Continued demographic shifts in hospitalised COVID-19 patients from migrant workers to a vulnerable and more elderly local population at risk of severe disease

Background. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of infected persons were migrant workers living in dormitories who were young and with few medical co-morbidities. In 2021, this shifted to the more vulnerable and elderly population within the local community. We examined trends amongst the hospitalised cases, in order to demonstrate changes in disease severity in association with the evolving demographics. Demographic shifts in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Proportion of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care over time in Singapore Methods. All patients with PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 admitted from February 2020 to October 2021 were included, and subsequently stratified by their year of admission (2020 or 2021). Demographics were also classified by sex, ethnicity, as well as mode of transmission, namely i) imported cases, ii) locally-transmitted cases outside of migrant worker dormitories, and iii) migrant worker dormitory cases. We compared the baseline clinical characteristics, clinical presentation and outcomes. Results. A majority of cases were seen in 2020 (n=1359), compared with 2021 (n=422), due to the large outbreaks in migrant worker dormitories. Nevertheless, the greater proportion of locally-transmitted cases outside of dormitories in 2021 (78.7% vs 12.3%) compared with 2020 meant a significantly older population with more medical co-morbidities were exposed to COVID-19. This led to an observably higher proportion of patients with severe disease, presenting with raised inflammatory markers, need for therapeutics, supplemental oxygenation and higher mortality. Baseline characteristics of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Singapore over time. Conclusion. Changing demographics and the characteristics of the exposed populations are associated with distinct differences in clinical presentation and outcomes. Understanding demographic shifts may be crucial in appropriate allocation of healthcare resources in managing hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Using Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Spike Protein Antibody Serology in addition to the ISARIC 4C Risk Score to Better Discriminate Adverse Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019

Background. The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to threaten many countries globally. Large-scale vaccination exercises have helped to reduce transmission and severity of disease. We sought to modify an existing clinical score (the ISARIC-4C mortality score) to include serological status to better prognosticate hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods. We examined the first 1781 consecutive hospitalized patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed COVID-19 in a tertiary academic centre. We divided the study population into those requiring intensive care and those who did not require throughout their inpatient stay. Baseline characteristics examined include medical comorbidities, vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 serology spike protein, duration of fever and haemodynamics were compared. Adverse outcomes were defined as patients who required intensive care or mortality. Performance of the risk scores were measured by the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) in predicting adverse outcomes. Results. The 55 patients requiring intensive care during their inpatient stay tended to have persistent fever beyond 72 hours and had lower titres of spike protein antibodies. (58.9 (+/-105.3) U/mL vs 144.2 (+/-116.2) U/mL, p = 0.007). A high spike protein antibody titre >75 U/mL was independently protective for adverse outcomes (adjusted OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.53), even after adjusting for the ISARIC-4C score and the presence of persistent fever. Adding the serological status and presence of persistent fever to the ISARIC-4C score improved its performance in predicting adverse outcomes (AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.78-0.89). Conclusion. Addition of the SARS-CoV-2 serology spike protein titre and prolonged fever to the ISARIC-4C mortality score helps to better prognosticate adverse clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Fever as a predictor of adverse outcomes in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION: There are little data on outcomes of COVID-19 patients with the presence of fever compared to the presence of symptoms. AIM: We examined the associations between symptomology, presence of fever and outcomes of a COVID-19 cohort. DESIGN AND METHODS: Between 23 January and 30 April 2020, 554 COVID-19 patients were admitted to a tertiary hospital in Singapore. They were allocated into four groups based on symptomology and fever-Group 1: asymptomatic and afebrile, Group 2: symptomatic but afebrile, Group 3: febrile but asymptomatic and Group 4: symptomatic and febrile. The primary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and mortality. The composite end-point included ICU admissions, mortality or any COVID-19 related end-organ involvement. RESULTS: There were differences in ferritin (P=0.003), C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (P<0.001) and lymphopenia (P=0.033) across all groups, with the most favourable biochemical profile in Group 1, and the least in Group 4. Symptomatic groups (Groups 2 and 4) had higher ICU admissions (1.9% and 6.0%, respectively, P=0.003) than asymptomatic groups (Groups 1 and 3). Composite end-point was highest in Group 4 (24.0%), followed by Group 3 (8.6%), Group 2 (4.8%) and Group 1 (2.4%) (P<0.001). The presence of fever (OR 4.096, 95% CI 1.737-9.656, P=0.001) was associated with the composite end-point after adjusting for age, pulse rate, comorbidities, lymphocyte, ferritin and CRP. Presence of symptoms was not associated with the composite end-point. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: In this COVID-19 cohort, presence of fever was a predictor of adverse outcomes. This has implications on the management of febrile but asymptomatic COVID-19 patients.

Rapid publications risk the integrity of science in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern. MAIN TEXT: Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.