlin), Johanna Dürmüller-Bol Foundation.

Medical students' perceptions of learning and working on the COVID-19 frontlines: ' a confirmation that I am in the right place professionally'.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused complex and enduring challenges for healthcare providers and medical educators. The rapid changes to the medical education landscape forced universities across the world to pause traditional medical training. In Basel, Switzerland, however, medical students had the opportunity to work on the COVID-19 frontlines. Our purpose was to understand how they perceived both learning and professional identity development in this novel context. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 medical students who worked in a COVID-19 testing facility at the University Hospital of Basel. Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, we collected and analyzed data iteratively using the constant comparative approach to develop codes and theoretical themes. Most participants perceived working on the pandemic frontlines as a positive learning experience, that was useful for improving their technical and communication skills. Participants particularly valued the comradery amongst all team members, perceiving that the hierarchy between faculty and students was less evident in comparison to their usual learning environments. Since medical students reported that their work on the pandemic frontlines positively affected their learning, the need to create more hands-on learning opportunities for medical students challenges curriculum developers. Medical students wish to feel like full-fledged care team members rather than observing sideliners. Performing simple clinical tasks and collaborative moments in a supportive learning environment may promote learning and professional development and should be encouraged in the post-pandemic era.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Alpha and Delta Variant Breakthrough Infections Are Rare and Mild but Can Happen Relatively Early after Vaccination.

(1) Background: Some COVID-19 vaccine recipients show breakthrough infection. It remains unknown, which factors contribute to risks and severe outcomes. Our aim was to identify risk factors for SCoV2 breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated individuals. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective case-control study from 28 December 2020 to 25 October 2021. Data of all patients with breakthrough infection was compared to data of all vaccine recipients in the Canton of Basel-City, Switzerland. Further, breakthrough infections by Alpha- and Delta-variants were compared. (3) Results: Only 0.39% (488/126,586) of all vaccine recipients suffered from a breakthrough infection during the observational period, whereof most cases were asymptomatic or mild (97.2%). Breakthrough infections after full vaccination occurred in the median after 78 days (IQR 47-123.5). Factors with lower odds for breakthrough infection were age (OR 0.987) and previous COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination (OR 0.296). Factors with higher odds for breakthrough infection included vaccination with Pfizer/BioNTech instead of Moderna (OR 1.459), chronic disease (OR 2.109), and healthcare workers (OR 1.404). (4) Conclusions: Breakthrough infections are rare and mild but can occur early after vaccination. This implies that booster vaccination might be initiated earlier, especially for risk groups. Due to new variants emerging repeatedly, continuous monitoring of breakthrough infections is crucial.

Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to guide vaccination strategy in an urban area.

Transmission chains within small urban areas (accommodating ∼30 per cent of the European population) greatly contribute to case burden and economic impact during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and should be a focus for preventive measures to achieve containment. Here, at very high spatio-temporal resolution, we analysed determinants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in a European urban area, Basel-City (Switzerland). We combined detailed epidemiological, intra-city mobility and socio-economic data sets with whole-genome sequencing during the first SARS-CoV-2 wave. For this, we succeeded in sequencing 44 per cent of all reported cases from Basel-City and performed phylogenetic clustering and compartmental modelling based on the dominating viral variant (B.1-C15324T; 60 per cent of cases) to identify drivers and patterns of transmission. Based on these results we simulated vaccination scenarios and corresponding healthcare system burden (intensive care unit (ICU) occupancy). Transmissions were driven by socio-economically weaker and highly mobile population groups with mostly cryptic transmissions which lacked genetic and identifiable epidemiological links. Amongst more senior population transmission was clustered. Simulated vaccination scenarios assuming 60-90 per cent transmission reduction and 70-90 per cent reduction of severe cases showed that prioritising mobile, socio-economically weaker populations for vaccination would effectively reduce case numbers. However, long-term ICU occupation would also be effectively reduced if senior population groups were prioritised, provided there were no changes in testing and prevention strategies. Reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission through vaccination strongly depends on the efficacy of the deployed vaccine. A combined strategy of protecting risk groups by extensive testing coupled with vaccination of the drivers of transmission (i.e. highly mobile groups) would be most effective at reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within an urban area.

Mindfulness predicts less depression, anxiety, and social impairment in emergency care personnel: A longitudinal study.

Medical personnel working in emergency rooms (ER) are at increased risk of mental health problems and suicidality. There is increasing evidence that mindfulness-based interventions can improve burnout and other mental health outcomes in health care providers. In contrast, few longitudinal prospective studies have examined protective functions of dispositional mindfulness in this population. The objective of this study was to examine whether mindfulness prospectively predicts anxiety, depression, and social impairment in a sample of emergency care professionals. The authors administered online surveys to ER personnel prior to work in ER, and at 3 and 6 months follow up. Participants were 190 ER personnel (73% residents, 16% medical students, 11% nurses). Linear mixed effects regression was used to model longitudinal 3-month and 6-month follow up of depression, anxiety, and social impairment. Predictors included time-varying contemporaneous work stressors, perceived social support at work and life events, and baseline dispositional mindfulness, demographics, and workplace characteristics. Mindfulness indexed when starting ER work predicted less depression, anxiety, and social impairment 6 months later. Mindfulness remained a strong predictor of mental health outcomes after controlling for time-varying stressful events in emergency care, negative life events, and social support at work. Mindfulness moderated the adverse impact of poor social support at work on depression. To our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study to show that mindfulness prospectively and robustly predicts anxiety, depression, and social impairment. Results support the role of mindfulness as a potential resilience factor in at-risk health care providers.

Mimics and chameleons of COVID-19: patient presentation and accuracy of triage during the first wave.

STUDY AIMS: To quantify mimics and chameleons of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to analyse the diagnostic accuracy of the triage protocol, and to describe the resulting groups of mimics and chameleons - including their presenting symptoms and final diagnoses. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy study including all adult patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the emergency department of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland during the first wave of pandemic in spring 2020. Diagnostic accuracy of triage was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio. Triage to the group of suspected (+) and not suspected (-) COVID-19 was considered the index test, whereas a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result was used as reference standard. Mimics were defined as false positives and chameleons as false negatives. RESULTS: Of 2898 patients included in the analysis, 191 were true positives, 895 were false positives (mimics), 9 were false negatives (chameleons) and 1803 were true negatives. This resulted in a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.98) and a specificity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.65-0.69) for standardised triage. Among mimics, the main categories of final diagnoses were other infections (n = 513, 57.3%), cardiovascular diseases (excluding cerebrovascular) (n = 125, 14%), and non-infectious diseases of the respiratory system (n = 84, 9.4%). Fever (n = 357, 39.9% vs n = 104, 54.5%), cough (n = 466, 52.1% vs n = 126 66%), and smell or taste dysfunction (n = 60, 6.7% vs n = 24, 12.6%) were less frequently observed in mimics than in COVID-19 patients. Eight of nine COVID-19 chameleons presented with either nonspecific complaints (weakness and/or fatigue) or gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: The quantitative assessment of COVID-19 mimics and chameleons showed a high prevalence of mimics. Clinical differentiation between true positives and false positives is not feasible due to largely overlapping symptoms. Prevalence of chameleons was very low.

Comparing Immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection in Patients with and without Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Commercially available SARS-CoV-2-directed antibody assays may assist in diagnosing past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 antigens. We cross-compared the following eight immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) or spike (S) antigens in three cohorts consisting of 859 samples from 622 patients: (#1) EDI novel coronavirus COVID-19 (Epitope), (#2) RecomWell SARS-CoV-2 (Mikrogen), (#3) COVID-19 ELISA (VirCell), (#4) Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 N (Roche), (#5) Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 (DiaSorin), (#6) anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (EuroImmun), (#7) Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche), and (#8) Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS (DiaSorin). In cross-sectional cohort 1 (68 sera from 38 patients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection), agreement between assays #1 to #6 ranged from 75% to 93%, whereby discordance mostly resulted from N-based assays #1 to #4. In cross-sectional cohort 2 (510 sera from 510 patients; 56 documented, 454 unknown SARS-CoV-2 infection), assays #4 to #6 were analyzed further together with assays #7 and #8, revealing 94% concordance (44 [9%] positives and 485 [85%] negatives). Discordance was highest within 2 weeks after SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 diagnosis and confirmed in the longitudinal cohort 3 (281 sera from 74 COVID-19 patients), using assays #4, #6, #7, and #8. Subanalysis of 20 (27%) initially seronegative cohort 3 patients revealed assay-dependent 50% and 90% seroconversion rates after 8 to 11 days and 14 to 18 days, respectively. Increasing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were significantly associated with declining levels of viral loads, lactate dehydrogenase, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein and preceded clearance of SARS-CoV-2 detection in the upper respiratory tract by approximately 1 week. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody assays show substantial agreement, but interpretation of qualitative and semiquantitative results depends on the time elapsed postdiagnosis and the choice of viral antigen. Mounting of systemic SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies may predict recovery from viral injury and clearance of mucosal replication.

Direct Comparison of Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Risk Prediction in Patients with COVID-19 and Controls-A Prospective Cohort Study.

Most studies investigating early risk predictors in coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) lacked comparison with controls. We aimed to assess and directly compare outcomes and risk predictors at time of emergency department (ED) presentation in COVID-19 and controls. Consecutive patients presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled. COVID-19-patients were compared with (i) patients tested negative (overall controls) and (ii) patients tested negative, who had a respiratory infection (respiratory controls). Primary outcome was the composite of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death at 30 days. Among 1081 consecutive cases, 191 (18%) were tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 890 (82%) were tested negative (overall controls), of which 323 (30%) had a respiratory infection (respiratory controls). Incidence of the composite outcome was significantly higher in COVID-19 (23%) as compared with the overall control group (10%, adjusted-HR 2.45 (95%CI, 1.61-3.74), p < 0.001) or the respiratory control group (10%, adjusted-HR 2.93 (95%CI, 1.66-5.17), p < 0.001). Blood oxygen saturation, age, high-sensitivity troponin, c-reactive protein, and lactate dehydrogenase were identified as the strongest predictors of poor outcome available at time of ED presentation in COVID-19 with highly comparable prognostic utility in overall and respiratory controls. In conclusion, patients presenting to the ED with COVID-19 have a worse outcome than controls, even after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Most predictors of poor outcome in COVID-19 were not restricted to COVID-19, but of comparable prognostic utility in controls and therefore generalizable to unselected patients with suspected COVID-19.

Association of Frailty with Adverse Outcomes in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 Infection.

Older age and frailty are predictors of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. In emergency medicine, patients do not present with the diagnosis, but with suspicion of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to assess the association of frailty and age with death or admission to intensive care in patients with suspected COVID-19. This single-centre prospective cohort study was performed in the Emergency Department of a tertiary care hospital. Patients, 65 years and older, with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the Emergency Department during the first wave of the pandemic were consecutively enrolled. All patients underwent nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR swab tests. Patients with a Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) > 4, were considered to be frail. Associations between age, gender, frailty, and COVID-19 status with the composite adverse outcome of 30-day-intensive-care-admission and/or 30-day-mortality were tested. In the 372 patients analysed, the median age was 77 years, 154 (41.4%) were women, 44 (11.8%) were COVID-19-positive, and 125 (33.6%) were frail. The worst outcome was seen in frail COVID-19-patients with six (66.7%) adverse outcomes. Frailty (CFS > 4) and COVID-19-positivity were associated with an adverse outcome after adjustment for age and gender (frailty: OR 5.01, CI 2.56-10.17, p < 0.001; COVID-19: OR 3.47, CI 1.48-7.89, p = 0.003). Frailty was strongly associated with adverse outcomes and outperformed age as a predictor in emergency patients with suspected COVID-19.

Comparison of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients with COVID-19 and Other Respiratory Infections: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Previous studies have indicated an association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and acute kidney injury (AKI) but lacked a control group. The prospective observational COronaVIrus-surviVAl (COVIVA) study performed at the University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland consecutively enrolled patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. We compared patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with patients who tested negative but with an adjudicated diagnosis of a respiratory tract infection, including pneumonia. The primary outcome measure was death at 30 days, and the secondary outcomes were AKI incidence and a composite endpoint of death, intensive care treatment or rehospitalization at 30 days. Five hundred and seven patients were diagnosed with respiratory tract infections, and of those, 183 (36%) had a positive PCR swab test for SARS-CoV-2. The incidence of AKI was higher in patients with COVID-19 (30% versus 12%, p < 0.001), more severe (KDIGO stage 3, 22% versus 13%, p = 0.009) and more often required renal replacement therapy (4.4% versus 0.93%; p = 0.03). The risk of 30-day mortality and a composite endpoint was higher in patients with COVID-19-associated AKI (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) mortality 3.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-14.46, p = 0.036; composite endpoint aHR 1.84, 95% CI 1.02-3.31, p = 0.042). The mortality risk was attenuated when adjusting for disease severity (aHR 3.60, 95% CI 0.93-13.96, p = 0.062). AKI occurs more frequently and with a higher severity in patients with COVID-19 and is associated with worse outcomes.