Necroptosis Drives Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events During Severe COVID-19.

Background The mechanisms used by SARS-CoV-2 to induce major adverse cardiac events (MACE) are unknown. Thus, we aimed to determine if SARS-CoV-2 can infect the heart to kill cardiomyocytes and induce MACE in patients with severe COVID-19. Methods This observational prospective cohort study includes experiments with hamsters and human samples from patients with severe COVID-19. Cytokines and serum biomarkers were analyzed in human serum. Cardiac transcriptome analyses were performed in hamsters' hearts. Results From a cohort of 70 patients, MACE was documented in 26% (18/70). Those who developed MACE had higher Log copies/mL of SARS-CoV-2, troponin-I, and pro-BNP in serum. Also, the elevation of IP-10 and a major decrease in levels of IL-17ɑ, IL-6, and IL-1rɑ were observed. No differences were found in the ability of serum antibodies to neutralize viral spike proteins in pseudoviruses from variants of concern. In hamster models, we found a stark increase in viral titers in the hearts 4 days post-infection. The cardiac transcriptome evaluation resulted in the differential expression of ~ 9% of the total transcripts. Analysis of transcriptional changes of the effectors of necroptosis (mixed lineage kinase domain-like, MLKL) and pyroptosis (gasdermin D) showed necroptosis, but not pyroptosis, to be elevated. Active form of MLKL (phosphorylated MLKL, pMLKL) was elevated in hamster hearts and, most importantly, in the serum of MACE patients. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 can reach the heart during severe COVID-19 and induce necroptosis in the heart of patients with MACE. Thus, pMLKL could be used as a biomarker of cardiac damage and a therapeutic target. Trial registration: Not applicable.

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the ISARIC WHO clinical characterization protocol: A prospective, multinational, observational study.

PURPOSE: To determine its cumulative incidence, identify the risk factors associated with Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) development, and its impact clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study from the ISARIC database. We used bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions to explore the risk factors related to MACE development and determine its impact on 28-day and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: 49,479 patients were included. Most were male 63.5% (31,441/49,479) and from high-income countries (84.4% [42,774/49,479]); however, >6000 patients were registered in low-and-middle-income countries. MACE cumulative incidence during their hospital stay was 17.8% (8829/49,479). The main risk factors independently associated with the development of MACE were older age, chronic kidney disease or cardiovascular disease, smoking history, and requirement of vasopressors or invasive mechanical ventilation at admission. The overall 28-day and 90-day mortality were higher among patients who developed MACE than those who did not (63.1% [5573/8829] vs. 35.6% [14,487/40,650] p < 0.001; 69.9% [6169/8829] vs. 37.8% [15,372/40,650] p < 0.001, respectively). After adjusting for confounders, MACE remained independently associated with higher 28-day and 90-day mortality (Odds Ratio [95% CI], 1.36 [1.33-1.39];1.47 [1.43-1.50], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COVID-19 frequently develop MACE, which is independently associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Major adverse cardiovascular events are associated with necroptosis during severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms used by SARS-CoV-2 to induce major adverse cardiac events (MACE) are unknown. Thus, we aimed to determine if SARS-CoV-2 can induce necrotic cell death to promote MACE in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: This observational prospective cohort study includes experiments with hamsters and human samples from patients with severe COVID-19. Cytokines and serum biomarkers were analysed in human serum. Cardiac transcriptome analyses were performed in hamsters' hearts. RESULTS: From a cohort of 70 patients, MACE was documented in 26% (18/70). Those who developed MACE had higher Log copies/mL of SARS-CoV-2, troponin-I, and pro-BNP in serum. Also, the elevation of IP-10 and a major decrease in levels of IL-17ɑ, IL-6, and IL-1rɑ were observed. No differences were found in the ability of serum antibodies to neutralise viral spike proteins in pseudoviruses from variants of concern. In hamster models, we found a stark increase in viral titters in the hearts 4 days post-infection. The cardiac transcriptome evaluation resulted in the differential expression of ~ 9% of the total transcripts. Analysis of transcriptional changes in the effectors of necroptosis (mixed lineage kinase domain-like, MLKL) and pyroptosis (gasdermin D) showed necroptosis, but not pyroptosis, to be elevated. An active form of MLKL (phosphorylated MLKL, pMLKL) was elevated in hamster hearts and, most importantly, in the serum of MACE patients. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 identification in the systemic circulation is associated with MACE and necroptosis activity. The increased pMLKL and Troponin-I indicated the occurrence of necroptosis in the heart and suggested necroptosis effectors could serve as biomarkers and/or therapeutic targets. Trial registration Not applicable.

Risk factors for developing ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infection in patients with severe COVID-19: a multinational, multicentre study, prospective, observational study.

Around one-third of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 develop a severe illness that requires admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). In clinical practice, clinicians have learned that patients admitted to the ICU due to severe COVID-19 frequently develop ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI). This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics, the factors associated with VA-LRTI, and its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. This was a multicentre, observational cohort study conducted in ten countries in Latin America and Europe. We included patients with confirmed rtPCR for SARS-CoV-2 requiring ICU admission and endotracheal intubation. Only patients with a microbiological and clinical diagnosis of VA-LRTI were included. Multivariate Logistic regression analyses and Random Forest were conducted to determine the risk factors for VA-LRTI and its clinical impact in patients with severe COVID-19. In our study cohort of 3287 patients, VA-LRTI was diagnosed in 28.8% [948/3287]. The cumulative incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was 18.6% [610/3287], followed by ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) 10.3% [338/3287]. A total of 1252 bacteria species were isolated. The most frequently isolated pathogens were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (21.2% [266/1252]), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.1% [239/1252]) and Staphylococcus aureus (15.5% [194/1,252]). The factors independently associated with the development of VA-LRTI were prolonged stay under invasive mechanical ventilation, AKI during ICU stay, and the number of comorbidities. Regarding the clinical impact of VA-LRTI, patients with VAP had an increased risk of hospital mortality (OR [95% CI] of 1.81 [1.40-2.34]), while VAT was not associated with increased hospital mortality (OR [95% CI] of 1.34 [0.98-1.83]). VA-LRTI, often with difficult-to-treat bacteria, is frequent in patients admitted to the ICU due to severe COVID-19 and is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including higher mortality. Identifying risk factors for VA-LRTI might allow the early patient diagnosis to improve clinical outcomes.Trial registration: This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.

Comparison of systemic inflammatory profiles in COVID-19 and community-acquired pneumonia patients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory responses contribute to tissue damage in COVID-19 and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Although predictive values of different inflammatory biomarkers have been reported in both, similarities and differences of inflammatory profiles between these conditions remain uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to determine the similarities and differences of the inflammatory profiles between COVID-19 and CAP, and their association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We report a prospective observational cohort study; conducted in a reference hospital in Latin America. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia and CAP were included. Multiplex (Luminex) cytokine assays were used to measure the plasma concentration of 14 cytokines at hospital admission. After comparing similarities and differences in the inflammatory profile between COVID-19 and CAP patients, an unsupervised classification method (i.e., hierarchical clustering) was used to identify subpopulations within COVID-19 and CAP patients. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were included, 62.5% were diagnosed with COVID-19 (100/160), and 37.5% with CAP (60/160). Using the hierarchical clustering, COVID-19 and CAP patients were divided based on its inflammatory profile: pauci, moderate, and hyper-inflammatory immune response. COVID-19 hyper-inflammatory subpopulation had the highest mortality. COVID-19 hyper-inflammatory subpopulation, compared to pauci-inflammatory, had higher levels of IL-10 (median [IQR] 61.4 [42.0-109.4] vs 13.0 [5.0-24.9], P: < 0.001), IL-6 (48.1 [22.3-82.6] vs 9.1 [0.1-30.4], P: < 0.001), among others. Hyper-inflammatory vs pauci-inflammatory CAP patients were characterized by elevation of IFN2 (48.8 [29.7-110.5] vs 3.0 [1.7-10.3], P: < 0.001), TNFα (36.3 [24.8-53.4] vs 13.1 [11.3-16.9], P: < 0.001), among others. Hyper-inflammatory subpopulations in COVID-19 and CAP compared to the corresponding pauci-inflammatory subpopulations had higher MCP-1. CONCLUSIONS: Our data highlights three distinct subpopulations in COVID-19 and CAP, with differences in inflammatory marker profiles and risks of adverse clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This is a prospective study, therefore no health care intervention were applied to participants and trial registration is not applicable.

Vaccine breakthrough hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs.

Life-threatening 'breakthrough' cases of critical COVID-19 are attributed to poor or waning antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in individuals already at risk. Pre-existing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs underlie at least 15% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases in unvaccinated individuals; however, their contribution to hypoxemic breakthrough cases in vaccinated people remains unknown. Here, we studied a cohort of 48 individuals (age 20-86 years) who received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine and developed a breakthrough infection with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia 2 weeks to 4 months later. Antibody levels to the vaccine, neutralization of the virus, and auto-Abs to type I IFNs were measured in the plasma. Forty-two individuals had no known deficiency of B cell immunity and a normal antibody response to the vaccine. Among them, ten (24%) had auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs (aged 43-86 years). Eight of these ten patients had auto-Abs neutralizing both IFN-α2 and IFN-ω, while two neutralized IFN-ω only. No patient neutralized IFN-ß. Seven neutralized 10 ng/mL of type I IFNs, and three 100 pg/mL only. Seven patients neutralized SARS-CoV-2 D614G and the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) efficiently, while one patient neutralized Delta slightly less efficiently. Two of the three patients neutralizing only 100 pg/mL of type I IFNs neutralized both D61G and Delta less efficiently. Despite two mRNA vaccine inoculations and the presence of circulating antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs may underlie a significant proportion of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia cases, highlighting the importance of this particularly vulnerable population.

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

Background: Whilst 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. Methods: Here, 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. Results: Our 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. Conclusions: Although 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. Funding: Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. RESULTS: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). CONCLUSIONS: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use.

Vaccine breakthrough hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs

Life-threatening ‘breakthrough’ cases of critical COVID-19 are attributed to poor or waning antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in individuals already at risk. Pre-existing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs underlie at least 15% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases in unvaccinated individuals;however, their contribution to hypoxemic breakthrough cases in vaccinated people remains unknown. Here, we studied a cohort of 48 individuals (age 20-86 years) who received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine and developed a breakthrough infection with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia 2 weeks to 4 months later. Antibody levels to the vaccine, neutralization of the virus, and auto-Abs to type I IFNs were measured in the plasma. Forty-two individuals had no known deficiency of B cell immunity and a normal antibody response to the vaccine. Among them, ten (24%) had auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs (aged 43-86 years). Eight of these ten patients had auto-Abs neutralizing both IFN-α2 and IFN-ω, while two neutralized IFN-ω only. No patient neutralized IFN-β. Seven neutralized 10 ng/mL of type I IFNs, and three 100 pg/mL only. Seven patients neutralized SARS-CoV-2 D614G and the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) efficiently, while one patient neutralized Delta slightly less efficiently. Two of the three patients neutralizing only 100 pg/mL of type I IFNs neutralized both D61G and Delta less efficiently. Despite two mRNA vaccine inoculations and the presence of circulating antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs may underlie a significant proportion of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia cases, highlighting the importance of this particularly vulnerable population. Type I IFN auto-Abs are found in 20% of hypoxemic, mRNA vaccinated COVID-19 patients despite SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. Description

Negative predictive value of procalcitonin to rule out bacterial respiratory co-infection in critical covid-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) are useful biomarkers to differentiate bacterial from viral or fungal infections, although the association between them and co-infection or mortality in COVID-19 remains unclear. METHODS: The study represents a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia to 84 ICUs from ten countries between (March 2020-January 2021). Primary outcome was to determine whether PCT or CRP at admission could predict community-acquired bacterial respiratory co-infection (BC) and its added clinical value by determining the best discriminating cut-off values. Secondary outcome was to investigate its association with mortality. To evaluate the main outcome, a binary logistic regression was performed. The area under the curve evaluated diagnostic performance for BC prediction. RESULTS: 4635 patients were included, 7.6% fulfilled BC diagnosis. PCT (0.25[IQR 0.1-0.7] versus 0.20[IQR 0.1-0.5]ng/mL, p<0.001) and CRP (14.8[IQR 8.2-23.8] versus 13.3 [7-21.7]mg/dL, p=0.01) were higher in BC group. Neither PCT nor CRP were independently associated with BC and both had a poor ability to predict BC (AUC for PCT 0.56, for CRP 0.54). Baseline values of PCT<0.3ng/mL, could be helpful to rule out BC (negative predictive value 91.1%) and PCT≥0.50ng/mL was associated with ICU mortality (OR 1.5,p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These biomarkers at ICU admission led to a poor ability to predict BC among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Baseline values of PCT<0.3ng/mL may be useful to rule out BC, providing clinicians a valuable tool to guide antibiotic stewardship and allowing the unjustified overuse of antibiotics observed during the pandemic, additionally PCT≥0.50ng/mL might predict worsening outcomes.

Dexamethasone as risk-factor for ICU-acquired respiratory tract infections in severe COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Dexamethasone is the only drug that has consistently reduced mortality in patients with COVID-19, especially in patients needing oxygen or invasive mechanical ventilation. However, there is a growing concern about the relation of dexamethasone with the unprecedented rates of ICU-acquired respiratory tract infections (ICU-RTI) observed in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective cohort study; conducted in ten countries in Latin America and Europe. We included patients older than 18 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 requiring ICU admission. A multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to determine the relation between dexamethasone treatment and ICU-RTI. RESULTS: A total of 3777 patients were included. 2065 (54.7%) were treated with dexamethasone within the first 24 h of admission. After performing the PSM, patients treated with dexamethasone showed significantly higher proportions of VAP (282/1652 [17.1%] Vs. 218/1652 [13.2%], p = 0.014). Also, dexamethasone treatment was identified as an adjusted risk factor of ICU-RTI in the multivariate logistic regression model (OR 1.64; 95%CI: 1.37-1.97; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 had a higher risk of developing ICU-acquired respiratory tract infections after adjusting for days of invasive mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, suggesting a cautious use of this treatment.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study.

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

Comparative Evaluation of Phenotypic Synergy Tests versus RESIST-4 O.K.N.V. and NG Test Carba 5 Lateral Flow Immunoassays for the Detection and Differentiation of Carbapenemases in Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

The spread of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) has dramatically impacted morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 pandemic has favored the selection of these microorganisms because of the excessive and prolonged use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and the outbreaks related to patient transfer between hospitals and inadequate personal protective equipment. Therefore, early CPE detection is considered essential for their control. We aimed to compare conventional phenotypic synergy tests and two lateral flow immunoassays for detecting carbapenemases in Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. We analyzed 100 carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli isolates, 80 Enterobacterales, and 20 P. aeruginosa (86 isolates producing KPC, NDM, OXA-48, IMP, and VIM carbapenemases and 14 non-carbapenemase-producing isolates). We performed a modified Hodge test, boronic acid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) synergy tests, and two lateral flow immunoassays: RESIST-4 O.K.N.V. (Coris Bioconcept) and NG Test Carba 5 (NG Biotech). In total, 76 KPC, seven VIM, one NDM, one OXA-48, and one isolate coproducing KPC + NDM enzymes were included. The concordance of different methods estimated by the Kappa index was 0.432 (standard error: 0.117), thus showing a high variability with the synergy tests with boronic acid and EDTA and reporting 16 false negatives that were detected by the two immunochromatographic methods. Co-production was only detected using immunoassays. Conventional phenotypic synergy tests with boronic acid and EDTA for detecting carbapenemases are suboptimal, and their routine use should be reconsidered. These tests depend on the degree of enzyme expression and the distance between disks. Lateral flow immunoassay tests are a rapid and cost-effective tool to detect and differentiate carbapenemases, improving clinical outcomes through targeted therapy and promoting infection prevention measures. IMPORTANCE Infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens are a growing problem worldwide. The production of carbapenemases in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales cause a high impact on the mortality of infected patients. Therefore, it is of great importance to have methods that allow the early detection of these multi-resistant microorganisms, achieving the confirmation of the type of carbapenemase present, with high sensitivity and specificity, with the aim of improving epidemiological control, dissemination, the clinical course to through targeted antibiotic therapy and promoting infection control in hospitals.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the ISARIC WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study

Due to the large number of patients with severe COVID-19, many were treated outside of the traditional walls of the ICU, and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside of the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC WHO COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes, and vasopressors. A logistic Generalised Additive Model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted and not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median [IQR], 67 years [55, 78]), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 days (5–19) and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those that were cared for outside of ICU (12 [6–23] versus 8 [4–15] days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% [5797/18831] versus 39.0% [7532/19295], p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR:0.70, 95%CI: 0.65-0.75, p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside of an ICU.

Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.

X-linked recessive TLR7 deficiency in ~1% of men under 60 years old with life-threatening COVID-19.

Autosomal inborn errors of type I IFN immunity and autoantibodies against these cytokines underlie at least 10% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases. We report very rare, biochemically deleterious X-linked TLR7 variants in 16 unrelated male individuals aged 7 to 71 years (mean: 36.7 years) from a cohort of 1,202 male patients aged 0.5 to 99 years (mean: 52.9 years) with unexplained critical COVID-19 pneumonia. None of the 331 asymptomatically or mildly infected male individuals aged 1.3 to 102 years (mean: 38.7 years) tested carry such TLR7 variants (p = 3.5 × 10-5). The phenotypes of five hemizygous relatives of index cases infected with SARS-CoV-2 include asymptomatic or mild infection (n=2, 5 and 38 years), or moderate (n=1, 5 years), severe (n=1, 27 years), or critical (n=1, 29 years) pneumonia. Two boys (aged 7 and 12 years) from a cohort of 262 male patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (mean: 51.0 years) are hemizygous for a deleterious TLR7 variant. The cumulative allele frequency for deleterious TLR7 variants in the male general population is < 6.5x10-4 We also show that blood B cell lines and myeloid cell subsets from the patients do not respond to TLR7 stimulation, a phenotype rescued by wild-type TLR7 The patients' blood plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) produce low levels of type I IFNs in response to SARS-CoV-2. Overall, X-linked recessive TLR7 deficiency is a highly penetrant genetic etiology of critical COVID-19 pneumonia, in about 1.8% of male patients below the age of 60 years. Human TLR7 and pDCs are essential for protective type I IFN immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in the respiratory tract.