Evaluation of the host immune response assay SeptiCyte RAPID for potential triage of COVID-19 patients.

Tools for the evaluation of COVID-19 severity would help clinicians with triage decisions, especially the decision whether to admit to ICU. The aim of this study was to evaluate SeptiCyte RAPID, a host immune response assay (Immunexpress, Seattle USA) as a triaging tool for COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization and potentially ICU care. SeptiCyte RAPID employs a host gene expression signature consisting of the ratio of expression levels of two immune related mRNAs, PLA2G7 and PLAC8, measured from whole blood samples. Blood samples from 146 adult SARS-CoV-2 (+) patients were collected within 48 h of hospital admission in PAXgene blood RNA tubes at Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain, between July 28th and December 1st, 2020. Data on demographics, vital signs, clinical chemistry parameters, radiology, interventions, and SeptiCyte RAPID were collected and analyzed with bioinformatics methods. The performance of SeptiCyte RAPID for COVID-19 severity assessment and ICU admission was evaluated, relative to the comparator of retrospective clinical assessment by the Hospital del Mar clinical care team. In conclusion, SeptiCyte RAPID was able to stratify COVID-19 cases according to clinical severity: critical vs. mild (AUC = 0.93, p < 0.0001), critical vs. moderate (AUC = 0.77, p = 0.002), severe vs. mild (AUC = 0.85, p = 0.0003), severe vs. moderate (AUC = 0.63, p = 0.05). This discrimination was significantly better (by AUC or p-value) than could be achieved by CRP, lactate, creatine, IL-6, or D-dimer. Some of the critical or severe cases had "early" blood draws (before ICU admission; n = 33). For these cases, when compared to moderate and mild cases not in ICU (n = 37), SeptiCyte RAPID had AUC = 0.78 (p = 0.00012). In conclusion, SeptiCyte RAPID was able to stratify COVID-19 cases according to clinical severity as defined by the WHO COVID-19 Clinical Management Living Guidance of January 25th, 2021. Measurements taken early (before a patient is considered for ICU admission) suggest that high SeptiScores could aid in predicting the need for later ICU admission.

Comparison of hospitalized COVID-19 and influenza patients requiring supplemental oxygen in a cohort study: clinical impact and resource consumption.

BACKGROUND: To compare clinical characteristics, outcomes, and resource consumption of patients with COVID-19 and seasonal influenza requiring supplemental oxygen. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary-care hospital. Patients admitted due to seasonal influenza between 2017 and 2019, or with COVID-19 between March and May 2020 requiring supplemental oxygen were compared. Primary outcome: 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: 90-day mortality and hospitalization costs. Attempted sample size to detect an 11% difference in mortality was 187 patients per group. RESULTS: COVID-19 cases were younger (median years, 67 (IQR 54-78) vs 76 (IQR 64-83); p < 0.001) and more frequently overweight whereas influenza cases had more hypertension, immunosuppression, and chronic heart, respiratory and renal disease. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 cases had more pneumonia (98% vs 60%, <0.001), higher MEWS and CURB-65 scores and were more likely to show worse progression on the WHO ordinal scale (33% vs 4%; p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality rate was higher for COVID-19 than for influenza: 15% vs 5% (p = 0.001). The median age of non-surviving cases was 81 (IQR 74-88) and 77.5 (IQR 65-84) (p = 0.385), respectively. COVID-19 was independently associated with 30-day (HR 4.6, 95%CI, 2-10.4) and 90-day (HR 5.2, 95%CI, 2.4-11.4) mortality. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a subgroup considering only patients with pneumonia, did not show different trends. Regarding resource consumption, COVID-19 patients had longer hospital stays and higher critical care, pharmacy, and complementary test costs. CONCLUSIONS: Although influenza patients were older and had more comorbidities, COVID-19 cases requiring supplemental oxygen on admission had worse clinical and economic outcomes.

Hospital-at-Home Expands Hospital Capacity During COVID-19 Pandemic.

A Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-specific Hospital-at-Home was implemented in a 400-bed tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Senior or immune-compromised physicians oversaw patient care. The alternative to inpatient care more than doubled beds available for hospitalization and decreased the risk of transmission among patients and health care professionals. Mild cases from either the emergency department or after hospital discharge were deemed suitable for admission to the Hospital-at-Home. More than half of all patients had pneumonia. Standardized protocols and management criteria were provided. Only 6% of cases required referral for inpatient hospitalization. These results are promising and may provide valuable insight for centers undertaking Hospital-at-Home initiatives or in the case of new COVID-19 outbreaks.