The humoral and cellular response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is influenced by HLA polymorphisms.

Host genetic variability contributes to susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 evolution and the role of HLA system has not clearly emerged, suggesting the involvement of other factors. Studying response to vaccination with Spyke protein mRNA represents an ideal model to highlight whether the humoral or cellular responses are influenced by HLA. Four hundred and sixteen workers, vaccinated with Comirnaty beginning 2021, were selected within the Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria "Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino." The humoral response was determined with the LIAISON® kit, while the analysis of the cellular response was performed with the Quantiferon SARS-CoV-2 assay, for the S1 (receptor-binding domain; Ag1) and S1 and S2 (Ag2) subunits of the Spyke protein. Six HLA loci were typed by next-generation sequencing. Associations between HLA and vaccine response were performed with univariate and multivariate analyses. An association was found between A*03:01, B*40:02 and DPB1*06:01 and high antibody concentration and between A*24:02, B*08:01 and C*07:01 and low humoral responses. The haplotype HLA-A*01:01 ~ B1*08:01 ~ C*07:01 ~ DRB1*03:01 ~ DQB1*02:01 conferred an increased risk of low humoral response. Considering cellular responses, 50% of the vaccinated subjects responded against Ag1 and 59% against Ag2. Carriers of DRB1*15:01 displayed a higher cellular response both to Ag1 and Ag2 compared to the rest of the cohort. Similarly, DRB1*13:02 predisposed to a robust cellular response to Ag1 and Ag2, while DRB1*11:04 showed an opposite trend. Cellular and humoral responses to Comirnaty are influenced by HLA. Humoral response is mainly associated to class I alleles, with A*03:01, previously associated to protection against severe COVID-19, and response to vaccination, standing out. Cellular response predominantly involves class II alleles, with DRB1*15:01 and DPB1*13:01 prevailing. Affinity analysis for Spyke peptides is generally in line with the association results.

Convalescent or standard plasma versus standard of care in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with respiratory impairment: short and long-term effects. A three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of early treatment with convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 is debated. Nothing is known about the potential effect of other plasma components other than anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: To determine whether convalescent or standard plasma would improve outcomes for adults in early phase of Covid19 respiratory impairment we designed this randomized, three-arms, clinical trial (PLACO COVID) blinded on interventional arms that was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. It was a multicentric trial at 19 Italian hospitals. We enrolled 180 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia within 5 days from the onset of respiratory distress. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard of care (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of standard plasma (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of high-titre convalescent plasma (n = 60) administered on days 1, 3, 5 after randomization. Primary outcome was 30-days mortality. Secondary outcomes were: incidence of mechanical ventilation or death at day 30, 6-month mortality, proportion of days with mechanical ventilation on total length of hospital stay, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, viral clearance from plasma and respiratory tract samples, and variations in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. The trial was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: 180 patients (133/180 [73.9%] males, mean age 66.6 years [IQR 57-73]) were enrolled a median of 8 days from onset of symptoms. At enrollment, 88.9% of patients showed moderate/severe respiratory failure. 30-days mortality was 20% in Control arm, 23% in Convalescent (risk ratio [RR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-2.13, P = 0.694) and 25% in Standard plasma (RR 1.23; 95%CI, 0.63-2.37, P = 0.544). Time to viral clearance from respiratory tract was 21 days for Convalescent, 28 for Standard plasma and 23 in Control arm but differences were not statistically significant. No differences for other secondary endpoints were seen in the three arms. Serious adverse events were reported in 1.7%, 3.3% and 5% of patients in Control, Standard and Convalescent plasma arms respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neither high-titer Convalescent nor Standard plasma improve outcomes of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428021. First posted: 11/06/2020.

Cellular Immune Response to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Large Cohort of Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care University Hospital.

We describe the results of a T-cell immunity evaluation performed after a median elapsed time of 7 months from second-dose BNT162b2 vaccine administration, in a representative sample of 419 subjects from a large cohort of hospital workers. Overall, the Quantiferon SARS-CoV-2 assay detected a responsive pattern in 49.9%, 59.2% and 68.3% of subjects to three different antigenic stimuli from SARS-CoV-2, respectively, with 72.3% of positivity to at least one antigenic stimulus. Potential predictors of cellular response were explored by multivariable analyses; factors associated with positivity to cellular response (to Ag1 antigenic stimulus) were a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR = 4.24, 95% CI 2.34-7.67, p < 0.001), increasing age (per year: OR = 1.03 95% CI 1.01-1.06, p = 0.019 and currently smoking (compared to never smoking) (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.11-3.36, p = 0.010). Increasing time interval between vaccine administration and T-cell test was associated with decreasing cellular response (per week of time: OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.98, p = 0.003). A blood group A/AB/B (compared to group O) was associated with higher levels of cellular immunity, especially when measured as Ag2 antigenic stimulus. Levels of cellular immunity tended to be lower among subjects that self-reported an autoimmune disorder or an immunodeficiency and among males. Further studies to assess the protective significance of different serological and cellular responses to the vaccine toward the risk of reinfection and the severity of COVID-19 are needed to better understand these findings.

Implementation of the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol for hysterectomy in the Piedmont Region with an audit&feedback approach: Study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. A study of the EASY-NET project.

INTRODUCTION: ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) is a perioperative program combining multiple evidence-based interventions designed to reduce the surgical stress response. Despite the publication of dedicated guidelines, ERAS application to gynecologic surgery outside clinical studies has been slow and fragmented. To promote the systematic adoption of the ERAS program in the entire regional hospital network in Piedmont an Audit-and-Feedback approach (A&F) has been adopted within a cluster randomized controlled trial, aiming to estimate the true impact of the protocol on a large, unselected population. METHODS: The study protocol provides for a multicenter stepped wedge cluster randomized trial, focused on women undergoing an hysterectomy, for comparison between standard perioperative management and perioperative management according to the ERAS protocol. The primary outcome is the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes are: post-operative complications, quality-of-recovery at 24-hours after surgery, 30-day readmissions, patients' satisfaction, healthcare costs. The compliance to all the ERAS items is monitored with an A&F approach. All the gynecologic units of Piedmont hospitals are involved and all the patients hospitalized for elective hysterectomy in the period of the study are included. Centers, stratified by surgical volume and randomly assigned to four groups, are randomly ordered to activate the ERAS protocol in four periods, every three months. The planned calendar and the total duration of the study have been extended for six months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The expected sample size of about 2400 patients has a high statistical power (99%) to detect a reduction of LOS of 1 day (effect size 0.5) and to estimate clinically meaningful changes in the other study endpoints. The study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Committee of all participating centers. Study results will be timely circulated within the hospital network and published in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSION: Results are expected to demonstrate positive clinical outcomes of the ERAS protocol even when its implementation is directed towards an entire regional network of gynecologic units, and not only towards selected and highly motivated centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04063072.

Factors Influencing Level and Persistence of Anti SARS-CoV-2 IgG after BNT162b2 Vaccine: Evidence from a Large Cohort of Healthcare Workers.

We aimed at evaluating quantitative IgG response to BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine among health care workers (HCW), and exploring the role of demographic, clinical, and occupational factors as predictors of IgG levels. On May 2021, among 6687 HCW at the largest tertiary care University-Hospital of Northwestern Italy, at a median of 15 weeks (Interquartile range-IQR 13.6-16.0) after second-dose, serological response was present in 99.8%. Seropositivity was >97% in all the subgroups, except those self-reporting immunodeficiency (94.9%). Overall, the median serological IgG value was 990 BAU/mL (IQR 551-1870), with most of subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or with shorter time lapse (2-8 weeks) between vaccination and serology with values in the highest quintile (>2080). At multivariable analysis, significant predictors of lower values were increasing age, male, current smoking, immunodeficiency, recent occupational contacts, and increasing time lapse from vaccination; conversely, previous infection and recent household contacts were significantly associated with higher IgG levels. Subjects with previous infection kept a very high level (around 2000 BAU/mL) up to 120 days. These results, besides supporting a high serological response up to 4-5 months, suggest predictive factors of faster decay of IgG levels that could be useful in tailoring vaccination strategies.

Liver involvement and mortality in COVID-19: A retrospective analysis from the CORACLE study group.

Introduction: liver abnormalities are common in COVID-19 patients and associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We aimed to investigate clinical significance and effect on the mortality of abnormal liver function tests (ALFTs) in COVID-19 patients. Methods: we retrospectively evaluated in a multicentre study all patients admitted with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Results: 434 patients were included in this analysis. Among overall patients, 311 (71.6%) had normal baseline ALT levels. 123 patients showed overall abnormal liver function tests (ALFTs) at baseline [101 ALFTs <2x UNL and 22 ≥2 UNL]. Overall in-hospital mortality was 14% and mean duration of hospitalization was 10.5 days. Hypertension (50.5%), cardiovascular diseases (39.6%), diabetes (23%) were frequent comorbidities and 53.7% of patients had ARDS. At multivariate analysis, the presence of ARDS at baseline (OR=6.11; 95% CI: 3.03-12.32; p<0.000); cardiovascular diseases (OR=4; 95% CI: 2.05-7.81; p<0.000); dementia (OR=3.93; 95%CI:1.87-8.26; p<0.000) and no smoking (OR=4.6; 95% CI: 1.45-14.61; p=0.010) resulted significantly predictive of in-hospital mortality. The presence of ALFTs at baseline was not significantly associated with mortality (OR=3.44; 95% CI=0.81-14.58; p=0.094). Conclusion: ALFTs was frequently observed in COVID-19 patients, but the overall in-hospital mortality was mainly determined by the severity of illness, comorbidities and presence of ARDS.

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.

Implementation of the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol for colorectal cancer surgery in the Piemonte Region with an Audit and Feedback approach: study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: a study of the EASY-NET project.

INTRODUCTION: The ERAS protocol (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) is a multimodal pathway aimed to reduce surgical stress and to allow a rapid postoperative recovery. Application of the ERAS protocol to colorectal cancer surgery has been limited to a minority of hospitals in Italy. To promote the systematic adoption of ERAS in the entire regional hospital network in Piemonte an Audit and Feedback approach (A&F) has been adopted together with a cluster randomised trial to estimate the true impact of the protocol on a large, unselected population. METHODS: A multicentre stepped wedge cluster randomised trial is designed for comparison between standard perioperative management and the management according to the ERAS protocol. The primary outcome is the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes are: incidence of postoperative complications, time to patients' recovery, control of pain and patients' satisfaction. With an A&F approach the adherence to the ERAS items is monitored through a dedicated area in the study web site. The study includes 28 surgical centres, stratified by activity volume and randomly divided into four groups. Each group is randomly assigned to a different activation period of the ERAS protocol. There are four activation periods, one every 3 months. However, the planned calendar and the total duration of the study have been extended by 6 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.The expected sample size of about 2200 patients has a high statistical power (98%) to detect a reduction of LOS of 1 day and to estimate clinically meaningful changes in the other endpoints. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Committee of the coordinating centre and by all participating centres. Study results will be timely circulated within the hospital network and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04037787.

Prevalence, Persistence, and Factors Associated with SARS-CoV-2 IgG Seropositivity in a Large Cohort of Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care University Hospital in Northern Italy.

This observational study evaluated SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence and related clinical, demographic, and occupational factors among workers at the largest tertiary care University-Hospital of Northwestern Italy and the University of Turin after the first pandemic wave of March-April 2020. Overall, about 10,000 individuals were tested; seropositive subjects were retested after 5 months to evaluate antibodies waning. Among 8769 hospital workers, seroprevalence was 7.6%, without significant differences related to job profile; among 1185 University workers, 3.3%. Self-reporting of COVID-19 suspected symptoms was significantly associated with positivity (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.07, 95%CI: 1.76-2.44), although 27% of seropositive subjects reported no previous symptom. At multivariable analysis, contacts at work resulted in an increased risk of 69%, or 24% for working in a COVID ward; contacts in the household evidenced the highest risk, up to more than five-fold (OR 5.31, 95%CI: 4.12-6.85). Compared to never smokers, being active smokers was inversely associated with seroprevalence (OR 0.60, 95%CI: 0.48-0.76). After 5 months, 85% of previously positive subjects still tested positive. The frequency of SARS-COV-2 infection among Health Care Workers was comparable with that observed in surveys performed in Northern Italy and Europe after the first pandemic wave. This study confirms that infection frequently occurred as asymptomatic and underlines the importance of household exposure, seroprevalence (OR 0.60, 95%CI: 0.48-0.76).

Risk Factors for Mortality in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients in Piedmont, Italy: Results from the Multicenter, Regional, CORACLE Registry.

BACKGROUND: CORACLE is a retrospective and prospective, regional multicenter registry, developed to evaluate risk factors for mortality in a cohort of patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 infection within non-intensive wards. METHODS: The primary objective was to estimate the role of several prognostic factors on hospital mortality in terms of adjusted Odds Ratios (aOR) with multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 1538 patients were enrolled; 42% were female, and 58% were >70 years old. Deceased patients were 422 (27%), with a median age of 83 years (IQR (Inter Quartile Range) 76-87). Older age at admission (aOR 1.07 per year, 95%CI 1.06-1.09), diabetes (1.41, 1.02-1.94), cardiovascular disease (1.79, 1.31-2.44), immunosuppression (1.65, 1.04-2.62), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (3.53, 2.26-5.51), higher C-reactive protein values and a decreased PaO2/FiO2 ratio at admission were associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality. Amongst patients still alive on day 7, only hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment was associated with reduced mortality (0.57, 0.36-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Several risk factors were associated with mortality in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Although HCQ seems to be the only factor significantly associated with reduced mortality, this result is in contrast with evidence from randomized studies. These results should be interpreted in light of the study limitations.

Clinical and epidemiological characteristics associated with pneumonia at disease onset in patients admitted for COVID-19 to the Emergency Department of a large Hospital in Piedmont (North-Western Italy).

OBJECTIVES: to explore clinical and epidemiological characteristics associated with an imaging feature of COVID-19 pneumonia at disease onset, in order to identify factors that may be evaluable by general practitioners at patient's home, and which may lead to identify a more severe disease, needing hospitalization. DESIGN: this is a retrospective/prospective observational hospital cohort. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: the study population includes all patients consecutively admitted to the emergency department of Città della salute e della scienza University Hospital from 01.03 to 31.05.2020 with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: patients were classified in two groups according to the findings of X-ray imaging, lung ultrasound and chest computer tomography, as pneumonia or not pneumonia patients. RESULTS: in multivariable analysis, factors most strongly associated with emergency department admission with pneumonia were age, oxygen saturation <90% (adj OR 4.16 ;95%CI 1.44-12.07), respiratory rate >24 breaths/min (adj OR 6.50; 95%CI 2.36-17.87), fever ≥38° (adj OR 3.05; 95%CI 1.53-6.08) and the presence of gastroenteric symptoms (vomiting and diarrhea). A delay (> 7 days) between the appearance of the initial lung symptoms (cough and dyspnea) and the admission to the emergency department was also related to a higher probability of receiving a positive imaging report (OR 4.99; 95%CI 2,02-12,34). CONCLUSIONS: in order to reorganize the management of COVID-19 patients in Italy, in view of the risk of a second wave of epidemic or of local outbreaks, it would be desirable to relocate the triage, and possibly the patient's care, from hospital to home. In this scenario it is important to identify all symptoms and signs associated with COVID-19 pneumonia that would facilitate the decision-making process of GPs leading to patients hospitalization.

[A&F to monitor and promote quality in healthcare during the COVID-19 emergency: the EASY-NET work]. / A&F per il monitoraggio e la promozione della qualità delle cure in emergenza COVID-19: il lavoro di EASY-NET.

We are presenting here the findings of the reaction to the COVID-19 epidemic during the period March to June 2020 of those centres participating in the research EASY-NET which is on-going in Italy, funded by the Ministry of Health and co-founded by the Regional Health Authorities. The objective of EASY-NET is to evaluate the effectiveness of the audit and feedback (A&F) strategies in different clinical and organizational settings in seven regions. As a negative consequence of the COVID-19 epidemic, the activities of the project have suddenly slowed down; nevertheless, the COVID-19 epidemic represented an opportunity to apply the A&F methodology and support the healthcare within the regional authorities in order to manage and monitor the impact of this new disease. The reaction to the crisis on behalf of EASY-NET was inconsistent across the participating regions for various reasons. Factors which influenced the reaction levels in relation to the rapidity and efficiency of the implementation of the A&F strategies were as follows: the varying epidemiological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic in the various territories, the different clinical and organizational context and availability of expert research teams together with A&F procedures which had already been tested before the start of the epidemic.

[Covid-19 and clinical-epidemiological research in Italy: proposal of a research agenda on priority topics by the Italian association of epidemiology]. / Covid-19 e ricerca clinico-epidemiologica in Italia: proposta di un'agenda di ricerca su temi prioritari da parte dell'Associazione italiana di epidemiologia.

BACKGROUND: the Covid-19 pandemic has provoked a huge of clinical and epidemiological research initiatives, especially in the most involved countries. However, this very large effort was characterized by several methodological weaknesses, both in the field of discovering effective treatments (with too many small and uncontrolled trials) and in the field of identifying preventable risks and prognostic factors (with too few large, representative and well-designed cohorts or case-control studies). OBJECTIVES: in response to the fragmented and uncoordinated research production on Covid-19, the   italian Association of Epidemiology (AIE) stimulated the formation of a working group (WG) with the aims of identifying the most important gaps in knowledge and to propose a structured research agenda of clinical and epidemiological studies considered at high priority on Covid-19, including recommendations on the preferable methodology. METHODS: the WG was composed by 25 subjects, mainly epidemiologists, statisticians, and other experts in specific fields, who have voluntarily agreed to the proposal. The agreement on a list of main research questions and on the structure of the specific documents to be produced were defined through few meetings and cycles of document exchanges. RESULTS: twelve main research questions on Covid-19 were identified, covering aetiology, prognosis, interventions, follow-up and impact on general and specific populations (children, pregnant women). For each of them, a two-page form was developed, structured in: background, main topics, methods (with recommendations on preferred study design and warnings for bias prevention) and an essential bibliography. CONCLUSIONS: this research agenda represents an initial contribution to direct clinical and epidemiological research efforts on high priority topics with a focus on methodological aspects. Further development and refinements of this agenda by Public Health Authorities are encouraged.

[Audit and Feedback approach in the CoViD-19 emergency: adaptation of the EASY-NET project in the AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza of Turin.] / Audit e Feedback nell'emergenza CoViD-19: adattamento del progetto EASY-NET nell'AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino.

CoViD-19 pandemic heavily impacted most on-going research activities, causing delays and need of re-programming. EASY-NET (NET-2016-02364191) is a network project, started in April 2019, co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the participating regions. Within the general project, centred on the evaluation of Audit and Feedback (A&F) strategies in improving quality and equity in different health care contexts, the Piedmont region is responsible of the work package 3 (WP3) on specific oncology pathways and procedures. After a thorough evaluation of the impact of the CoViD-19 emergency on the WP3 activities, at the beginning of March 2020, the decision was to continue, with some adaptations, the audits already started, and to delay those in the early planning phase. The provisional availability of part of the time-persons involved in EASY-NET on one side, and the urgency of acquiring data on the management of the large number of CoViD-19 patients admitted to the study coordinator hospital on the other side, determined the personnel responsible of the WP3, in accordance with the hospital management, to invest these resources in monitoring the CoViD-19 hospitalized patients with both A&F activity and research objectives. Besides periodic reports, a web site, with restricted access to the involved health care personnel, was developed to allow a direct and timely consultation of graphics describing the flow of the patients, their management, and outcomes. This experience was made possible thanks to a favourable combination of different factors: the presence within the hospital of a group of experienced epidemiologists in A&F, the availability of extra resources, the strong support and collaboration by the hospital management and the readiness for authorisation by the Ethics Committee. We underline the need to provide a certain degree of flexibility in the long-term projects funded by the Ministry of Health, the extraordinary adaptability of the A&F approach also to emergency situations and the possibility of combining audit activities and research objectives in the same project.

Neurological comorbidity and severity of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Neurological symptoms of COVID-19 patients have been recently described. However, no comprehensive data have been reported on pre-existing neurological comorbidities and COVID-19. This study aims at evaluating the prevalence of neurological comorbidities, and their association with COVID-19 severity. METHODS: We evaluated all consecutive patients admitted to the Emergency Room (ER) of our hospital between the 3rd March and the 14th April 2020, and diagnosed with COVID-19. Data on neurological and non-neurological diseases were extracted, as well as data on demographic characteristics and on severity degree of COVID-19. The prevalence of neurological comorbidities was calculated, and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the association between neurological diseases and COVID-19 severity. RESULTS: We included 344 patients. Neurological comorbidities accounted for 22.4% of cases, with cerebrovascular diseases and cognitive impairment being the most frequent. Neurological comorbidity resulted independently associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 2.305; p = 0.012), as well as male gender (p = 0.001), older age (p = 0.001), neoplastic diseases (p = 0.039), and arterial hypertension (p = 0.045). When neurological comorbidity was associated with non-neurological comorbidities, the OR for severe COVID-19 rose to 7.394 (p = 0.005). Neurological patients, in particular cerebrovascular and cognitively impaired ones, received more respiratory support indication. CONCLUSION: Neurological comorbidities represent a significant determinant of COVID-19 severity, deserving a thorough evaluation since the earliest phases of infection. The vulnerability of patients affected by neurological diseases should suggest a greater attention in targeting this population for proactive viral screening.