Detection of Covid-19 Outbreaks Using Built Environment Testing for SARS-CoV-2

Background: Environmental surveillance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through wastewater has become a useful tool for population-level surveillance. Built environment sampling may provide a more spatially refined approach for surveillance in congregate living settings. Methods: We conducted a prospective study in 10 long-term care homes (LTCHs) between September 2021 and November 2022. Floor surfaces were sampled weekly at multiple locations within each building and analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. The primary outcome was the presence of a coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) outbreak in the week that floor sampling was performed. Results: Over the 14-month study period, we collected 4895 swabs at 10 LTCHs. During the study period, 23 Covid-19 outbreaks occurred with 119 cumulative weeks under outbreak. During outbreak periods, the proportion of floor swabs that were positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 54.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52 to 56.6), and during non-outbreak periods it was 22.3% (95% CI, 20.9 to 23.8). Using the proportion of floor swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 to predict Covid-19 outbreak status in a given week, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.9). Among 10 LTCHs with an outbreak and swabs performed in the prior week, eight had positive floor swabs exceeding 10% at least 5 days before outbreak identification. For seven of these eight LTCHs, positivity of floor swabs exceeded 10% more than 10 days before the outbreak was identified. Conclusions: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 on floors is strongly associated with Covid-19 outbreaks in LTCHs. These data suggest a potential role for floor sampling in improving early outbreak identification. Wastewater testing has proven to be a valuable tool for forecasting Covid-19 outbreaks. Fralick et al. now report that swabbing of surfaces (i.e., floors) for SARS-CoV-2 may provide a similar benefit for predicting outbreaks in long-term care homes.

Randomized trials of therapeutic heparin for COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary endothelial injury and microcirculatory thromboses likely contribute to hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common cause of death, in patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest differences in the effect of therapeutic heparin between moderately and severely ill patients with COVID-19. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to determine the effects of therapeutic heparin in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, medRxiv, and medical conference proceedings for RCTs comparing therapeutic heparin with usual care, excluding trials that used oral anticoagulation or intermediate doses of heparin in the experimental arm. Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There were 3 RCTs that compared therapeutic heparin to lower doses of heparin in 2854 moderately ill ward patients, and 3 RCTs in 1191 severely ill patients receiving critical care. In moderately ill patients, there was a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause death (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57-1.02), but significant reductions in the composite of death or invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 0.98), and death or any thrombotic event (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77). Organ support-free days alive (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57) were significantly increased with therapeutic heparin. There was a nonsignificant increase in major bleeding. In severely ill patients, there was no evidence for benefit of therapeutic heparin, with significant treatment-by-subgroup interactions with illness severity for all-cause death (P = .034). In conclusion, therapeutic heparin is beneficial in moderately ill patients but not in severely ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The spatial and temporal distribution of SARS-CoV-2 from the built environment of COVID-19 patient rooms: A multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 can be detected from the built environment (e.g., floors), but it is unknown how the viral burden surrounding an infected patient changes over space and time. Characterizing these data can help advance our understanding and interpretation of surface swabs from the built environment. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study at two hospitals in Ontario, Canada between January 19, 2022 and February 11, 2022. We performed serial floor sampling for SARS-CoV-2 in rooms of patients newly hospitalized with COVID-19 in the past 48 hours. We sampled the floor twice daily until the occupant moved to another room, was discharged, or 96 hours had elapsed. Floor sampling locations included 1 metre (m) from the hospital bed, 2 m from the hospital bed, and at the room's threshold to the hallway (typically 3 to 5 m from the hospital bed). The samples were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 using quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). We calculated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in a patient with COVID-19, and we evaluated how the percentage of positive swabs and the cycle threshold of the swabs changed over time. We also compared the cycle threshold between the two hospitals. RESULTS: Over the 6-week study period we collected 164 floor swabs from the rooms of 13 patients. The overall percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 93% and the median cycle threshold was 33.4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 30.8, 37.2). On day 0 of swabbing the percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 88% and the median cycle threshold was 33.6 (IQR: 31.8, 38.2) compared to swabs performed on day 2 or later where the percentage of swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 98% and the cycle threshold was 33.2 (IQR: 30.6, 35.6). We found that viral detection did not change with increasing time (since the first sample collection) over the sampling period, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.65 per day (95% CI 0.68, 4.02; p = 0.27). Similarly, viral detection did not change with increasing distance from the patient's bed (1 m, 2 m, or 3 m), OR 0.85 per metre (95% CI 0.38, 1.88; p = 0.69). The cycle threshold was lower (i.e., more virus) in The Ottawa Hospital (median quantification cycle [Cq] 30.8) where floors were cleaned once daily compared to the Toronto hospital (median Cq 37.2) where floors were cleaned twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to detect SARS-CoV-2 on the floors in rooms of patients with COVID-19. The viral burden did not vary over time or by distance from the patient's bed. These results suggest floor swabbing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a built environment such as a hospital room is both accurate and robust to variation in sampling location and duration of occupancy.

Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.

Prone positioning of patients with moderate hypoxaemia due to covid-19: multicentre pragmatic randomised trial (COVID-PRONE).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. DESIGN: Multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care. CONCLUSION: Among non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285. FINDINGS: A total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU. FUNDING: OpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. METHODS: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. RESULTS: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Outcomes in patients with and without disability admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Disability-related considerations have largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, despite evidence that people with disabilities are at elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19. We evaluated clinical outcomes in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with a disability compared with patients without a disability. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and discharged between Jan. 1, 2020, and Nov. 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared in-hospital death, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmission among patients with and without a physical disability, hearing or vision impairment, traumatic brain injury, or intellectual or developmental disability, overall and stratified by age (≤ 64 and ≥ 65 yr) using multivariable regression, controlling for sex, residence in a long-term care facility and comorbidity. RESULTS: Among 1279 admissions to hospital for COVID-19, 22.3% had a disability. We found that patients with a disability were more likely to die than those without a disability (28.1% v. 17.6%), had longer hospital stays (median 13.9 v. 7.8 d) and more readmissions (17.6% v. 7.9%), but had lower ICU admission rates (22.5% v. 28.3%). After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences between those with and without disabilities for in-hospital death or admission to ICU. After adjustment, patients with a disability had longer hospital stays (rate ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.56) and greater risk of readmission (relative risk 1.77, 95% CI 1.14-2.75). In age-stratified analyses, we observed longer hospital stays among patients with a disability than in those without, in both younger and older subgroups; readmission risk was driven by younger patients with a disability. INTERPRETATION: Patients with a disability who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 had longer stays and elevated readmission risk than those without disabilities. Disability-related needs should be addressed to support these patients in hospital and after discharge.

Good things come in threes (and sometimes fours): Update on renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors and COVID-19: CMAJ

Quinn et al examine the role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Three large observational studies of more than 20,000 patients with COVID-19 found no association between the use of RAAS inhibitors and increased risk of infection, development of severe disease or death. The 3 studies used different methodological approaches, and all came to similar conclusions. A different cohort study of 18,472 patients who were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) also found no association between RAAS inhibitor use and testing positive for COVID-19. However, a secondary analysis of 1,735 patients in the study with confirmed COVID-19 showed an increased risk of severe disease requiring admission to the intensive care unit in patients using RAAS inhibitors. All observational studies are at risk of unmeasured confounding. However, according to the results across these studies, RAAS inhibitors are unlikely to cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

The Landscape of COVID-19 Research in the United States: a Cross-sectional Study of Randomized Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov.

IMPORTANCE: SARS-CoV-2 has infected over 200 million people worldwide, resulting in more than 4 million deaths. Randomized controlled trials are the single best tool to identify effective treatments against this novel pathogen. OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 in the United States launched in the first 9 months of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross-sectional study of all completed or actively enrolling randomized, interventional, clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 in the United States registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov as of August 10, 2020. We excluded trials of vaccines and other interventions intended to prevent COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures We used descriptive statistics to characterize the clinical trials and the statistical power for the available studies. For the late-phase trials (i.e., phase 3 and 2/3 studies), we compared the geographic distribution of the clinical trials with the geographic distribution of people diagnosed with COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 200 randomized controlled trials of treatments for people with COVID-19. Across all trials, 87 (43.5%) were single-center, 64 (32.0%) were unblinded, and 80 (40.0%) were sponsored by industry. The most common treatments included monoclonal antibodies (N=46 trials), small molecule immunomodulators (N=28), antiviral medications (N=24 trials), and hydroxychloroquine (N=20 trials). Of the 9 trials completed by August 2020, the median sample size was 450 (IQR 67-1113); of the 191 ongoing trials, the median planned sample size was 150 (IQR 60-400). Of the late-phase trials (N=54), the most common primary outcome was a severity scale (N=23, 42.6%), followed by a composite of mortality and ventilation (N=10, 18.5%), and mortality alone (N=6, 11.1%). Among these late-phase trials, all trials of antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, or chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine had a power of less than 25% to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in mortality. Had the individual trials for a given class of treatments instead formed a single trial, the power to detect that same reduction in mortality would have been greater than 98%. There was large variability in access to trials with the highest number of trials per capita in the Northeast and the lowest in the Midwest. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A large number of randomized trials were launched early in the pandemic to evaluate treatments for COVID-19. However, many trials were underpowered for important clinical endpoints and substantial geographic disparities were observed, highlighting the importance of improving national clinical trial infrastructure.

Caractéristiques et issues des hospitalisations pour les cas de COVID-19 et d'influenza dans la région de Toronto.

CONTEXTE: Les caractéristiques des patients, les soins cliniques, l'utilisation des ressources et les issues cliniques des personnes atteintes de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalisées au Canada ne sont pas bien connus. MÉTHODES: Nous avons recueilli des données sur tous les adultes hospitalisés atteints de la COVID-19 ou de l'influenza ayant obtenu leur congé d'unités médicales ou d'unités de soins intensifs médicaux et chirurgicaux entre le 1er novembre 2019 et le 30 juin 2020 dans 7 centres hospitaliers de Toronto et de Mississauga (Ontario). Nous avons comparé les issues cliniques des patients à l'aide de modèles de régression multivariée, en tenant compte des facteurs sociodémographiques et de l'intensité des comorbidités. Nous avons validé le degré d'exactitude de 7 scores de risque mis au point à l'externe pour déterminer leur capacité à prédire le risque de décès chez les patients atteints de la COVID-19. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les hospitalisations retenues, 1027 patients étaient atteints de la COVID-19 (âge médian de 65 ans, 59,1 % d'hommes) et 783 étaient atteints de l'influenza (âge médian de 68 ans, 50,8 % d'hommes). Les patients âgés de moins de 50 ans comptaient pour 21,2 % de toutes les hospitalisations dues à la COVID-19 et 24,0 % des séjours aux soins intensifs. Comparativement aux patients atteints de l'influenza, les patients atteints de la COVID-19 présentaient un taux de mortalité perhospitalière (mortalité non ajustée 19,9 % c. 6,1 %; risque relatif [RR] ajusté 3,46 %, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 2,56­4,68) et un taux d'utilisation des ressources des unités de soins intensifs (taux non ajusté 26,4 % c. 18,0 %; RR ajusté 1,50, IC à 95 % 1,25­1,80) significativement plus élevés, ainsi qu'une durée d'hospitalisation (durée médiane non ajustée 8,7 jours c. 4,8 jours; rapport des taux d'incidence ajusté 1,45; IC à 95 % 1,25­1,69) significativement plus longue. Le taux de réhospitalisation dans les 30 jours n'était pas significativement différent (taux non ajusté 9,3 % c. 9,6 %; RR ajusté 0,98 %, IC à 95 % 0,70­1,39). Trois scores de risque utilisant un pointage pour prédire la mortalité perhospitalière ont montré une bonne discrimination (aire sous la courbe [ASC] de la fonction d'efficacité du récepteur [ROC] 0,72­0,81) et une bonne calibration. INTERPRÉTATION: Durant la première vague de la pandémie, l'hospitalisation des patients atteints de la COVID-19 était associée à des taux de mortalité et d'utilisation des ressources des unités de soins intensifs et à une durée d'hospitalisation significativement plus importants que les hospitalisations des patients atteints de l'influenza. De simples scores de risque peuvent prédire avec une bonne exactitude le risque de mortalité perhospitalière des patients atteints de la COVID-19.