A Comparison of Germany and the United Kingdom Indicates That More SARS-CoV-2 Circulation and Less Restrictions in the Warm Season Might Reduce Overall COVID-19 Burden.

(1) Background: Between March 2020 and January 2022 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused five infection waves in Europe. The first and the second wave was caused by wildtype SARS-CoV-2, while the following waves were caused by the variants of concern Alpha, Delta, and Omicron respectively. (2) Methods: In the present analysis, the first four waves were compared in Germany and the UK, in order to examine the COVID-19 epidemiology and its modulation by non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI). (3) Results: The number of COVID-19 patients on intensive care units and the case fatality rate were used to estimate disease burden, the excess mortality to assess the net effect of NPI and other measures on the population. The UK was more severely affected by the first and the third wave while Germany was more affected by the second wave. The UK had a higher excess mortality during the first wave, afterwards the excess mortality in both countries was nearly identical. While most NPI were lifted in the UK in July 2021, the measures were kept and even aggravated in Germany. Nevertheless, in autumn 2021 Germany was much more affected, nearly resulting in a balanced sum of infections and deaths compared to the UK. Within the whole observation period, in Germany the number of COVID-19 patients on ICUs was up to four times higher than in the UK. Our results show that NPI have a limited effect on COVID-19 burden, seasonality plays a crucial role, and a higher virus circulation in a pre-wave situation could be beneficial. (4) Conclusions: Although Germany put much more effort and resources to fight the pandemic, the net balance of both countries was nearly identical, questioning the benefit of excessive ICU treatments and of the implementation of NPI, especially during the warm season.

Specific Risk Factors for Fatal Outcome in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: Results from a European Multicenter Study.

(1) Background: The aim of our study was to identify specific risk factors for fatal outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients. (2) Methods: Our data set consisted of 840 patients enclosed in the LEOSS registry. Using lasso regression for variable selection, a multifactorial logistic regression model was fitted to the response variable survival. Specific risk factors and their odds ratios were derived. A nomogram was developed as a graphical representation of the model. (3) Results: 14 variables were identified as independent factors contributing to the risk of death for critically ill COVID-19 patients: age (OR 1.08, CI 1.06-1.10), cardiovascular disease (OR 1.64, CI 1.06-2.55), pulmonary disease (OR 1.87, CI 1.16-3.03), baseline Statin treatment (0.54, CI 0.33-0.87), oxygen saturation (unit = 1%, OR 0.94, CI 0.92-0.96), leukocytes (unit 1000/µL, OR 1.04, CI 1.01-1.07), lymphocytes (unit 100/µL, OR 0.96, CI 0.94-0.99), platelets (unit 100,000/µL, OR 0.70, CI 0.62-0.80), procalcitonin (unit ng/mL, OR 1.11, CI 1.05-1.18), kidney failure (OR 1.68, CI 1.05-2.70), congestive heart failure (OR 2.62, CI 1.11-6.21), severe liver failure (OR 4.93, CI 1.94-12.52), and a quick SOFA score of 3 (OR 1.78, CI 1.14-2.78). The nomogram graphically displays the importance of these 14 factors for mortality. (4) Conclusions: There are risk factors that are specific to the subpopulation of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Nine Months of COVID-19 Pandemic in Europe: A Comparative Time Series Analysis of Cases and Fatalities in 35 Countries.

(1) Background: to describe the dynamic of the pandemic across 35 European countries over a period of 9 months. (2) Methods: a three-phase time series model was fitted for 35 European countries, predicting deaths based on SARS-CoV-2 incidences. Hierarchical clustering resulted in three clusters of countries. A multiple regression model was developed predicting thresholds for COVID-19 incidences, coupled to death numbers. (3) Results: The model showed strongly connected deaths and incidences during the waves in spring and fall. The corrected case-fatality rates ranged from 2% to 20.7% in the first wave, and from 0.5% to 4.2% in the second wave. If the incidences stay below a threshold, predicted by the regression model (R2=85.0%), COVID-19 related deaths and incidences were not necessarily coupled. The clusters represented different regions in Europe, and the corrected case-fatality rates in each cluster flipped from high to low or vice versa. Severely and less severely affected countries flipped between the first and second wave. (4) Conclusions: COVID-19 incidences and related deaths were uncoupled during the summer but coupled during two waves. Once a country-specific threshold of infections is reached, death numbers will start to rise, allowing health care systems and countries to prepare.

Incidence and Death Rates from COVID-19 Are Not Always Coupled: An Analysis of Temporal Data on Local, Federal, and National Levels.

SARS-CoV-2 has caused a deadly pandemic worldwide, placing a burden on local health care systems and economies. Infection rates with SARS-CoV-2 and the related mortality of COVID-19 are not equal among countries or even neighboring regions. Based on data from official German health authorities since the beginning of the pandemic, we developed a case-fatality prediction model that correctly predicts COVID-19-related death rates based on local geographical developments of infection rates in Germany, Bavaria, and a local community district city within Upper Bavaria. Our data point towards the proposal that local individual infection thresholds, when reached, could lead to increasing mortality. Restrictive measures to minimize the spread of the virus could be applied locally based on the risk of reaching the individual threshold. Being able to predict the necessity for increasing hospitalization of COVID-19 patients could help local health care authorities to prepare for increasing patient numbers.