One year health outcomes associated with systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundIn patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, dexamethasone reduces acute severity and improves survival, but longer-term effects are unknown. We hypothesised that systemic corticosteroid administration during acute COVID-19 would be associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) one year after discharge. MethodsAdults admitted to hospital between February 2020 and March 2021 for COVID-19 and meeting current guideline recommendations for dexamethasone treatment were included using two prospective UK cohort studies. HRQoL, assessed by EQ-5D-5L utility index, pre-hospital and one year after discharge were compared between those receiving corticosteroids or not after propensity weighting for treatment. Secondary outcomes included patient reported recovery, physical and mental health status, and measures of organ impairment. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to account for survival and selection bias. FindingsIn 1,888 participants included in the primary analysis, 1,149 received corticosteroids. There was no between-group difference in EQ-5D-5L utility index at one year (mean difference 0.004, 95% CI: -0.026 to 0.034, p = 0.77). A similar reduction in EQ-5D-5L was seen at one year between corticosteroid exposed and non-exposed groups (mean (SD) change -0.12 (0.22) vs -0.11 (0.22), p = 0.32). Overall, there were no differences in secondary outcome measures. After sensitivity analyses modelled using a larger cohort of 109,318 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, EQ-5D-5L utility index at one year remained similar between the two groups. InterpretationSystemic corticosteroids for acute COVID-19 have no impact on the large reduction in HRQoL one year after hospital discharge. Treatments to address this are urgently needed. Take home messageSystemic corticosteroids given for acute COVID-19 do not affect health-related quality of life or other patient reported outcomes, physical and mental health outcomes, and organ function one year after hospital discharge

Cohort Profile: Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) (preprint)

Abstract [bullet] PHOSP-COVID is a national UK multi-centre cohort study of patients who were hospitalised for COVID-19 and subsequently discharged. [bullet] PHOSP-COVID was established to investigate the medium- and long-term sequelae of severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalisation, understand the underlying mechanisms of these sequelae, evaluate the medium- and long-term effects of COVID-19 treatments, and to serve as a platform to enable future studies, including clinical trials. [bullet] Data collected covered a wide range of physical measures, biological samples, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). [bullet] Participants could join the cohort either in Tier 1 only with remote data collection using hospital records, a PROMs app and postal saliva sample for DNA, or in Tier 2 where they were invited to attend two specific research visits for further data collection and biological research sampling. These research visits occurred at five (range 2-7) months and 12 (range 10-14) months post-discharge. Participants could also participate in specific nested studies (Tier 3) at selected sites. [bullet] All participants were asked to consent to further follow-up for 25 years via linkage to their electronic healthcare records and to be re-contacted for further research. [bullet] In total, 7935 participants were recruited from 83 UK sites: 5238 to Tier 1 and 2697 to Tier 2, between August 2020 and March 2022. [bullet] Cohort data are held in a Trusted Research Environment and samples stored in a central biobank. Data and samples can be accessed upon request and subject to approvals.

Clinical characteristics with inflammation profiling of Long-COVID and association with one-year recovery following hospitalisation in the UK: a prospective observational study (preprint)

Background There are currently no effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for Long-COVID. To identify potential therapeutic targets, we focussed on previously described four recovery clusters five months after hospital discharge, their underlying inflammatory profiles and relationship with clinical outcomes at one year. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a prospective longitudinal cohort study, recruiting adults hospitalised with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs), physical performance, and organ function at five-months and one-year after hospital discharge. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at one-year. Cluster analysis was performed using clustering large applications (CLARA) k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at five-months. Inflammatory protein profiling from plasma at the five-month visit was performed. Findings 2320 participants have been assessed at five months after discharge and 807 participants have completed both five-month and one-year visits. Of these, 35.6% were female, mean age 58.7 (SD 12.5) years, and 27.8% received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between five months 501/165 (25.6%) and one year 232/804 (28.9%). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at one year were: female sex OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.46-0.99), obesity OR 0.50 (95%CI 0.34-0.74) and IMV OR 0.42 (95%CI 0.23-0.76). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate/cognitive, mild relating to the severity of physical, mental health and cognitive impairments at five months in a larger sample. There was elevation of inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate/cognitive clusters compared to the mild cluster including interleukin-6 which was elevated in both comparisons. Overall, there was a substantial deficit in median (IQR) EQ5D-5L utility index from pre-COVID (retrospective assessment) 0.88 (0.74-1.00), five months 0.74 (0.60-0.88) to one year: 0.74 (0.59-0.88), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at one-year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters. Interpretation The sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 remain substantial one year after discharge across a range of health domains with the minority in our cohort feeling fully recovered. Patient perceived health-related quality of life remains reduced at one year compared to pre-hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials.

Vitamin D Status: A U-shaped relationship for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in UK healthcare workers (preprint)

Background Vitamin D has numerous mechanistic roles within the immune system. There is increasing evidence to suggest Vitamin D deficiency may increase individuals’ risk of COVID-19 infection and susceptibility. We aimed to determine the relationship between severity of vitamin D deficiency and sufficiency and COVID-19 infection within healthcare workers. Methods The study included an observational cohort of healthcare workers who isolated due to COVID-19 symptoms from 12th to 22nd May 2020, from the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT). This was part of the COVID-19 convalescent immunity study (COCO). Data collected included SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion status, serum 25(OH)D 3 levels as well as age, body mass index (BMI), sex, ethnicity, job role, and co-morbidities. Participants were grouped into four vitamin D (VD) categories. 1) Severe VD deficiency (VD <30 nmol/L); 2) VD deficiency (30 nmol/L ≤ VD <50 nmol/L); 3) VD insufficiency (50 nmol/L ≤ VD <75 nmol/L); 4) VD sufficiency (VD ≥75 nmol/L). Results When VD levels were compared against COVID-19 seropositivity rate, a U-shaped curve was identified in the total population. This trend repeated when split into subgroups of age, sex, ethnicity, BMI, and co-morbidity status. Significant difference was identified in the COVID-19 seropositivity rate between VD groups between multiple VD groups in the total population, males, females, BAME, BMI<30 (kg/m 2 ), 0 and +1 comorbidities; the majority of which were differences when the severely VD deficient category were compared to the other group. A significantly larger proportion of those within the Black, Asian, minority ethnic (BAME) group ( vs . white ethnicity) were severely vitamin D deficient ( P < 0.00001). A significantly higher proportion of the 0-comorbidity subgroup were vitamin D deficient in comparison to the 1+ comorbidity subgroup ( P = 0.046). Conclusions Further investigation of the U-shaped curves is required to determine whether high VD levels can have a detrimental effect on susceptibility to COVID-19 infection. Future randomised clinical trials of VD supplementation could potentially identify ‘optimal’ VD levels. This would allow for targeted therapeutic treatment for those at-risk such as in the BAME group.

An adaptive randomized controlled trial of non-invasive respiratory strategies in acute respiratory failure patients with COVID-19 (preprint)

BackgroundBoth continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) have been recommended for acute respiratory failure in COVID-19. However, uncertainty exists regarding effectiveness and safety. MethodsIn the Recovery-Respiratory Support multi-center, three-arm, open-label, adaptive, randomized controlled trial, adult hospitalized patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, deemed suitable for treatment escalation, were randomly assigned to receive CPAP, HFNO, or conventional oxygen therapy. Comparisons were made between each intervention and conventional oxygen therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days. ResultsOver 13-months, 1272 participants were randomized and included in the analysis (380 (29.9%) CPAP; 417 (32.8%) HFNO; 475 (37.3%) conventional oxygen therapy). The need for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days was lower in the CPAP group (CPAP 137 of 377 participants (36.3%) vs conventional oxygen therapy 158 of 356 participants (44.4%); unadjusted odds ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96, P=0.03). There was no difference between HFNO and conventional oxygen therapy (HFNO 184 of 414 participants (44.4%) vs conventional oxygen therapy 166 of 368 participants (45.1%); unadjusted odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.29, P=0.85). ConclusionsCPAP, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, reduced the composite outcome of intubation or death within 30 days of randomisation in hospitalized adults with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. There was no effect observed, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, with the use of HFNO. (Funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research; ISRCTN 16912075).

Evaluating discharges and readmissions using a COVID Virtual Ward model: a retrospective data study assessing patient outcomes and the likely staffing commitment (preprint)

Background COVID-19 has placed a catastrophic burden on acute hospitals. In an attempt to reduce admissions and enable safe early discharge, a COVID virtual ward (CVW) care pathway has been supported by NHS England. This includes discharging people who meet objective criteria based on acuity scores and oxygen saturations, with pulse oximeters and daily phone calls for up to 14 days. Observational studies have reported the safety of this system, but without describing the outcomes from usual care. Methods A retrospective study using routinely collected health data from all adults with a confirmed positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) swab result between 1 st June 2020 and 31 st Jan 2021 who attended the Emergency Department or Acute Medical Unit at QEHB, which does not have a CVW service. Criteria for CVW were applied using data from the first 24 hours of presentation to hospital and subsequent health outcomes were included for 28 days, including re-presentation, re-admission, ITU escalation and death. Results were compared to reported studies based in secondary care. Results During the study period, 26,127 patients presented to QEHB hospital. 2301 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab. Of these, 1730 (75.2%) did not meet the criteria for the CVW and 571 (24.8%) did. Of the 571, 325 (56.9%) were discharged home within 24 hours and 246 (43.1%) were admitted for 24 hours or longer. Those admitted were older, with increased co-morbidities, 80.9% required hospital-supported acute therapies after the first 24 hours and 10.6% died. Of the 325 discharged, 44 were readmitted (13.5%), 30 (9.2%) with COVID-related symptoms, 5 (1.5%) required ITU and 1 patient (0.3%) died. These results were comparable to published studies with a CVW service. Discussion In the current study, discharging patients without a CVW did not confer a greater risk of re-presentation, re-admission, ITU escalation or death. The majority of patients who remained in hospital despite meeting the CVW criteria did so for the provision of treatments or acute assessments. It remains uncertain whether a CVW delivers improvements in hard outcomes, and further research is needed.

Namilumab or infliximab compared to standard of care in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (CATALYST): a phase 2 randomised adaptive trial (preprint)

Summary Background Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the efficacy of namilumab, a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor inhibitor and infliximab, a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in order to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. Methods In this randomised, multi-arm, parallel group, open label, adaptive phase 2 proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST) we recruited hospitalised patients ≥ 16 years with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 40mg/L in nine UK hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated with equal probability to usual care, or usual care plus a single 150mg intravenous dose of namilumab (150mg) or infliximab (5mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified for ward versus ICU. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation in intervention arms compared to control as measured by CRP over time, analysed using Bayesian multi-level models. ISRCTN registry number 40580903. Findings Between 15 th June 2020 and 18 th February 2021 we randomised 146 participants: 54 to usual care, 57 to namilumab and 35 to infliximab. The probabilities that namilumab and infliximab were superior to usual care in reducing CRP over time were 97% and 15% respectively. Consistent effects were seen in ward and ICU patients and aligned with clinical outcomes, such that the probability of discharge (WHO levels 1-3) at day 28 was 47% and 64% for ICU and ward patients on usual care, versus 66% and 77% for patients treated with namilumab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30/55 (54.5%) namilumab patients compared to 145 in 29/54 (53.7%) usual care patients. 102 events occurred in 20/29 (69.0%) infliximab patients versus 112 events in 17/34 (50.0%) usual care patients. Interpretation Namilumab, but not infliximab, demonstrated proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia which was consistent with secondary clinical outcomes. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19. Funding Medical Research Council.

Altered neutrophil phenotype and function in non-ICU COVID-19 patients correlated with disease severity (preprint)

Rational: Infection with the SARS-CoV2 virus is associated with elevated neutrophil counts. Evidence of neutrophil dysfunction in COVID-19 is based predominantly on transcriptomics or single functional assays. Cell functions are interwoven pathways, and so understanding the effect of COVID-19 across the spectrum of neutrophil function may identify tractable therapeutic targets. Objectives: Examine neutrophil phenotype and functional capacity in COVID-19 patients versus age-matched controls (AMC) Methods: Isolated neutrophils from 41 hospitalised, non-ICU COVID-19 patients and 23 AMC underwent ex vivo analyses for migration, bacterial phagocytosis, ROS generation, NET formation (NETosis) and cell surface receptor expression. DNAse 1 activity was measured, alongside circulating levels of cfDNA, MPO, VEGF, IL-6 and sTNFRI. All measurements were correlated to clinical outcome. Serial sampling on day 3-5 post hospitalisation were also measured. Results: Compared to AMC, COVID-19 neutrophils demonstrated elevated transmigration (p=0.0397) and NETosis (p=0.0366), but impaired phagocytosis (p=0.0236) associated with impaired ROS generation (p<0.0001). Surface expression of CD54 (p<0.0001) and CD11c (p=0.0008) was significantly increased and CD11b significantly decreased (p=0.0229) on COVID-19 patient neutrophils. COVID-19 patients showed increased systemic markers of NETosis including increased cfDNA (p=0.0153) and impaired DNAse activity (p<0.0.001). MPO (p<0.0001), VEGF (p<0.0001), TNFRI (p<0.0001) and IL-6 (p=0.009) were elevated in COVID-19, which positively correlated with disease severity by 4C score. Conclusion: COVID-19 is associated with neutrophil dysfunction across all main effector functions, with altered phenotype, elevated migration, impaired antimicrobial responses and elevated NETosis. These changes represent a clear mechanism for tissue damage and highlight that targeting neutrophil function may help modulate COVID-19 severity.

Lung Function and Breathing Patterns in Hospitalised COVID-19 Survivors: a Review of Post-COVID-19 Clinics (preprint)

Introduction: There is relatively little published on the effects of COVID-19 on respiratory physiology, particularly breathing patterns. We sought to determine if there were lasting detrimental effect following hospital discharge and if these related to the severity of COVID-19.Methods: We reviewed lung function and breathing patterns in COVID-19 survivors >3 months after discharge, comparing patients who had been admitted to the intensive therapy unit (ITU) (n=47) to those who just received ward treatments (n=45). Lung function included spirometry and gas transfer and breathing patterns were measured with structured light plethysmography. Continuous data were compared with an independent t-test or Mann Whitney-U test (depending on distribution) and nominal data were compared using a Fisher’s exact test (for 2 categories in 2 groups) or a chi-squared test (for >2 categories in 2 groups). A p-value of < 0.05 was taken to be statistically significant.Results: We found evidence of pulmonary restriction (reduced vital capacity and/or alveolar volume) in 65.4% of all patients. 36.1% of all patients has a reduced transfer factor (TLCO) but the majority of these (78.1%) had a preserved/increased transfer coefficient (KCO), suggesting an extrapulmonary cause. There were no major differences between ITU and ward lung function although KCO alone was higher in the ITU patients (p = 0.03). This could be explained partly by obesity, respiratory muscle fatigue, localised microvascular changes, or haemosiderosis from lung damage. Abnormal breathing patterns were observed in 18.8% of subjects, although no consistent pattern of breathing pattern abnormalities was evident.Conclusions: An “extrapulmonary restrictive” like pattern appears to be a common phenomenon in previously admitted COVID-19 survivors. Whilst the cause of this is not clear, the effects seem to be similar on patients whether or not they received mechanical ventilation or had ward based respiratory support/supplemental oxygen. 

CATALYST trial protocol: A multicentre, open-label, phase II, multi-arm trial for an early and accelerated evaluation of the potential treatments for COVID-19 in hospitalised adults (preprint)

IntroductionSevere SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a dysregulated immune response. Inflammatory monocytes and macrophages are crucial, promoting injurious, pro-inflammatory sequelae. Immunomodulation is, therefore, an attractive therapeutic strategy and we sought to test licensed and novel candidate drugs. Methods and analysisThe CATALYST trial is a multi-arm, open-label, multi-centre, phase II platform trial designed to identify candidate novel treatments to improve outcomes of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with usual care. Treatments with evidence of biomarker improvements will be put forward for larger-scale testing by current national phase III platform trials. Hospitalised patients >16 years with a clinical picture strongly suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (confirmed by chest X-ray or CT scan, with or without a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay) and a C-Reactive Protein (CRP) [≥]40 mg/L are eligible. The primary outcome measure is CRP, measured serially from admission to day 14, hospital discharge or death. Secondary outcomes include the WHO Clinical Progression Improvement Scale as a principal efficacy assessment. Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by the East Midlands - Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (20/EM/0115) and given Urgent Public Health status; initial approval was received on 05-May-2020, current protocol version (v6.0) approval on 12-Oct-2020. The MHRA also approved all protocol versions. The results of this trial will be disseminated through national and international presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration numberEudraCT Number: 2020-001684-89 ISRCTN Number: 40580903 Strengths and limitations of this trialO_LICATALYST will provide a rapid readout on the safety and proof-of-concept of candidate novel treatments C_LIO_LICATALYST will enable phase III trial resources to be focussed and allocated for agents with a high likelihood of success C_LIO_LICATALYST uses Bayesian multi-level models to allow for nesting of repeated measures data, with factors for each individual patient and treatment arm, and allowing for non-linear responses C_LIO_LICATALYST is not designed to provide a definitive signal on clinical outcomes C_LI

The changing characteristics of COVID-19 presentations: A regional comparison of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalised patients during the first and second wave. (preprint)

Background: This study assesses COVID-19 hospitalised patient demography and outcomes during wave 1 and wave 2, prior to new variants of the virus. Methods: All patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 swab between 10th March 2020 and 5th July 2020 (wave 1) and 1st September 2020 and 16th November 2020 (wave 2) admitted to University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust were included (n=4856), followed for 28 days. Results: Wave 2 patients were younger, more ethnically diverse, had less co-morbidities and disease presentation was milder on presentation. After matching for these factors, mortality was reduced, but without differences in intensive care admissions. Conclusion: Prior to new SARS-CoV-2 variants, outcomes for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were improving but with similar intensive care needs.

Development and external validation of prognostic models for COVID-19 to support risk stratification in secondary care (preprint)

Objectives Existing UK prognostic models for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are limited by reliance on comorbidities, which are under-recorded in secondary care, and lack of imaging data among the candidate predictors. Our aims were to develop and externally validate novel prognostic models for adverse outcomes (death, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission) in UK secondary care; and externally validate the existing 4C score. Design Candidate predictors included demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging, laboratory tests. Final models used logistic regression with stepwise selection. Setting Model development was performed in data from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB). External validation was performed in the CovidCollab dataset. Participants Patients with COVID-19 admitted to UHB January-August 2020 were included. Main outcome measures Death and ITU admission within 28 days of admission. Results 1040 patients with COVID-19 were included in the derivation cohort; 288 (28%) died and 183 (18%) were admitted to ITU within 28 days of admission. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.791 (95%CI 0.761-0.822) in UHB and 0.767 (95%CI 0.754-0.780) in CovidCollab; AUROC for ITU admission was 0.906 (95%CI 0.883-0.929) in UHB and 0.811 (95%CI 0.795-0.828) in CovidCollab. Models showed good calibration. Addition of comorbidities to candidate predictors did not improve model performance. AUROC for the 4C score in the UHB dataset was 0.754 (95%CI 0.721-0.786). Conclusions The novel prognostic models showed good discrimination and calibration in derivation and external validation datasets, and outperformed the existing 4C score. The models can be integrated into electronic medical records systems to calculate each individual patients probability of death or ITU admission at the time of hospital admission. Implementation of the models and clinical utility should be evaluated.

Development and External Validation of Prognostic Models for COVID-19 to Support Risk Stratification in Secondary Care (preprint)

Background: Existing UK prognostic models for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are limited by reliance on comorbidities, which are under-recorded in secondary care, and lack of imaging data among the candidate predictors. Our aims were to develop and externally validate novel prognostic models for adverse outcomes (death, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission) in UK secondary care; and externally validate the existing 4C score. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB) January-August 2020 were included. Candidate predictors included demographic variables, symptoms, physiological measures, imaging, laboratory tests. Final models used logistic regression with stepwise selection. External validation was performed in the CovidCollab dataset. Findings: 1040 patients with COVID-19 were included in the derivation cohort; 288 (28%) died and 183 (18%) were admitted to ITU within 28 days of admission. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.791 (95%CI 0.761-0.822) in UHB and 0.767 (95%CI 0.754-0.780) in CovidCollab; AUROC for ITU admission was 0.906 (95%CI 0.883-0.929) in UHB and 0.811 (95%CI 0.795-0.828) in CovidCollab. Models showed good calibration. Addition of comorbidities to candidate predictors did not improve model performance. AUROC for the 4C score in the UHB dataset was 0.754 (95%CI 0.721-0.786). Interpretation: The novel prognostic models showed good discrimination and calibration in derivation and external validation datasets, and outperformed the existing 4C score. The models can be integrated into electronic medical records systems to calculate each individual patient’s probability of death or ITU admission at the time of hospital admission. Implementation of the models and clinical utility should be evaluated. Funding: Medical Research Council UK Research and Innovation.Declaration of Interests: NJA, ES, KN, MP, AD, CS, TT and YT report a grant from UKRI MRC during the conduct of the study. ES reports grants from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Wellcome Trust, MRC, Health Data Research UK (HDR-UK), British Lung Foundation, and Alpha 1 Foundation outside the submitted work. KN reports grants from MRC and HDR-UK outside the submitted work. DP reports grants from NIHR, MRC, and Chernakovsky Foundation outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval was provided by the East Midlands – Derby REC (reference: 20/EM/0158) for the PIONEER Research Database.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Susceptibility to COVID-19 in Patients With Hypertension: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study in Primary Care (preprint)

Introduction: Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors have been postulated to influence susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study investigated whether there is an association between their prescription and the incidence of COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Methods: We conducted a propensity-score matched cohort study comparing the incidence of COVID-19 among patients with hypertension prescribed ACE inhibitors or ARBs to those treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in a large UK-based primary care database (The Health Improvement Network). We estimated crude incidence rates for confirmed/suspected COVID-19 in each drug exposure group. We used Cox proportional hazards models to produce adjusted hazard ratios for COVID-19. We assessed all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome. Results: The incidence rate of COVID-19 among users of ACE inhibitors and CCBs was 9.3 per 1000 person-years (83 of 18,895 users [0.44%]) and 9.5 per 1000 person-years (85 of 18,895 [0.45%]), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.26). The incidence rate among users of ARBs was 15.8 per 1000 person-years (79 out of 10,623 users [0.74%]). The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.38 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.95). There were no significant associations between use of RAS inhibitors and all-cause mortality. Conclusion: Use of ACE inhibitors was not associated with the risk of COVID-19 whereas use of ARBs was associated with a statistically non-significant increase compared to the use of CCBs. However, no significant associations were observed between prescription of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs and all-cause mortality.

Discovery of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral synergy between remdesivir and approved drugs in human lung cells (preprint)

The SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused an ongoing global pandemic with currently 29 million confirmed cases and close to a million deaths. At this time, there are no FDA-approved vaccines or therapeutics for COVID-19, but Emergency Use Authorization has been granted for remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral nucleoside analog. However, remdesivir is only moderately efficacious against SARS-CoV-2 in the clinic, and improved treatment strategies are urgently needed. To accomplish this goal, we devised a strategy to identify compounds that act synergistically with remdesivir in preventing SARS-CoV-2 replication. We conducted combinatorial high-throughput screening in the presence of submaximal remdesivir concentrations, using a human lung epithelial cell line infected with a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2. We identified 20 approved drugs that act synergistically with remdesivir, many with favorable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. Strongest effects were observed with established antivirals, Hepatitis C virus nonstructural protein 5 A (HCV NS5A) inhibitors velpatasvir and elbasvir. Combination with their partner drugs sofosbuvir and grazoprevir further increased efficacy, increasing remdesivir's apparent potency 25-fold. We therefore suggest that the FDA-approved Hepatitis C therapeutics Epclusa (velpatasvir/sofosbuvir) and Zepatier (elbasvir/grazoprevir) should be fast-tracked for clinical evaluation in combination with remdesivir to improve treatment of acute SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension: a propensity score-matched cohort study in primary care (preprint)

Introduction A significant proportion of patients with Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) have hypertension and are treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, namely angiotensin-converting enzyme I inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) or angiotensin II type-1 receptor blockers (ARBs). These medications have been postulated to influence susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The objective of this study was to assess a possible association between prescription of RAS inhibitors and the incidence of COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Methods We conducted a propensity-score matched cohort study to assess the incidence of COVID-19 among patients with hypertension who were prescribed ACE inhibitors or ARBs compared to patients treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in a large UK-based primary care database (The Health Improvement Network). We estimated crude incidence rates for confirmed/suspected COVID-19 among those prescribed ACE inhibitors, ARBs and CCBs. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to produce adjusted hazard ratios for COVID-19 comparing patients prescribed ACE inhibitors or ARBs to those prescribed CCBs. We further assessed all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome and a composite of accidents, trauma or fractures as a negative control outcome to assess for residual confounding. Results In the propensity score matched analysis, 83 of 18,895 users (0.44%) of ACE inhibitors developed COVID-19 over 8,923 person-years, an incidence rate of 9.3 per 1000 person-years. 85 of 18,895 (0.45%) users of CCBs developed COVID-19 over 8,932 person-years, an incidence rate of 9.5 per 1000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratio for suspected/confirmed COVID-19 for users of ACE inhibitors compared to CCBs was 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.26). 79 out of 10,623 users (0.74%) of ARBs developed COVID-19 over 5010 person-years, an incidence rate of 15.8 per 1000 person-years, compared to 11.6 per 1000 person-years among users of CCBs. The adjusted hazard ratio for suspected/confirmed COVID-19 for users of ARBs compared to CCBs was 1.38 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.95). There were no significant associations between use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and all-cause mortality, compared to use of CCBs. We found no evidence of significant residual confounding with the negative control analysis. Conclusion Current use of ACE inhibitors was not associated with the risk of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 whereas use of ARBs was associated with a statistically non-significant 38% relative increase in risk compared to use of CCBs. However, no significant associations were observed between prescription of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs and all-cause mortality during the peak of the pandemic.

The COVID-19 immune landscape is dynamically and reversibly correlated with disease severity (preprint)

Despite a rapidly growing body of literature on COVID-19, our understanding of the immune correlates of disease severity, course and outcome remains poor. Using mass cytometry, we assessed the immune landscape in longitudinal whole blood specimens from 59 patients presenting with acute COVID-19, and classified based on maximal disease severity. Hospitalized patients negative for SARS-CoV-2 were used as controls. We found that the immune landscape in COVID-19 forms three dominant clusters, which correlate with disease severity. Longitudinal analysis identified a pattern of productive innate and adaptive immune responses in individuals who have a moderate disease course, whereas those with severe disease have features suggestive of a protracted and dysregulated immune response. Further, we identified coordinate immune alterations accompanying clinical improvement and decline that were also seen in patients who received IL-6 pathway blockade. The hospitalized COVID-19 negative cohort allowed us to identify immune alterations that were shared between severe COVID-19 and other critically ill patients. Collectively, our findings indicate that selection of immune interventions should be based in part on disease presentation and early disease trajectory due to the profound differences in the immune response in those with mild to moderate disease and those with the most severe disease.

Characterization and Outcomes of ARDS secondary to pneumonia in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2: A single center experience (preprint)

ARDS is the major cause of mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. We report a single-centre study comparing the characteristics of ARDS patients with and without SARS-CoV-2. A greater proportion of SARS-CoV-2 patients were from an Asian ethnic group (p=0.002). SARS-CoV-2 patients had lower circulating leukocytes, neutrophils and monocytes (p<0.0001), but higher CRP (p=0.016) on ICU admission. SARS-CoV-2 patients required a longer duration of mechanical ventilation (p=0.01), but had lower vasopressor requirements (p=0.016). While the clinical syndromes of SARS-CoV-2 and CAP-ARDS are similar, the dysregulated inflammation observed in SARS-CoV-2 may contribute to the increased duration of respiratory failure.

To what extent are social determinants of health, including household overcrowding, air pollution and housing quality deprivation, modulators of presentation, ITU admission and outcomes among patients with SARS-COV-2 infection in an urban catchment area in Birmingham, United Kingdom? (preprint)

Background: Internationally, researchers have called for evidence to support tackling health inequalities during the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2(COVID19) pandemic. UK Office for National Statistics data suggests that patients in regions of most deprived overall, generic Index of Multiple Deprivation Score(IMDS) are twice as likely to die of COVID19 than other causes. The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) report that BAME patients account for 34% of critically ill COVID19 patients nationally despite constituting 14% of the population. This paper is the first to explore the roles of social determinants of health, including specific IMDS sub-indices with indicators for household quality deprivation, household overcrowding deprivation and air pollution deprivation, as modulators of presentation, Intensive Care Unit(ITU) admission and outcomes among COVID19 patients of all ethnicities. Methods: An in-depth retrospective cohort study of 408 hospitalised COVID19 patients admitted to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham was conducted. Quantitative data analyses including two-step cluster analyses were applied. Results: Patients admitted from highest living environment(LE) deprivation indices were at increased risk of presenting with multi-lobar pneumonia and, in turn, ITU admission whilst patients admitted from highest Barriers to Housing and Services(BHS) deprivation indices were at increased risk of ITU admission. Admission to ITU significantly increased the risk of death. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic(BAME) patients were more likely, than white patients, to present with multi-lobar pneumonia, be admitted to ITU and be admitted from highest BHS and LE deprivation indices. Comorbidities and frailty significantly increased the risk of death among COVID19 patients irrespective of deprivation.Conclusions: Air pollution and housing quality deprivation are potential modulators of presentation with multi-lobar pneumonia. Household overcrowding deprivation and presentation with multi-lobar pneumonia are potential modulators of ITU admission. Patents of BAME ethnicity are more likely to be admitted from regions of highest air pollution, housing quality and household overcrowding deprivation; this is likely to contribute an explanation towards the higher ITU admissions reported among COVID19 BAME patients. These findings have urgent implications for supporting front line clinical decisions, disseminating practical advice around applying social distancing messages at the household level and informing wider pandemic strategy. 

Mechanical ventilation utilization in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

Background: In December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 caused a global pandemic with a viral infection called COVID-19. The disease usually causes respiratory symptoms but in a small proportion of patients can lead to pneumonitis, Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome and death. Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV) is considered a life-saving treatment for COVID-19 patients and a huge demand for IMV devices was reported globally. This review aims to provide insight on the initial IMV practices for COVID-19 patients in the initial phase of the pandemic. Methods: Electronic databases (Embase and MEDLINE) were searched for applicable articles using relevant keywords. The references of included articles were hand searched. Articles that reported the use of IMV in adult COVID-19 patients were included in the review. The NIH quality assessment tool for cohort and cross-sectional studies was used to appraise studies. Results: 106 abstracts were identified from the databases search, of which 16 were included. 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In total, 9988 patients were included across all studies. The overall cases of COVID-19 requiring IMV ranged from 2-75%. Increased age and pre-existing comorbidities increased the likelihood of IMV requirement. The reported mortality rate in patients receiving IMV ranged between 50-100%. On average, IMV was required and initiated between 10-10.5 days from symptoms onset. When invasively ventilated, COVID-19 patients required IMV for a median of 10-17 days across studies. Little information was provided on ventilatory protocols or management strategies and was inconclusive. Conclusion: In these initial reporting studies for the first month of the pandemic, patients receiving IMV were older and had more pre-existing co-morbidities than those who did not require IMV. The mortality rate was high in COVID-19 patients who received IMV. Studies are needed to evaluate protocols and modalities of IMV to improve outcomes and identify the populations most likely to benefit from IMV.