Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Jun 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2237813

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid emergence of the omicron variant and its large number of mutations led to its classification as a variant of concern (VOC) by the WHO. Subsequently, omicron evolved into distinct sublineages (e.g. BA1 and BA2), which currently represent the majority of global infections. Initial studies of the neutralizing response towards BA1 in convalescent and vaccinated individuals showed a substantial reduction. METHODS: We assessed antibody (IgG) binding, ACE2 (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2) binding inhibition, and IgG binding dynamics for the omicron BA1 and BA2 variants compared to a panel of VOC/VOIs, in a large cohort (n = 352) of convalescent, vaccinated, and infected and subsequently vaccinated individuals. RESULTS: While omicron was capable efficiently binding to ACE2, antibodies elicited by infection or immunization showed reduced binding capacities and ACE2 binding inhibition compared to WT. Whereas BA1 exhibited less IgG binding compared to BA2, BA2 showed reduced inhibition of ACE2 binding. Among vaccinated samples, antibody binding to omicron only improved after administration of a third dose. CONCLUSION: omicron BA1 and BA2 can still efficiently bind to ACE2, while vaccine/infection-derived antibodies can bind omicron. The extent of the mutations within both variants prevent a strong inhibitory binding response. As a result, both omicron variants are able to evade control by pre-existing antibodies.

2.
PLoS One ; 17(12): e0278214, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2197039

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is recognized as a severe complication of coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19-associated delirium has been linked to worse patient outcomes and is considered to be of multifactorial origin. Here we sought to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of delirium in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, along with its impact on clinical outcome. METHODS: Consecutive adult COVID-19 patients admitted to a tertiary academic referral hospital between March 1st and December 31st, 2020 were included. Potential risk factors for delirium were evaluated, including: age, gender, disease severity (as per the highest WHO grading reached during admission), laboratory parameters for infection and renal function (as per their most extreme values), and presence of comorbidities. To assess the relative strength of risk factors for predicting the occurrence of delirium, we performed a random-forest survival analysis. RESULTS: 347 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR test and median age 68.2 [IQR 55.5, 80.5] years were included. Of those, 79 patients (22.8%) developed delirium, 81 (23.3%) were transferred to ICU, 58 (16.7%) died. 163 (73.8%) patients were discharged home, 13 (5.9%) to another hospital, 32 (14.5%) to nursing homes, 13 (5.9%) to rehabilitation with an overall median admission-to-discharge time of 53 [IQR 14, 195] days. The strongest predictors for the occurrence of delirium were blood urea nitrogen (minimal depth value (MD): 3.33), age (MD: 3.75), disease severity (as captured by WHO grading; MD: 3.93), leukocyte count (MD: 4.22), the presence of a neurodegenerative history (MD: 4.43), ferritin (MD: 4.46) and creatinine (MD: 4.59) levels. CONCLUSION: The risk of delirium in COVID-19 can be stratified based on COVID-19 disease severity and-similar to delirium associated with other respiratory infections-the factors advanced age, neurodegenerative disease history, and presence of elevated infection and renal-retention parameters. Screening for these risk factors may facilitate early identification of patients at high-risk for COVID-19-associated delirium.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delirium , Neurodegenerative Diseases , Adult , Humans , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Tertiary Care Centers , Delirium/epidemiology , Delirium/etiology , Retrospective Studies
3.
J Pers Med ; 12(11)2022 Oct 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2090244

ABSTRACT

Several risk scores were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify patients at risk for critical illness as a basic step to personalizing medicine even in pandemic circumstances. However, the generalizability of these scores with regard to different populations, clinical settings, healthcare systems, and new epidemiological circumstances is unknown. The aim of our study was to compare the predictive validity of qSOFA, CRB65, NEWS, COVID-GRAM, and 4C-Mortality score. In a monocentric retrospective cohort, consecutively hospitalized adults with COVID-19 from February 2020 to June 2021 were included; risk scores at admission were calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the precision-recall curve were compared using DeLong's method and a bootstrapping approach. A total of 347 patients were included; 23.6% were admitted to the ICU, and 9.2% died in a hospital. NEWS and 4C-Score performed best for the outcomes ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. The easy-to-use bedside score NEWS has proven to identify patients at risk for critical illness, whereas the more complex COVID-19-specific scores 4C and COVID-GRAM were not superior. Decreasing mortality and ICU-admission rates affected the discriminatory ability of all scores. A further evaluation of risk assessment is needed in view of new and rapidly changing epidemiological evolution.

4.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 7168, 2022 05 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1890242

ABSTRACT

As global vaccination campaigns against SARS-CoV-2 proceed, there is particular interest in the longevity of immune protection, especially with regard to increasingly infectious virus variants. Neutralizing antibodies (Nabs) targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 are promising correlates of protective immunity and have been successfully used for prevention and therapy. As SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) are known to affect binding to the ACE2 receptor and by extension neutralizing activity, we developed a bead-based multiplex ACE2-RBD inhibition assay (RBDCoV-ACE2) as a highly scalable, time-, cost-, and material-saving alternative to infectious live-virus neutralization tests. By mimicking the interaction between ACE2 and the RBD, this serological multiplex assay allows the simultaneous analysis of ACE2 binding inhibition to the RBDs of all SARS-CoV-2 VOCs and variants of interest (VOIs) in a single well. Following validation against a classical virus neutralization test and comparison of performance against a commercially available assay, we analyzed 266 serum samples from 168 COVID-19 patients of varying severity. ACE2 binding inhibition was reduced for ten out of eleven variants examined compared to wild-type, especially for those displaying the E484K mutation such as VOCs beta and gamma. ACE2 binding inhibition, while highly individualistic, positively correlated with IgG levels. ACE2 binding inhibition also correlated with disease severity up to WHO grade 7, after which it reduced.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL