Liver injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An International observational cohort study (preprint)

Background: Using a large dataset, we evaluated prevalence and severity of alterations in liver enzymes in COVID-19 and association with patient-centred outcomes. Methods: We included hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) database. Key exposure was baseline liver enzymes (AST, ALT, bilirubin). Patients were assigned Liver Injury Classification score based on 3 components of enzymes at admission: Normal; Stage I) Liver injury: any component between 1-3x upper limit of normal (ULN); Stage II) Severe liver injury: any component >= 3x ULN. Outcomes were hospital mortality, utilization of selected resources, complications, and durations of hospital and ICU stay. Analyses used logistic regression with associations expressed as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of 17,531 included patients, 46.2% (8099) and 8.2% (1430) of patients had stage 1 and 2 liver injury respectively. Compared to normal, stages 1 and 2 were associated with higher odds of mortality (OR 1.53 [1.37-1.71]; OR 2.50 [2.10-2.96]), ICU admission (OR 1.63 [1.48-1.79]; OR 1.90 [1.62-2.23]) and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 1.43 [1.27-1.70]; OR 1.95 (1.55-2.45).Stages 1 and 2 were also associated with higher odds of developing sepsis (OR 1.38 [1.27-1.50]; OR 1.46 [1.25-1.70]), acute kidney injury (OR 1.13 [1.00-1.27]; OR 1.59 [1.32-1.91]), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 1.38 [1.22-1.55]; OR 1.80 [1.49-2.17]). Conclusions: Liver enzyme abnormalities are common among COVID-19 patients and associated with worse outcomes.

Hybrid immunity and protection against infection during the Omicron wave in Malta (preprint)

Background: By December 2021, administration of the third dose of COVID-19 vaccinations coincided with the spread of the Omicron variant in Europe. Questions had been raised on protection against infection conferred by previous vaccination and/or infection. Method: Our study population (n = 252,433) included all those in the COVID-19 vaccination registry in Malta who were vaccinated with only 2 doses equivalent by 15th December 2021, and not vaccinated with an additional dose by 8th March 2022, and alive by 8th March 2022. Data were then matched with the national testing database (all RT-PCR/Rapid Diagnostic Tests - RDT tests) until 8th March. We collected vaccination status, vaccine brand, vaccination date, infection history, and age. Using logistic regression, we examined different combinations of vaccine dose, prior infection status and time, and the odds of infection during the Omicron period (December 15th, 2021 onwards). Results: Results found that participants infected with Sars-Cov-2 prior to the Omicron wave had a significantly lower odds of being infected with the Omicron variant. Additionally, the more recent the infection and the more recent the vaccination, the lower the odds of infection. Receiving a third dose within 20 weeks of the start of the Omicron wave in Malta offered similar odds of infection as receiving a second dose within the same period. Conclusion: Time since vaccination is a strong determinant factor against infection, as was previous infection status and the number of doses taken. This finding reinforces the importance of future booster dose provision especially to vulnerable populations.

Symptom-based case definitions for COVID-19: time and geographical variations for detection at hospital admission among 260,000 patients (preprint)

Introduction: Case definitions are used to guide clinical practice, surveillance, and research protocols. However, how they identify COVID-19-hospitalised patients is not fully understood. We analysed the proportion of hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, in the ISARIC prospective cohort study database, meeting widely used case definitions. Methods: Patients were assessed using the CDC, ECDC, WHO, and UKHSA case definitions by age, region, and time. Case fatality ratios (CFR) and symptoms of those who did and who did not meet the case definitions were evaluated. Patients with incomplete data and non-laboratory-confirmed test-result were excluded. Results: 263,218 of the patients (42%) in the ISARIC database were included. Most patients (90.4%) were from Europe and Central Asia. The proportions of patients meeting the case definitions were 56.8% (WHO), 74.4% (UKHSA), 81.6% (ECDC), and 82.3% (CDC). For each case definition, patients at the extremes of age distribution met the criteria less frequently than those aged 30 to 70 years; geographical and time variations were also observed. Estimated CFRs were similar for the patients that met the case definitions. However, when more patients did not meet the case definition, the CFR increased. Conclusions: The performance of case definitions might be different in different regions and may change over time. Similarly concerning is the fact that older patients often did not meet case definitions. While epidemiologists must balance their analytics with field applicability, ongoing revision of case definitions is necessary to improve patient care through early diagnosis and limit potential nosocomial spread.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients (preprint)

BackgroundWhilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. MethodsHere, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. ResultsOur analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61 - 0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. ConclusionsAlthough clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome.