Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Variants on Inpatient Clinical Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Prior observation has shown differences in COVID-19 hospitalization risk between SARS-CoV-2 variants, but limited information describes hospitalization outcomes. METHODS: Inpatients with COVID-19 at 5 hospitals in the eastern United States were included if they had hypoxia, tachypnea, tachycardia, or fever, and SARS-CoV-2 variant data, determined from whole-genome sequencing or local surveillance inference. Analyses were stratified by history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection. The average effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant on 28-day risk of severe disease, defined by advanced respiratory support needs, or death was evaluated using models weighted on propensity scores derived from baseline clinical features. RESULTS: Severe disease or death within 28 days occurred for 977 (29%) of 3369 unvaccinated patients and 269 (22%) of 1230 patients with history of vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among unvaccinated patients, the relative risk of severe disease or death for Delta variant compared with ancestral lineages was 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-1.49). Compared with Delta, the risk for Omicron patients was .72 (95% CI: .59-.88) and compared with ancestral lineages was .94 (.78-1.1). Among Omicron and Delta infections, patients with history of vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection had half the risk of severe disease or death (adjusted hazard ratio: .40; 95% CI: .30-.54), but no significant outcome difference by variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk of severe disease or death for unvaccinated inpatients with Omicron was lower than with Delta, it was similar to ancestral lineages. Severe outcomes were less common in vaccinated inpatients, with no difference between Delta and Omicron infections.

Characterizing SARS-CoV-2 transcription of subgenomic and genomic RNAs during early human infection using multiplexed droplet digital PCR.

BACKGROUND: Control of SARS-CoV-2 (SCV-2) transmission requires understanding SCV-2 replication dynamics. METHODS: We developed a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay to quantify SCV-2 subgenomic RNAs (sgRNAs), which are only produced during active viral replication, and discriminate them from genomic RNAs (gRNAs). We applied the assay to specimens from 144 people with single nasopharyngeal samples and 27 people with >1 sample. Results were compared to qPCR and viral culture. RESULTS: sgRNAs were quantifiable across a range of qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values and correlated with Ct values. The ratio of sgRNA:gRNA was stable across a wide range of Ct values, whereas adjusted amounts of N sgRNA to a human housekeeping gene declined with higher Ct values. Adjusted sgRNA and gRNA amounts were quantifiable in culture-negative samples, although levels were significantly lower than in culture-positive samples. Daily testing of 6 persons revealed that sgRNA is concordant with culture results during the first week of infection but may be discordant with culture later in infection. Further, sgRNA:gRNA is constant during infection despite changes in viral culture. CONCLUSIONS: Ct values from qPCR correlate with active viral replication. More work is needed to understand why some cultures are negative despite presence of sgRNA.

Anti-PF4 antibodies associated with disease severity in COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 is characterized by a prothrombotic state associated with thrombocytopenia, with microvascular thrombosis being almost invariably present in the lung and other organs at postmortem examination. We evaluated the presence of antibodies to platelet factor 4 (PF4)-polyanion complexes using a clinically validated immunoassay in 100 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with moderate or severe disease (World Health Organization score, 4 to 10), 25 patients with acute COVID-19 visiting the emergency department, and 65 convalescent individuals. Anti-PF4 antibodies were detected in 95 of 100 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (95.0%) irrespective of prior heparin treatment, with a mean optical density value of 0.871 ± 0.405 SD (range, 0.177 to 2.706). In contrast, patients hospitalized for severe acute respiratory disease unrelated to COVID-19 had markedly lower levels of the antibodies. In a high proportion of patients with COVID-19, levels of all three immunoglobulin (Ig) isotypes tested (IgG, IgM, and IgA) were simultaneously elevated. Antibody levels were higher in male than in female patients and higher in African Americans and Hispanics than in White patients. Anti-PF4 antibody levels were correlated with the maximum disease severity score and with significant reductions in circulating platelet counts during hospitalization. In individuals convalescent from COVID-19, the antibody levels returned to near-normal values. Sera from patients with COVID-19 induced higher levels of platelet activation than did sera from healthy blood donors, but the results were not correlated with the levels of anti-PF4 antibodies. These results demonstrate that the vast majority of patients with severe COVID-19 develop anti-PF4 antibodies, which may play a role in the clinical complications of COVID-19.

Using machine learning on clinical data to identify unexpected patterns in groups of COVID-19 patients.

As clinicians are faced with a deluge of clinical data, data science can play an important role in highlighting key features driving patient outcomes, aiding in the development of new clinical hypotheses. Insight derived from machine learning can serve as a clinical support tool by connecting care providers with reliable results from big data analysis that identify previously undetected clinical patterns. In this work, we show an example of collaboration between clinicians and data scientists during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifying sub-groups of COVID-19 patients with unanticipated outcomes or who are high-risk for severe disease or death. We apply a random forest classifier model to predict adverse patient outcomes early in the disease course, and we connect our classification results to unsupervised clustering of patient features that may underpin patient risk. The paradigm for using data science for hypothesis generation and clinical decision support, as well as our triaged classification approach and unsupervised clustering methods to determine patient cohorts, are applicable to driving rapid hypothesis generation and iteration in a variety of clinical challenges, including future public health crises.

Thromboprophylaxis in people hospitalized with COVID-19: Assessing intermediate or standard doses in a retrospective cohort study.

Background and Objectives: Current clinical guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet it is unknown whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis offer benefits beyond standard doses. Methods: We studied electronic health records from 50 091 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States between February 2020 and February 2021. We compared standard (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg/day, fondaparinux 2.5 mg, or heparin 5000 units twice or thrice per day) versus intermediate (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg twice daily, or up to 1.2 mg/kg of body weight daily, heparin 7500 units thrice per day or heparin 10 000 units twice or thrice per day) thromboprophylaxis. We separately examined risk of escalation to therapeutic anticoagulation, severe disease (first occurrence of high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation), and death. To summarize risk, we present hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using adjusted time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: People whose first dose was high intensity were younger, more often obese, and had greater oxygen support requirements. Intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with increased risk of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.22-3.57), severe disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17-1.28), and death (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.21-1.55). Increased risks associated with intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis persisted in subgroup and sensitivity analyses varying populations and definitions of exposures, outcomes, and covariates. Conclusions: Our findings do not support routine use of intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis to prevent clinical worsening, severe disease, or death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Longitudinal Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections Reveals Limited Infectious Virus Shedding and Restricted Tissue Distribution.

Background: The global effort to vaccinate people against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during an ongoing pandemic has raised questions about how vaccine breakthrough infections compare with infections in immunologically naive individuals and the potential for vaccinated individuals to transmit the virus. Methods: We examined viral dynamics and infectious virus shedding through daily longitudinal sampling in 23 adults infected with SARS-CoV-2 at varying stages of vaccination, including 6 fully vaccinated individuals. Results: The durations of both infectious virus shedding and symptoms were significantly reduced in vaccinated individuals compared with unvaccinated individuals. We also observed that breakthrough infections are associated with strong tissue compartmentalization and are only detectable in saliva in some cases. Conclusions: Vaccination shortens the duration of time of high transmission potential, minimizes symptom duration, and may restrict tissue dissemination.

Limitations of Molecular and Antigen Test Performance for SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic COVID-19 Contacts.

COVID-19 has brought unprecedented attention to the crucial role of diagnostics in pandemic control. We compared severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test performance by sample type and modality in close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases. Close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were enrolled after informed consent. Clinician-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in viral transport media (VTM) were tested with a routine clinical reference nucleic acid test (NAT) and PerkinElmer real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay; positive samples were tested for infectivity using a VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model. Self-collected passive drool was also tested using the PerkinElmer RT-PCR assay. For the first 4 months of study, midturbinate swabs were tested using the BD Veritor rapid antigen test. Between 17 November 2020 and 1 October 2021, 235 close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases were recruited, including 95 with symptoms (82% symptomatic for ≤5 days) and 140 asymptomatic individuals. Reference NATs were positive for 53 (22.6%) participants; 24/50 (48%) were culture positive. PerkinElmer testing of NP and saliva samples identified an additional 28 (11.9%) SARS-CoV-2 cases who tested negative by reference NAT. Antigen tests performed for 99 close contacts showed 83% positive percent agreement (PPA) with reference NAT among early symptomatic persons, but 18% PPA in others; antigen tests in 8 of 11 (72.7%) culture-positive participants were positive. Contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases may be falsely negative early after contact, but more sensitive platforms may identify these cases. Repeat or serial SARS-CoV-2 testing with both antigen and molecular assays may be warranted for individuals with high pretest probability for infection.

Racial and Ethnic Discrepancy in Pulse Oximetry and Delayed Identification of Treatment Eligibility Among Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Pulse oximetry guides triage and therapy decisions for COVID-19. Whether reported racial inaccuracies in oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry are present in patients with COVID-19 and associated with treatment decisions is unknown. Objective: To determine whether there is differential inaccuracy of pulse oximetry by race or ethnicity among patients with COVID-19 and estimate the association of such inaccuracies with time to recognition of eligibility for oxygen threshold-specific COVID-19 therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of clinical data from 5 referral centers and community hospitals in the Johns Hopkins Health System included patients with COVID-19 who self-identified as Asian, Black, Hispanic, or White. Exposures: Concurrent measurements (within 10 minutes) of oxygen saturation levels in arterial blood (SaO2) and by pulse oximetry (SpO2). Main Outcomes and Measures: For patients with concurrent SpO2 and SaO2 measurements, the proportion with occult hypoxemia (SaO2<88% with concurrent SpO2 of 92%-96%) was compared by race and ethnicity, and a covariate-adjusted linear mixed-effects model was produced to estimate the association of race and ethnicity with SpO2 and SaO2 difference. This model was applied to identify a separate sample of patients with predicted SaO2 levels of 94% or less before an SpO2 level of 94% or less or oxygen treatment initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate differences by race and ethnicity in time to recognition of eligibility for guideline-recommended COVID-19 therapies, defined as an SpO2 level of 94% or less or oxygen treatment initiation. The median delay among individuals who ultimately had recognition of eligibility was then compared. Results: Of 7126 patients with COVID-19, 1216 patients (63 Asian [5.2%], 478 Black [39.3%], 215 Hispanic [17.7%], and 460 White [37.8%] individuals; 507 women [41.7%]) had 32 282 concurrently measured SpO2 and SaO2. Occult hypoxemia occurred in 19 Asian (30.2%), 136 Black (28.5%), and 64 non-Black Hispanic (29.8%) patients compared with 79 White patients (17.2%). Compared with White patients, SpO2 overestimated SaO2 by an average of 1.7% among Asian (95% CI, 0.5%-3.0%), 1.2% among Black (95% CI, 0.6%-1.9%), and 1.1% among non-Black Hispanic patients (95% CI, 0.3%-1.9%). Separately, among 1903 patients with predicted SaO2 levels of 94% or less before an SpO2 level of 94% or less or oxygen treatment initiation, compared with White patients, Black patients had a 29% lower hazard (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.80), and non-Black Hispanic patients had a 23% lower hazard (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89) of treatment eligibility recognition. A total of 451 patients (23.7%) never had their treatment eligibility recognized, most of whom (247 [54.8%]) were Black. Among the remaining 1452 (76.3%) who had eventual recognition of treatment eligibility, Black patients had a median delay of 1.0 hour (95% CI, 0.23-1.9 hours; P = .01) longer than White patients. There was no significant median difference in delay between individuals of other racial and ethnic minority groups and White patients. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that racial and ethnic biases in pulse oximetry accuracy were associated with greater occult hypoxemia in Asian, Black, and non-Black Hispanic patients with COVID-19, which was associated with significantly delayed or unrecognized eligibility for COVID-19 therapies among Black and Hispanic patients. This disparity may contribute to worse outcomes among Black and Hispanic patients with COVID-19.

Daily longitudinal sampling of SARS-CoV-2 infection reveals substantial heterogeneity in infectiousness.

The dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 replication and shedding in humans remain poorly understood. We captured the dynamics of infectious virus and viral RNA shedding during acute infection through daily longitudinal sampling of 60 individuals for up to 14 days. By fitting mechanistic models, we directly estimated viral expansion and clearance rates and overall infectiousness for each individual. Significant person-to-person variation in infectious virus shedding suggests that individual-level heterogeneity in viral dynamics contributes to 'superspreading'. Viral genome loads often peaked days earlier in saliva than in nasal swabs, indicating strong tissue compartmentalization and suggesting that saliva may serve as a superior sampling site for early detection of infection. Viral loads and clearance kinetics of Alpha (B.1.1.7) and previously circulating non-variant-of-concern viruses were mostly indistinguishable, indicating that the enhanced transmissibility of this variant cannot be explained simply by higher viral loads or delayed clearance. These results provide a high-resolution portrait of SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics and implicate individual-level heterogeneity in infectiousness in superspreading.

Real-World Effectiveness of Remdesivir in Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Retrospective, Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the United States from 23 February 2020 through 11 February 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. Remdesivir recipients were matched to controls using time-dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was time to improvement with a secondary outcome of time to death. RESULTS: Of 96 859 COVID-19 patients, 42 473 (43.9%) received at least 1 remdesivir dose. The median age of remdesivir recipients was 65 years, 23 701 (55.8%) were male, and 22 819 (53.7%) were non-White. Matches were found for 18 328 patients (43.2%). Remdesivir recipients were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.22). Remdesivir patients on no oxygen (aHR 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.38) or low-flow oxygen (aHR 1.23, 95% CI, 1.19-1.27) were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days. There was no significant impact on the likelihood of mortality overall (aHR 1.02, 95% CI, .97-1.08). Remdesivir recipients on low-flow oxygen were significantly less likely to die than controls (aHR 0.85, 95% CI, .77-.92; 28-day mortality 8.4% [865 deaths] for remdesivir patients, 12.5% [1334 deaths] for controls). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on no or low-flow oxygen. Routine initiation of remdesivir in more severely ill patients is unlikely to be beneficial.

Differential Cytokine Signatures of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Influenza Infection Highlight Key Differences in Pathobiology.

BACKGROUND: Several inflammatory cytokines are upregulated in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared cytokines in COVID-19 versus influenza to define differentiating features of the inflammatory response to these pathogens and their association with severe disease. Because elevated body mass index (BMI) is a known risk factor for severe COVID-19, we examined the relationship of BMI to cytokines associated with severe disease. METHODS: Thirty-seven cytokines and chemokines were measured in plasma from 135 patients with COVID-19, 57 patients with influenza, and 30 healthy controls. Controlling for BMI, age, and sex, differences in cytokines between groups were determined by linear regression and random forest prediction was used to determine the cytokines most important in distinguishing severe COVID-19 and influenza. Mediation analysis was used to identify cytokines that mediate the effect of BMI and age on disease severity. RESULTS: Interleukin-18 (IL-18), IL-1ß, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were significantly increased in COVID-19 versus influenza patients, whereas granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-γ (IFN-γ), IFN-λ1, IL-10, IL-15, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 2 were significantly elevated in the influenza group. In subgroup analysis based on disease severity, IL-18, IL-6, and TNF-α were elevated in severe COVID-19, but not in severe influenza. Random forest analysis identified high IL-6 and low IFN-λ1 levels as the most distinct between severe COVID-19 and severe influenza. Finally, IL-1RA was identified as a potential mediator of the effects of BMI on COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings point to activation of fundamentally different innate immune pathways in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and influenza infection, and emphasize drivers of severe COVID-19 to focus both mechanistic and therapeutic investigations.

Preclinical Validation of a Novel Injection-Molded Swab for the Molecular Assay Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, many actions have been undertaken to help ensure that patients and health care providers have timely and continued access to high-quality medical devices to respond effectively. The development and validation of new testing supplies and equipment, including collection swabs, has helped to expand the availability and capability for various diagnostic, therapeutic, and protective medical devices in high demand during the COVID-19 emergency. Here, we report the initial validation of a new injection-molded anterior nasal swab, ClearTip™, that was experimentally validated in a laboratory setting as well as in independent clinical studies in comparison to gold standard flocked swabs. We have also developed an in vitro anterior nasal tissue model which offers a novel, efficient, and clinically relevant validation tool to replicate the clinical swabbing workflow with high fidelity, while being accessible, safe, reproducible, and time- and cost-effective. ClearTip™ displayed greater inactivated virus release in the benchtop model, confirmed by its greater ability to report positive samples in a small clinical study in comparison to flocked swabs. We also quantified the detection of biological materials, as a proxy for viral material, in multi-center pre-clinical and clinical studies which showed a statistically significant difference in one study and a reduction in performance in comparison to flocked swabs. Taken together, these results emphasize the compelling benefits of non-absorbent injection-molded anterior nasal swabs for COVID-19 detection, comparable to standard flocked swabs. Injection-molded swabs, as ClearTip™, could have the potential to support future swab shortages, due to its manufacturing advantages, while offering benefits in comparison to highly absorbent swabs in terms of comfort, limited volume collection, and potential multiple usage.

Implementation and Accuracy of BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Test in Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Populations in a High-Volume Self-Referred Testing Site.

Rapid antigen tests are simple to perform and provide results within 15 min. We describe our implementation and assess performance of the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Test (Abbott Laboratories) in 6,099 adults at a self-referred walk-up testing site. Participants were grouped by self-reported COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. Most (89%) were asymptomatic, of whom 17% reported potential exposure. Overall test sensitivity compared with reference laboratory reverse-transcription [RT] PCR testing was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75%, 86%). It was higher in symptomatic (87%; 95% CI 80%, 91%) than asymptomatic (71%; 95% CI 61%, 80%) individuals. Sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 66%, 91%) for asymptomatic individuals with potential exposure and 64% (95% CI 51%, 76%) for those with no exposure. Specificity was greater than 99% for all groups. BinaxNOW has high accuracy among symptomatic individuals and is below the FDA threshold for emergency use authorization in asymptomatic individuals. Nonetheless, rapid antigen testing quickly identifies positive among those with symptoms and/or close contact exposure and could expedite isolation and treatment. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of 87% in symptomatic and 71% asymptomatic individuals when performed by health care workers in a high-throughput setting. The performance may expedite isolation decisions or referrals for time-sensitive monoclonal antibody treatment in communities where timely COVID PCR tests are unavailable.

High-value laboratory testing for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a review.

We present here an evidence-based review of the utility, timing, and indications for laboratory test use in the domains of inflammation, cardiology, hematology, nephrology and co-infection for clinicians managing the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Levels of IL-6, CRP, absolute lymphocyte count, neutrophils and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio obtained upon admission may help predict the severity of COVID-19. Elevated LDH, ferritin, AST, and d-dimer are associated with severe illness and mortality. Elevated cardiac troponin at hospital admission can alert clinicians to patients at risk for cardiac complications. Elevated proBNP may help distinguish a cardiac complication from noncardiac etiologies. Evaluation for co-infection is typically unnecessary in nonsevere cases but is essential in severe COVID-19, intensive care unit patients, and immunocompromised patients.

Longitudinal Assessment of Diagnostic Test Performance Over the Course of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Serial screening is critical for restricting spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by facilitating timely identification of infected individuals to interrupt transmission. Variation in sensitivity of different diagnostic tests at different stages of infection has not been well documented. METHODS: In a longitudinal study of 43 adults newly infected with SARS-CoV-2, all provided daily saliva and nasal swabs for quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), Quidel SARS Sofia antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA), and live virus culture. RESULTS: Both RT-qPCR and Quidel SARS Sofia antigen FIA peaked in sensitivity during the period in which live virus was detected in nasal swabs, but sensitivity of RT-qPCR tests rose more rapidly prior to this period. We also found that serial testing multiple times per week increases the sensitivity of antigen tests. CONCLUSIONS: RT-qPCR tests are more effective than antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (given timely results reporting). All tests showed >98% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals if used at least every 3 days. Daily screening using antigen tests can achieve approximately 90% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals while they are viral culture positive.

Comparison of Time to Clinical Improvement With vs Without Remdesivir Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Clinical effectiveness data on remdesivir are urgently needed, especially among diverse populations and in combination with other therapies. Objective: To examine whether remdesivir administered with or without corticosteroids for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with more rapid clinical improvement in a racially/ethnically diverse population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted from March 4 to August 29, 2020, in a 5-hospital health system in the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, area. Of 2483 individuals with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection assessed by polymerase chain reaction, those who received remdesivir were matched to infected individuals who did not receive remdesivir using time-invariant covariates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, body mass index, and do-not-resuscitate or do-not-intubate orders) and time-dependent covariates (ratio of peripheral blood oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen, blood pressure, pulse, temperature, respiratory rate, C-reactive protein level, complete white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, albumin level, alanine aminotransferase level, glomerular filtration rate, dimerized plasmin fragment D [D-dimer] level, and oxygen device). An individual in the remdesivir group with k days of treatment was matched to a control patient who stayed in the hospital at least k days (5 days maximum) beyond the matching day. Exposures: Remdesivir treatment with or without corticosteroid administration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was rate of clinical improvement (hospital discharge or decrease of 2 points on the World Health Organization severity score), and the secondary outcome, mortality at 28 days. An additional outcome was clinical improvement and time to death associated with combined remdesivir and corticosteroid treatment. Results: Of 2483 consecutive admissions, 342 individuals received remdesivir, 184 of whom also received corticosteroids and 158 of whom received remdesivir alone. For these 342 patients, the median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-69 years), 189 (55.3%) were men, and 276 (80.7%) self-identified as non-White race/ethnicity. Remdesivir recipients had a shorter time to clinical improvement than matched controls without remdesivir treatment (median, 5.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-8.0 days] vs 7.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-10.0 days]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.22-1.79]). Remdesivir recipients had a 28-day mortality rate of 7.7% (22 deaths) compared with 14.0% (40 deaths) among matched controls, but this difference was not statistically significant in the time-to-death analysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38-1.28). The addition of corticosteroids to remdesivir was not associated with a reduced hazard of death at 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.67-5.57). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness research study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19, receipt of remdesivir was associated with faster clinical improvement in a cohort of predominantly non-White patients. Remdesivir plus corticosteroid administration did not reduce the time to death compared with remdesivir administered alone.

Development of Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP), a Calculator to Predict Severe Disease or Death in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the clinical trajectory of individual patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is challenging but necessary to inform clinical care. The majority of COVID-19 prognostic tools use only data present upon admission and do not incorporate changes occurring after admission. OBJECTIVE: To develop the Severe COVID-19 Adaptive Risk Predictor (SCARP) (https://rsconnect.biostat.jhsph.edu/covid_trajectory/), a novel tool that can provide dynamic risk predictions for progression from moderate disease to severe illness or death in patients with COVID-19 at any time within the first 14 days of their hospitalization. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTINGS: Five hospitals in Maryland and Washington, D.C. PATIENTS: Patients who were hospitalized between 5 March and 4 December 2020 with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed by nucleic acid test and symptomatic disease. MEASUREMENTS: A clinical registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was the primary data source; data included demographic characteristics, admission source, comorbid conditions, time-varying vital signs, laboratory measurements, and clinical severity. Random forest for survival, longitudinal, and multivariate (RF-SLAM) data analysis was applied to predict the 1-day and 7-day risks for progression to severe disease or death for any given day during the first 14 days of hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 3163 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19, 228 (7%) became severely ill or died in the next 24 hours; an additional 355 (11%) became severely ill or died in the next 7 days. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 1-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.90) and 0.89 (CI, 0.87 to 0.91) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. The AUC for 7-day risk predictions for progression to severe disease or death was 0.83 (CI, 0.83 to 0.84) and 0.87 (CI, 0.86 to 0.89) during the first and second weeks of hospitalization, respectively. LIMITATION: The SCARP tool was developed by using data from a single health system. CONCLUSION: Using the predictive power of RF-SLAM and longitudinal data from more than 3000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an interactive tool was developed that rapidly and accurately provides the probability of an individual patient's progression to severe illness or death on the basis of readily available clinical information. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Patient Trajectories Among Persons Hospitalized for COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to severe disease or death are underexplored in U.S. cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors on hospital admission that are predictive of severe disease or death from COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Five hospitals in the Maryland and Washington, DC, area. PATIENTS: 832 consecutive COVID-19 admissions from 4 March to 24 April 2020, with follow-up through 27 June 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Patient trajectories and outcomes, categorized by using the World Health Organization COVID-19 disease severity scale. Primary outcomes were death and a composite of severe disease or death. RESULTS: Median patient age was 64 years (range, 1 to 108 years); 47% were women, 40% were Black, 16% were Latinx, and 21% were nursing home residents. Among all patients, 131 (16%) died and 694 (83%) were discharged (523 [63%] had mild to moderate disease and 171 [20%] had severe disease). Of deaths, 66 (50%) were nursing home residents. Of 787 patients admitted with mild to moderate disease, 302 (38%) progressed to severe disease or death: 181 (60%) by day 2 and 238 (79%) by day 4. Patients had markedly different probabilities of disease progression on the basis of age, nursing home residence, comorbid conditions, obesity, respiratory symptoms, respiratory rate, fever, absolute lymphocyte count, hypoalbuminemia, troponin level, and C-reactive protein level and the interactions among these factors. Using only factors present on admission, a model to predict in-hospital disease progression had an area under the curve of 0.85, 0.79, and 0.79 at days 2, 4, and 7, respectively. LIMITATION: The study was done in a single health care system. CONCLUSION: A combination of demographic and clinical variables is strongly associated with severe COVID-19 disease or death and their early onset. The COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator (CIRC), using factors present on admission, can inform clinical and resource allocation decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

Highly multiplexed oligonucleotide probe-ligation testing enables efficient extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 detection and viral genotyping.

There is an urgent and unprecedented need for sensitive and high-throughput molecular diagnostic tests to combat the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Here we present a generalized version of the RNA-mediated oligonucleotide Annealing Selection and Ligation with next generation DNA sequencing (RASL-seq) assay, called "capture RASL-seq" (cRASL-seq), which enables highly sensitive (down to ~1-100 pfu/ml or cfu/ml) and highly multiplexed (up to ~10,000 target sequences) detection of pathogens. Importantly, cRASL-seq analysis of COVID-19 patient nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens does not involve nucleic acid purification or reverse transcription, steps that have introduced supply bottlenecks into standard assay workflows. Our simplified protocol additionally enables the direct and efficient genotyping of selected, informative SARS-CoV-2 polymorphisms across the entire genome, which can be used for enhanced characterization of transmission chains at population scale and detection of viral clades with higher or lower virulence. Given its extremely low per-sample cost, simple and automatable protocol and analytics, probe panel modularity, and massive scalability, we propose that cRASL-seq testing is a powerful new technology with the potential to help mitigate the current pandemic and prevent similar public health crises.

Viral epitope profiling of COVID-19 patients reveals cross-reactivity and correlates of severity.

Understanding humoral responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is critical for improving diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Deep serological profiling of 232 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and 190 pre-COVID-19 era controls using VirScan revealed more than 800 epitopes in the SARS-CoV-2 proteome, including 10 epitopes likely recognized by neutralizing antibodies. Preexisting antibodies in controls recognized SARS-CoV-2 ORF1, whereas only COVID-19 patient antibodies primarily recognized spike protein and nucleoprotein. A machine learning model trained on VirScan data predicted SARS-CoV-2 exposure history with 99% sensitivity and 98% specificity; a rapid Luminex-based diagnostic was developed from the most discriminatory SARS-CoV-2 peptides. Individuals with more severe COVID-19 exhibited stronger and broader SARS-CoV-2 responses, weaker antibody responses to prior infections, and higher incidence of cytomegalovirus and herpes simplex virus 1, possibly influenced by demographic covariates. Among hospitalized patients, males produce stronger SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses than females.