Factor Analysis in Distinguishing Coronavirus Disease 2019 From Other Influenza-like Illness Using a Validated Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument FLU-PRO Plus: A Prospective Real-world Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: InFLUenza Patient-reported Outcome (FLU-PRO Plus) is a 34-item patient-reported outcome instrument designed to capture the intensity and frequency of viral respiratory symptoms. This study evaluates whether FLU-PRO Plus responses could discriminate between symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza-like illness (ILI) with no COVID diagnosis, as well as forecast disease progression. METHODS: FLU-PRO Plus was administered daily for 14 days. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the FLU-PRO Plus responses on the first day to 3 factors interpreted as "symptom clusters." The 3 clusters were used to predict COVID-19 versus ILI diagnosis in logistic regression. Correlation between the clusters and quality of life (QoL) measures was used to assess concurrent validity. The timing of self-reported return to usual health in the 14-day period was estimated as a function of the clusters within COVID-19 and ILI groups. RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen patients completed day 1 FLU-PRO Plus, of which 65% had a COVID-19 diagnosis. Exploratory factor analysis identified 3 symptom clusters: (1)general Body, (2) tracheal/bronchial, and (3) nasopharyngeal. Higher nasopharyngeal scores were associated with higher odds of COVID-19 compared with ILI diagnosis [adjusted odds ratio = 1.61 (1.21, 2.12)]. Higher tracheal/bronchial scores were associated with lower odds of COVID-19 [0.58 (0.44, 0.77)]. The 3 symptom clusters were correlated with multiple QoL measures ( r = 0.14-0.56). Higher scores on the general body and tracheal/bronchial symptom clusters were associated with prolonged time to return to usual health [adjusted hazard ratios: 0.76 (0.64, 0.91), 0.80 (0.67, 0.96)]. CONCLUSION: Three symptom clusters identified from FLU-PRO Plus responses successfully discriminated patients with COVID-19 from non-COVID ILI and were associated with QoL and predicted symptom duration.

A machine learning approach identifies distinct early-symptom cluster phenotypes which correlate with hospitalization, failure to return to activities, and prolonged COVID-19 symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Accurate COVID-19 prognosis is a critical aspect of acute and long-term clinical management. We identified discrete clusters of early stage-symptoms which may delineate groups with distinct disease severity phenotypes, including risk of developing long-term symptoms and associated inflammatory profiles. METHODS: 1,273 SARS-CoV-2 positive U.S. Military Health System beneficiaries with quantitative symptom scores (FLU-PRO Plus) were included in this analysis. We employed machine-learning approaches to identify symptom clusters and compared risk of hospitalization, long-term symptoms, as well as peak CRP and IL-6 concentrations. RESULTS: We identified three distinct clusters of participants based on their FLU-PRO Plus symptoms: cluster 1 ("Nasal cluster") is highly correlated with reporting runny/stuffy nose and sneezing, cluster 2 ("Sensory cluster") is highly correlated with loss of smell or taste, and cluster 3 ("Respiratory/Systemic cluster") is highly correlated with the respiratory (cough, trouble breathing, among others) and systemic (body aches, chills, among others) domain symptoms. Participants in the Respiratory/Systemic cluster were twice as likely as those in the Nasal cluster to have been hospitalized, and 1.5 times as likely to report that they had not returned-to-activities, which remained significant after controlling for confounding covariates (P < 0.01). Respiratory/Systemic and Sensory clusters were more likely to have symptoms at six-months post-symptom-onset (P = 0.03). We observed higher peak CRP and IL-6 in the Respiratory/Systemic cluster (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We identified early symptom profiles potentially associated with hospitalization, return-to-activities, long-term symptoms, and inflammatory profiles. These findings may assist in patient prognosis, including prediction of long COVID risk.

Content validity and psychometric properties of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus©) instrument in patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: A well-defined and reliable patient-reported outcome instrument for COVID-19 is important for assessing symptom severity and supporting research studies. The InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) instrument has been expanded to include loss of taste and smell in the FLU-PRO Plus, to comprehensively cover COVID-19 symptoms. Our studies were designed to evaluate and validate the FLU-PRO Plus among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Two studies were conducted: (1) a qualitative, non-interventional, cross-sectional study of patients with COVID-19 involving hybrid concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews; (2) a psychometric evaluation of the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus, using data from COMET-ICE (COVID-19 Monoclonal antibody Efficacy Trial-Intent to Care Early). RESULTS: In the qualitative interviews (n = 30), all 34 items of the FLU-PRO Plus were considered relevant to COVID-19, and participants determined the questionnaire was easily understood, well written, and comprehensive. In the psychometric evaluation (n = 845), the internal consistency reliability of FLU-PRO Plus total score was 0.94, ranging from 0.71 to 0.90 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 20-21) was 0.83 for total score, with domain scores of 0.67-0.89. Confirmatory factor analysis with the novel smell/taste domain demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. CONCLUSION: The content, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the FLU-PRO Plus in the COVID-19 population were supported. Our results suggest that FLU-PRO Plus is a content- and psychometrically-valid, fit-for-purpose measure which is easily understood by patients. FLU-PRO Plus is a suitable PRO measure for evaluating symptoms of COVID-19 and treatment benefit directly from the patient perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060, September 10, 2020; retrospectively registered.

COVID-19 Patient-Reported Symptoms Using FLU-PRO Plus in a Cohort Study: Associations With Infecting Genotype, Vaccine History, and Return to Health.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are an important measure of the full burden of coronavirus disease (COVID). Here, we examine how (1) infecting genotype and COVID-19 vaccination correlate with inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) Plus score, including by symptom domains, and (2) FLU-PRO Plus scores predict return to usual activities and health. Methods: The epidemiology, immunology, and clinical characteristics of pandemic infectious diseases (EPICC) study was implemented to describe the short- and long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a longitudinal, observational cohort. Multivariable linear regression models were run with FLU-PRO Plus scores as the outcome variable, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated effects of FLU-PRO Plus scores on return to usual health or activities. Results: Among the 764 participants included in this analysis, 63% were 18-44 years old, 40% were female, and 51% were White. Being fully vaccinated was associated with lower total scores (ß = -0.39; 95% CI, -0.57 to -0.21). The Delta variant was associated with higher total scores (ß = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.45). Participants with higher FLU-PRO Plus scores were less likely to report returning to usual health and activities (health: hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.57; activities: HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.67). Fully vaccinated participants were more likely to report returning to usual activities (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.48). Conclusions: Full SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with decreased severity of patient-reported symptoms across multiple domains, which in turn is likely to be associated with earlier return to usual activities. In addition, infection with the Delta variant was associated with higher FLU-PRO Plus scores than previous variants, even after controlling for vaccination status.

COVID-19 patient reported symptoms using FLU-PRO Plus in a cohort study: associations with infecting genotype, vaccine history, and return-to-health

Background Patient reported outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection are an important measure of the full burden of COVID. Here, we examine how 1) infecting genotype and COVID-19 vaccination correlate with FLU-PRO Plus score, including by symptom domains, and 2) FLU-PRO Plus scores predict return to usual activities and health. Methods The EPICC study was implemented to describe the short- and long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a longitudinal, observational cohort. Multivariable linear regression models were run with FLU-PRO Plus scores as the outcome variable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated effects of FLU-PRO Plus scores on return to usual health or activities. Results Among the 764 participants included in this analysis, 63% were 18-44 years old, 40% were female, and 51% were white. Being fully vaccinated was associated with lower total scores (β=-0.39 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57, -0.21)). The Delta variant was associated with higher total scores (β=0.25 (95% CI 0.05, 0.45)). Participants with higher FLU-PRO Plus scores were less likely to report returning to usual health and activities (Health: hazard ratio (HR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37, 0.57);Activities: HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.47, 0.67)). Fully vaccinated participants were more likely to report returning to usual activities (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.04, 1.48)). Conclusions Full SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with decreased severity of patient-reported symptoms across multiple domains, which in turn is likely to be associated with earlier return to usual activities. In addition, infection with the Delta variant was associated with higher FLU-PRO Plus scores than previous variants, even after controlling for vaccination status.

Association Between Caseload Surge and COVID-19 Survival in 558 U.S. Hospitals, March to August 2020.

BACKGROUND: Several U.S. hospitals had surges in COVID-19 caseload, but their effect on COVID-19 survival rates remains unclear, especially independent of temporal changes in survival. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between hospitals' severity-weighted COVID-19 caseload and COVID-19 mortality risk and identify effect modifiers of this relationship. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04688372). SETTING: 558 U.S. hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. PARTICIPANTS: Adult COVID-19-coded inpatients admitted from March to August 2020 with discharge dispositions by October 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Each hospital-month was stratified by percentile rank on a surge index (a severity-weighted measure of COVID-19 caseload relative to pre-COVID-19 bed capacity). The effect of surge index on risk-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice was calculated using hierarchical modeling; interaction by surge attributes was assessed. RESULTS: Of 144 116 inpatients with COVID-19 at 558 U.S. hospitals, 78 144 (54.2%) were admitted to hospitals in the top surge index decile. Overall, 25 344 (17.6%) died; crude COVID-19 mortality decreased over time across all surge index strata. However, compared with nonsurging (<50th surge index percentile) hospital-months, aORs in the 50th to 75th, 75th to 90th, 90th to 95th, 95th to 99th, and greater than 99th percentiles were 1.11 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23), 1.24 (CI, 1.12 to 1.38), 1.42 (CI, 1.27 to 1.60), 1.59 (CI, 1.41 to 1.80), and 2.00 (CI, 1.69 to 2.38), respectively. The surge index was associated with mortality across ward, intensive care unit, and intubated patients. The surge-mortality relationship was stronger in June to August than in March to May (slope difference, 0.10 [CI, 0.033 to 0.16]) despite greater corticosteroid use and more judicious intubation during later and higher-surging months. Nearly 1 in 4 COVID-19 deaths (5868 [CI, 3584 to 8171]; 23.2%) was potentially attributable to hospitals strained by surging caseload. LIMITATION: Residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Despite improvements in COVID-19 survival between March and August 2020, surges in hospital COVID-19 caseload remained detrimental to survival and potentially eroded benefits gained from emerging treatments. Bolstering preventive measures and supporting surging hospitals will save many lives. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Cancer Institute.

Prospective Assessment of Symptoms to Evaluate Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in a Cohort of Health Care Workers.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is unclear and may be influenced by how symptoms are evaluated. In this study, we sought to determine the frequency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in a prospective cohort of health care workers (HCWs). METHODS: A prospective cohort of HCWs, confirmed negative for SARS-CoV-2 exposure upon enrollment, were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 infection by monthly analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as well as referral for polymerase chain reaction testing whenever they exhibited symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Participants completed the standardized and validated FLU-PRO Plus symptom questionnaire scoring viral respiratory disease symptom intensity and frequency at least twice monthly during baseline periods of health and each day they had any symptoms that were different from their baseline. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-three participants were enrolled between August 25 and December 31, 2020. Through February 28, 2021, 12 participants were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Symptom analysis demonstrated that all 12 had at least mild symptoms of COVID-19, compared with baseline health, near or at time of infection. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated, immunocompetent adults is less common than previously reported. While infectious inoculum doses and patient factors may have played a role in the clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infections in this cohort, we suspect that the high rate of symptomatic disease was due primarily to participant attentiveness to symptoms and collection of symptoms in a standardized, prospective fashion. These results have implications for studies that estimate SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence and for public health measures to control the spread of this virus.

Adverse Effects and Antibody Titers in Response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Prospective Study of Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between postvaccination symptoms and strength of antibody responses is unclear. The goal of this study was to determine whether adverse effects caused by vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine are associated with the magnitude of vaccine-induced antibody levels. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, observational cohort study consisting of generally healthy adult participants that were not severely immunocompromised, had no history of coronavirus disease 2019, and were seronegative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein before vaccination. Severity of vaccine-associated symptoms was obtained through participant-completed questionnaires. Testing for immunoglobulin G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and receptor-binding domain was conducted using microsphere-based multiplex immunoassays performed on serum samples collected at monthly visits. Neutralizing antibody titers were determined by microneutralization assays. RESULTS: Two hundred six participants were evaluated (69.4% female, median age 41.5 years old). We found no correlation between vaccine-associated symptom severity scores and vaccine-induced antibody titers 1 month after vaccination. We also observed that (1) postvaccination symptoms were inversely correlated with age and weight and more common in women, (2) systemic symptoms were more frequent after the second vaccination, (3) high symptom scores after first vaccination were predictive of high symptom scores after second vaccination, and (4) older age was associated with lower titers. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of postvaccination symptoms after receipt of the BNT162b2 vaccine does not equate to lack of vaccine-induced antibodies 1 month after vaccination.

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) Instrument in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) is a patient-reported outcome data collection instrument assessing symptoms of viral respiratory tract infections across 8 body systems. This study evaluated the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus in a study enrolling individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Data from a prospective cohort study (EPICC) in US Military Health System beneficiaries evaluated for COVID-19 was utilized. Adults with symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with FLU-PRO Plus survey information within 1 week of symptom onset were included. Reliability of FLU-PRO Plus was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; 2 days' reproducibility). Known-groups validity was assessed using patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity. Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (day 1-6/7). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-six SARS-CoV-2-positive participants were included in the analysis. Reliability among those who reported no change in their symptoms from one day to the next was high for most domains (ICC range, 0.68-0.94 for day 1 to day 2). Construct validity was demonstrated by moderate to high correlation between the PGA rating of disease severity and domain and total scores (eg, total scores correlation: 0.69 [influenza-like illness severity], 0.69 [interference in daily activities], and -0.58 [physical health]). In addition, FLU-PRO Plus demonstrated good known-groups validity, with increasing domain and total scores observed with increasing severity ratings. CONCLUSIONS: FLU-PRO Plus performs well in measuring signs and symptoms in SARS-CoV-2 infection with excellent construct validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness to change. Standardized data collection instruments facilitate meta-analyses, vaccine effectiveness studies, and other COVID-19 research activities.

Which outcomes are most important to measure in patients with COVID-19 and how and when should these be measured? Development of an international standard set of outcomes measures for clinical use in patients with COVID-19: a report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) COVID-19 Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread morbidity and mortality with the consequences expected to be felt for many years. Significant variation exists in the care even of similar patients with COVID-19, including treatment practices within and between institutions. Outcome measures vary among clinical trials on the same therapies. Understanding which therapies are of most value is not possible unless consensus can be reached on which outcomes are most important to measure. Furthermore, consensus on the most important outcomes may enable patients to monitor and track their care, and may help providers to improve the care they offer through quality improvement. To develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes for clinical care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a working group (WG) of 28 volunteers, including health professionals, patients and patient representatives. DESIGN: A list of outcomes important to patients and professionals was generated from a systematic review of the published literature using the MEDLINE database, from review of outcomes being measured in ongoing clinical trials, from a survey distributed to patients and patient networks, and from previously published ICHOM standard sets in other disease areas. Using an online-modified Delphi process, the WG selected outcomes of greatest importance. RESULTS: The outcomes considered by the WG to be most important were selected and categorised into five domains: (1) functional status and quality of life, (2) mental functioning, (3) social functioning, (4) clinical outcomes and (5) symptoms. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, clinical factors and treatment-related factors. CONCLUSION: Implementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of care to patients with COVID-19. Their consistent definition and collection could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research.

Prospective Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Seroconversion (PASS) study: an observational cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a recently emerged pandemic coronavirus (CoV) capable of causing severe respiratory illness. However, a significant number of infected people present as asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic. In this prospective assessment of at-risk healthcare workers (HCWs) we seek to determine whether pre-existing antibody or T cell responses to previous seasonal human coronavirus (HCoV) infections affect immunological or clinical responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. METHODS: A cohort of 300 healthcare workers, confirmed negative for SARS-CoV-2 exposure upon study entry, will be followed for up to 1 year with monthly serology analysis of IgM and IgG antibodies against the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and the four major seasonal human coronavirus - HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-NL63. Participants will complete monthly questionnaires that ask about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure risks, and a standardized, validated symptom questionnaire (scoring viral respiratory disease symptoms, intensity and severity) at least twice monthly and any day when any symptoms manifest. SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing will be performed any time participants develop symptoms consistent with COVID-19. For those individuals that seroconvert and/or test positive by SARS-CoV-2 PCR, or receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, additional studies of T cell activation and cytokine production in response to SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools and analysis of Natural Killer cell numbers and function will be conducted on that participant's cryopreserved baseline peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Following the first year of this study we will further analyze those participants having tested positive for COVID-19, and/or having received an authorized/licensed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, quarterly (year 2) and semi-annually (years 3 and 4) to investigate immune response longevity. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the frequency of asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of at-risk healthcare workers. Baseline and longitudinal assays will determine the frequency and magnitude of anti-spike glycoprotein antibodies to the seasonal HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-NL63, and may inform whether pre-existing antibodies to these human coronaviruses are associated with altered COVID-19 disease course. Finally, this study will evaluate whether pre-existing immune responses to seasonal HCoVs affect the magnitude and duration of antibody and T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, adjusting for demographic covariates.